BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A re-broadcast of The Drum New Year's Eve Special was shown during the afternoon

of Saturday 10 January 1998 on TV3. It included a young man's explicit description

of genitalia.

Mr Johnson of Ravensbourne complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the

broadcaster, that it was offensive and obscene to schedule the programme in that time-

slot when it would have been watched by a large number of young people.

TV3 responded that the programme had originally been broadcast at 11.05 pm on 31

December 1997, and that its content was more suited to an adult audience. A TV3

appraiser, it wrote, had viewed the programme and recorded the cuts and edits

required for it to be re-broadcast in the Saturday afternoon time-slot. TV3 agreed that

the editing was not carried out, and that it was it was an error that the programme had

been re-broadcast in its original form. It unreservedly apologised for causing offence.

Dissatisfied with the action taken by TV3, Mr Johnson referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaint that the action taken

was insufficient and orders TV3 Network Services Limited to pay costs of $500.00 to

the Crown.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the broadcast complained about

and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion,

the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Drum New Year's Eve Special was originally broadcast at 11.05 pm on

Wednesday 31 December 1997 on TV4. It was classified AO. In the programme, a

young man described genitalia, using offensive language. The same programme was re-

broadcast by TV3 during the afternoon of Saturday 10 January 1998, and was

classified PGR.

Mr Johnson complained that he heard the language described while he was watching

the programme at about 3.10 pm. He found it, he said, offensive and obscene.

Bearing in mind both the context in which the language occurred and the time of the

broadcast, he wrote, TV3 was not mindful of currently accepted norms of decency

and taste in language and behaviour, nor was it mindful of the effect of the programme

on children. He also questioned whether the programme had carried a warning about

its language and subject-matter. Finally, he stated, those responsible for the

programme had been irresponsible in relation to its contents.

The broadcaster advised that it had assessed the complaint in the context of standards

G2 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require

broadcasters:

G2    To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and

         taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which

         any language or behaviour occurs.

G12   To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

         during their normally accepted viewing times.

TV3 advised Mr Johnson that the original broadcast time of the programme meant

that its content was more suited to an adult audience. It stated that a TV3 appraiser

had viewed the programme and recorded the edits and cuts which were required to

enable the programme to be suitable for re-broadcast in a Saturday afternoon PGR

time slot. The broadcaster admitted that the editing had not been carried out, and the

programme had been re-broadcast in its original form.

In concluding that its broadcast had breached the standards, TV3 stated that it was

acutely aware that the systems and checks within its networks had failed to pick up

the error. It wrote that discussions had taken place with staff, and that on-going

consultation would be undertaken to identify system short-falls and monitor staff

performance. The broadcaster apologised unreservedly to Mr Johnson for the offence

the programme had caused.

In referring the matter to the Authority, the complainant stated that he was unhappy

with the result. He accepted the broadcaster's apology to him, but questioned what

effect that would have on the rest of the viewing audience. He also noted that no-one

appeared to have been disciplined by the broadcaster over the matter.

In its report to the Authority, TV3 stated that it was satisfied that its investigation

into the complaint had resulted in procedural changes which would eliminate future

occurrences of the type of error which had taken place. It also noted that an

employee, who had held a pivotal role in the process which had failed on this

occasion, had since left the broadcaster's employment. TV3 again apologised to Mr

Johnson for the offence which the error had caused him.

The Authority considers that the re-broadcast at 3.10 pm on 10 January 1998 of the

programme originally broadcast at 11.05 pm on 31 December 1997 clearly breached

standards G2 and G12. In the Authority's view, the factors which constitute

observance of the two standards require the broadcaster to be especially vigilant about

the content of its broadcasts in a mid-afternoon Saturday time-slot which inevitably

will attract young viewers.

The Authority notes that TV3 accepted that the broadcast was inappropriate and had

apologised to the complainant for the offence which it had caused to him. It also

notes that TV3 had advised the complainant of the in-house steps which should have

been, and had failed to be, carried out to enable the programme to be re-broadcast.

The Authority notes that when it was broadcast on TV4 at 11.00 pm on 31

December, the programme was classified "AO". When broadcast on TV3 at 3.00 pm

on 10 January, the programme was classified "PGR", indicating the broadcaster's

view that it was not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers under a care-giver's

guidance. The two programmes broadcast at those times were identical, as TV3 has

admitted. In the Authority's view, while the programme might have been appropriate

for viewing in the late evening time-slot, it was unquestionably unsuitable for the time

slot in which it subsequently appeared.

The Authority also notes that the broadcaster's responsibility to maintain programme

standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency is an absolute

requirement imposed upon it by the Broadcasting Act.

When the Authority weighs the extent of the breaches against the internal remedial

measures described by TV3 to deal with this transgression, it finds that the action

taken was insufficient in the circumstances. It concludes that it would have been

appropriate for TV3 to acknowledge its error publicly. With the passage of time,

however, a statement or apology would now largely be meaningless and might indeed

draw attention once again to the matters complained about.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

action taken by TV3 Network Services Limited following the re-broadcast of

The Drum New Year's Eve Special on TV3 during the afternoon of Saturday 10

January 1998 was insufficient.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) or

s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It invited submissions from TV3 and the

complainant on the question of penalty. The Authority has taken their submissions

into consideration in imposing its order.

In assessing the severity of the breach, the Authority has taken into account the fact

that the programme had originally been broadcast in a late-night time-slot, indicating

that any decision to re-broadcast it during a weekend, mid-afternoon, time-slot would

require extra care. The broadcaster has admitted that, due to an oversight, it was re-

screened inappropriately. The broadcaster is experienced and fully conversant with

the Codes of Practice; however its internal vetting procedures appear to have failed it

on this occasion. The Authority's research indicates that the public places a high

priority on the protection of children from adult material. The material involved, in

the Authority's view, is at the outer limit of what it would consider acceptable for an

adult audience, a factor which it considers exacerbates the breach and justifies a

penalty being imposed. In reaching its decision, the Authority takes into account the

broadcaster's admissions of error, and the relative rarity of such breaches on this

network.

Order

The Authority orders TV3 Network Services Limited to pay, within one month

of the date of this decision, costs in the amount of $500.00 to the Crown under

s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
23 July 1998

Appendix

Mr Johnson's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 10 January 1998

Mr Johnson complained to TV3 Network Services Limited about the broadcast of The

Drum during the afternoon on Saturday 10 January 1998.

He wrote that he heard a young man in the programme

...describe his grandfather's "cock as fucking huge". I couldn't believe my

ears. This is 3.10 pm in the afternoon when young children could be watching

television not 11.00 pm when children are in bed. I found this programme

offensive and the language used obscene. I believe the programme producers

should be fined and TV3 should make a public apology. The programme

should also be banned if this is what we are going to get from it in the future.

Mr Johnson stated that the programmers were not mindful of the effect that the

language and subject might have on children, bearing in mind the time at which the

programme had been broadcast. He wrote that the broadcast also breached currently

accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour, even bearing in mind

the context in which the language had occurred.

He questioned whether the programme had carried a warning about the language and

the subject of the language, and – if not – wished to know why not. He also

emphasised that the persons responsible for the broadcast were irresponsible in

relation to the contents of the programme.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 23 February 1998

TV3 considered the complaint in relation to standards G2 and G12 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It advised that episodes of The Drum normally were broadcast at 7.30 pm on

Monday evenings on TV4, and then repeated at 3.00 pm on Saturday afternoons on

TV3. The programmes were examined by its appraisers, the broadcaster wrote, to

ensure that their content was suitable for those time-slots.

TV3 informed the complainant that the programme, which was the subject of his

complaint, had originally been broadcast at 11.05 pm on 31 December 1997 as a New

Year's Eve special. It noted that the later time-slot meant that the content of the

programme was more suited to an adult audience. It wrote:

One of our appraisers had viewed the [programme] and recorded the edits/cuts

required for [it] to be suitable for re-broadcast in the Saturday afternoon PGR

time on TV3, and the programme should have been re-prepped on this basis.

As you have identified this editing was not carried out and the original

programme was re-broadcast.

The broadcaster agreed that the re-broadcast of the programme on 10 January was in

breach of standards G2 and G12, and it upheld Mr Johnson's complaint. In doing so,

it wrote that it was

...acutely mindful of the fact that on this occasion systems and checks within

the Networks failed to pick up the error. Discussions have taken place with

senior Programming and Operational staff and on-going consultation will be

undertaken to identify system shortfalls and monitor staff performance, with a

view to implementing new systems and additional staff training as required.

Additionally, by way of explanation but by no means offered as an excuse, the

Standards Committee believes the holiday period and reduced staffing levels

may have contributed to this error.

TV3 concluded by unreservedly apologising to the complainant for the offence the

programme had caused and assured him:

...that all possible steps will be taken to prevent such an error occurring in the

future.

Mr Johnson's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 27 February

1998

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Johnson referred his complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In doing so, he noted that he was unhappy about the result of his complaint to the

broadcaster. He wrote:

I accept that they have apologised to me but what about the rest of the

viewing audience.

           It would also appear that no-one has been disciplined over this matter.

TV3's Response to the Authority – 26 March 1998

In response to Mr Johnson's complaint that "no-one has been disciplined over this

matter", TV3 wrote that its Standards Committee was satisfied:

...that the investigation undertaken into this complaint has resulted in

procedural changes which, as much as is humanly and systematically possible,

will eliminate any reoccurrence of this type of error. Additionally, an

employee who held a pivotal role in the process-chain which failed on this

occasion has since left TV3.

In conclusion, the broadcaster again apologised unreservedly to Mr Johnson for the

offence which the error had caused to him.

Further Correspondence

On 15 June 1998, having decided to uphold the complaint, the Authority wrote to the

complainant and the broadcaster inviting submissions on penalty.

The complainant, in a letter dated 21 June 1998, urged the Authority to order the

broadcast of an apology during TV3's 6.00 pm news bulletin, and to broadcast its

programmes for a day without advertising or to broadcast its programmes on a

Saturday without advertising between the hours of 7.00 am and 8.00 pm.

In its response dated 23 June 1998, TV3 submitted a statement which it considered

would be appropriate to broadcast on both TV4 and TV3. It reiterated that the

offending broadcast had been viewed seriously by its Standards Committee and

management, and emphasised that all steps possible had been taken to prevent a

recurrence.