BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Naked women were shown in promos for the programme The Making of the Human Body broadcast on TV One on 8 November, 9 November and 10 November 1998 between 6.00–8.00pm.

Ms Hutchings complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the display of naked women in G or PGR time breached the standard requiring the observance of good taste and decency. In her view, it was not appropriate to show images of naked women when children were watching television. She also argued that it was discriminatory to show only naked women and no naked men.

TVNZ noted that the promo included an extract from the opening sequence of each programme which showed men and women of every age, many of whom were naked. In its view, the promo achieved its purpose of promoting the programme and indicating to viewers what the likely content of the programme would be. It denied that the shots showing nudity were voyeuristic. It advised that it found no breach of broadcasting standards.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Hutchings 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 declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the promo complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, it determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Promos for The Making of the Human Body were screened at various times, including between 6.00–8.00pm, in the days preceding the broadcast of the programme on 10 November 1998. The promos included shots from the opening sequence of the programmes in The Human Body series which showed men, women and children, many of them naked, arranged by age to demonstrate the changes which occurred throughout life.

Ms Hutchings complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that it was unacceptable to use images of naked women to promote a television programme, particularly as the promos were broadcast at a time when children would be watching television.

She argued that standards G2, G6, G8, G12, G13, G22 and G24 were breached. Standards G2, G6, G8, G12 and G13 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.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

G8  To abide by the classification codes and their appropriate time bands as outlined in the agreed criteria for classification.

G12  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during their normally accepted viewing hours.

G13  To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:

factual, or

the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or

in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

The other standards read:

G22  Promotions (promos) for AO programmes may be screened during PGR or G time bands provided the promo is made in such a way that it can be classified as PGR or G, as appropriate. Promotions which carry an AO classification may only be screened within AO time bands.

G24  Broadcasters must be mindful that scenes containing incidents of violence or other explicit material may be acceptable when seen in the total context of a programme, but when extracted for promotion purposes such incidents will be seen out of context and may thereby be unacceptable, not only in terms of the codes but also for the time band during which the trailer is placed.

Ms Hutchings argued that standard G2 was breached because it was not an accepted norm to display naked women in PGR or G time, particularly in a promo which had no prior warning as to the content. Standard G6, she noted, pertained to fairness. She suggested that spoke for itself. With respect to standard G8, she argued that it was inappropriate to display naked women during a time when children were viewing television. In her view, that sent a message that girls’ bodies were for indiscriminate viewing. She considered that went against what children were taught about personal safety and stranger danger.

Turning to standard G12, she contended that TVNZ had not taken into account the wider issue of the flow on effect on children’s safety.

As for standard G13, she asked why there was no equivalent naked male shown.

In its response, TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under the nominated standards. It noted first that the purpose of a promo was twofold. First it aimed to interest viewers in the programme being promoted, and secondly it set out to indicate the nature of the material which would be included in the programme. In its view, this promo achieved both its aims. It maintained that the shots showing nudity were not voyeuristic in any sense, and were not deliberately selected because they happened to show female bodies.

TVNZ disputed Ms Hutchings’ apparent view that nudity per se was an offence against decency and good taste. It responded that there were occasions when nudity, both male and female, was perfectly acceptable on television. What was important, it emphasised, was the manner in which it was presented. It referred to the fact that context was an important factor in the wording of the standard, and suggested that the phrase "currently accepted norms" implied that the audience’s expectations were to be considered. In this case, it noted, the programme The Human Body had already been running for seven weeks, and it considered the content would have been of no surprise to viewers.

In TVNZ’s view, standard G6 was not relevant as the standard specifically referred to "political matters, current affairs, and all questions of a controversial nature", none of which applied here.

TVNZ did not consider that standard G8 was threatened because the content was appropriate to play in PGR and AO time slots. It noted that the programme itself was rated PGR.

With reference to standard G12, TVNZ advised that it did not understand Ms Hutchings’ contention that "children’s personal safety" was affected by this promo. It noted that it had received many approaches from parents complaining because the series was screened too late for their children to watch. It reported that others had asked that if the series be repeated, it be classified so that it could be accessed by school aged children.

TVNZ argued that standard G13 was not relevant. It maintained that no gender was depicted as being inherently inferior, and no encouragement was given to discriminate against any person on the basis of their gender.

TVNZ advised that it considered the promo was appropriately placed and did not offend standard G22. Similarly, it advised, it found no breach of standard G24 because the pictures accurately reflected the tone and approach to be taken in the advertised programme.

When she referred the complaint to the Authority, Ms Hutchings expressed her dissatisfaction with TVNZ’s response. In particular, she repeated her objection to the use of the naked women to promote the programme. She questioned why, if the series was so popular, it was necessary to use this imagery to arouse viewers’ interest. She noted that the opening sequence of each programme in the series had included naked men as well as women and questioned why they were not also shown in the promo.

Ms Hutchings did not agree that it was acceptable to have naked women on television during advertising time slots. She repeated that she found it unacceptable for TVNZ to exploit the female body to attract viewers. She emphasised that she was not concerned with the content of the actual programme, but only the promo.

TVNZ advised the Authority that it had no further comment to make.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority begins by noting that this is the second complaint it has dealt with from Ms Hutchings relating to the series The Human Body. The earlier complaint (Decision No: 1998-156, dated 26 November 1998) concerned the broadcast of an early evening promo which showed a naked pregnant woman. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the image was offensive or exploitative of women.

On this occasion, Ms Hutchings objected to the fact that images of naked women were used to advertise the upcoming programme The Making of the Human Body. There were no comparable pictures of naked men, she wrote, and the images exploited women.

The Authority acknowledges TVNZ’s point that the purpose of a promo is first to arouse the interest of viewers in the hope that they will watch the programme, and secondly, to indicate the nature of the material which would be included in the programme. The programme which was previewed looked at how the very popular series The Human Body was made. The promo included a brief extract from the series’ opening sequence, which showed a line up of people in chronological order from infants to the elderly, many of them naked. Ms Hutchings considered that as the sequence focused on naked women and excluded men, it breached broadcasting standards.

First the Authority turns to the complaint that standard G2 was breached. The Authority notes that the images of the women were brief and non-sexualised. In its view, they were a relevant part of the discourse on the uniqueness and variety of human development and were a novel way of depicting changes through the various stages of life. It notes that the brief promo included images of both men and women of many ages who were both naked and semi-clothed. The Authority does not consider these images were offensive for broadcast at any time and declines to uphold the complaint that standard G2 was breached.

Turning to the complaint that standard G6 was breached, the Authority agrees with TVNZ that this standard was not relevant.

For the reasons given in the discussion under standard G2, the Authority concludes that the promo was correctly classified and was suitable for broadcast at any time and thus did not contravene either standard G8 or standard G22.

Similarly, the Authority reasons that standard G12, the requirement for broadcasters to be mindful of children, was not transgressed. It does not find anything in the promo which was unsuitable for children.

The Authority next deals with the complaint that women were exploited because there was no equivalent male nudity. It does not agree that the promo exploited women, and notes in particular that the images were non sexual and simply constituted part of the chronology of human development. It notes that men, both naked and semi-clothed, were also included in the panorama. The Authority declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally the Authority turns to the complaint that standard G24 was breached because the material shown was taken out of context. The Authority does not agree this was the case. It notes that the promo was an abbreviated version of the opening sequence of the eight programmes in the series. It was, the Authority concludes, therefore an appropriate image to use in a promo for the programme which showed how the series had been made.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
25 February 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

Ms Hutchings’ Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 13 November 1998

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 December 1998

Ms Hutchings’ Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 22 December 1998

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 13 January 1999