BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]  

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Married at First Sight New Zealand breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The episode featured couples getting ‘married’ at a resort in Vanuatu. It included two scenes (pre- and post-ceremony) of one of the grooms and his groomsman urinating into bushes, with their streams of urine visible. The Authority found the scenes of the men urinating were within audience expectations for the programme, and the nature of the content was sufficiently signposted through audience advisories. In this context, the scenes were not likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

The broadcast

[1]  An episode of Married at First Sight New Zealand, which aired at 7pm on 27 May 2024 on Three, featured couples getting married in Vanuatu.

[2]  On the way to one of the marriage ceremonies, the groom and his groomsman stopped and urinated side by side into the bushes. While standing there, the groomsman comforted the groom about his nerves in relation to the upcoming nuptials. The shot was filmed from behind the two men, who were fully clothed in suits from that angle. The two streams of urine were visible.

[3]  After the marriage, when the bride and her sister had gone to have a private conversation, the groom and groomsman again went to some bushes to urinate. One stream of urine was visible. The two men had the following conversation:

Groom:        Oh, my zip’s been down the whole time! [Laughter]

Groomsman: When was the last time you checked it, pre-ceremony?

Groom:        Probably when we went for a piss!

The complaint

[4]  Phillippa Brown complained that the scenes of the two men urinating into the bushes with the streams of urine visible breached the offensive and disturbing content standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. She added:

• The scenes were offensive and unnecessary, noting the two men were in a public place.
• The behaviour was highly disrespectful to the people of Vanuatu.
• ‘It is also double standards because you would not see this sort of disgusting behaviour being filmed of women.’

[5]  Tracey Sloog also complained the scenes breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, however noted her primary concern was that that the scenes showed the streams of urine, which she considered to be explicit and offensive. She stated:

• ‘I have seen many programmes over the years (both comedy and drama) that include footage of men urinating, say, at the side of a road. I do not find these scenes offensive. The fact that the footage I saw on the MAFS programme included the actual streams of urine, crossed a line for me.’
• As a regular viewer of the Australian version of this series, she was aware of the nature of the programme and had yet to be offended by the content in the Australian version.
• ‘While it might have been in context to show the men urinating (the men being nervous), it was not "in context" to show this particular level of detail.’
• ‘As this was an early evening programme, I do not think it was suitable material to show at this time.’ ‘The classification of PG-LSC, is warranted and therefore the programme should be aired in a later timeslot.’

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) did not uphold the complaints on the basis the broadcast was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress to its target audience under the offensive and disturbing content standard, noting the following factors:

• ‘Married At First Sight NZ targeted adult viewers and was unlikely to appeal to children.’
• ‘The episode aired at 7.00pm and was classified PG-LSC. The content advisories L, S and C informed the audience that the upcoming episode contained some coarse language, sexual material and content that may offend.’
• ‘The Broadcast was the second episode of the fourth season of Married At First Sight NZ. The Married At First Sight franchise has consistently been an extremely popular part of Three’s schedule and this Broadcast followed on from the recent conclusion of the eleventh season of Married At First Sight Australia. Therefore, there is a high level of audience awareness in respect of the show’s nature and the type of content it might include.’
• ‘Significant care was taken in reviewing this episode before it went to air on Three. [WBD] is satisfied the language and overall content remained within the boundaries of the PG-LSC classification and that broadcasting standards were maintained.’
• ‘The brief scene of the groom relieving himself on the roadside was brief and inexplicit, filmed from behind. The groom was nervous heading toward his wedding ceremony and the scene provided the audience with an insight into his character.’
• ‘No serious disrespect was intended toward Vanuatu or its environs.’
• ‘Reality television programmes of this nature are primarily seen as entertainment by viewers. The entertainment value comes from watching how “other” people behave in a variety of situations.’
• ‘Given the show’s PG-LSC rating and the high level of audience expectation for the content it was likely to include, we are satisfied that viewers had ample information to make an informed viewing decision that reflected their own sensibilities.’
• ‘The purpose of this standard is not to prohibit challenging material, or material that some people may find offensive. Its purpose is to ensure sufficient care is taken so that challenging material is played only in an appropriate context, and that the challenges are not so offensive that they are unacceptable regardless of context.’

The standard

[7]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard¹ is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.² The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing or listening.

Our analysis

[8]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[9]   As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where there is harm at a level that justifies placing a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.³

[10]  Attitudes towards taste and decency differ widely and continue to evolve in a diverse society such as ours. The standard does not prohibit the broadcast of material that is not to everyone’s taste or that some people may find challenging. Rather, it ensures that broadcasts fall within the broad limit of not causing widespread disproportionate offence or distress or seriously undermining widely shared community standards.⁴

[11]  A key question under the standard is whether the broadcaster provided reliable information to the audience about the nature of the programme, to enable them to exercise choice and control over their viewing.⁵

[12]  Context is crucial for complaints made under this standard.⁶ We consider the following contextual factors to be relevant in this case:

• The episode of Married at First Sight New Zealand aired at 7pm.
• The programme was classified PG-LSC (Parental guidance recommended for younger viewers: Programmes containing material more suited for mature audiences but not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or an adult / Language that may offend / Sexual content that may offend / Content that may offend).
• Programmes rated PG may be screened at any time.⁷
• The classification and audience advisory symbols were displayed at the beginning of the programme and after each ad break.
• The programme has an adult target audience.
• Married At First Sight New Zealand is an entertainment reality show based around experts pairing up strangers who meet for the first time at the altar. As WBD submitted, the Married At First Sight franchise is well-known and popular among New Zealand viewers. Given the programme has recently concluded its fourth season, and Married At First Sight Australia has recently concluded its eleventh season, there are well-established audience expectations around its content. It has been described as a ‘reality TV juggernaut franchise’, including couples who ‘get on each other’s nerves, behave poorly and gossip amongst each other.’⁸ 
• The scenes of the two men urinating did not feature any nudity.
• WBD have advised that the scenes were included to provide an insight into aspects of the groom’s character. The two scenes depicted his pre-wedding nerves and his post-wedding realisation that he had not re-zipped his pants before the ceremony.
• The scenes did not promote or glamorise urinating outside or in public (we note, while Brown has stated the men were in a public place, it is unclear from the broadcast whether the men were in a public place or at a private resort).

[13]  We acknowledge the complainants were offended by these scenes, and in particular the fact that the streams of urine were visible. We understand that the scenes would not have been to everyone’s tastes and that some viewers would have found them confronting. However in our view, the scenes, including the streams of urine, were within audience expectations of the programme and its ‘PG’ classification. Scenes of this nature were signposted through the audience advisory ‘Content that may offend.’

[14]  While Brown has argued the scenes were disrespectful to the people of Vanuatu, the offensive and disturbing content standard is directed at serious violations of community standards, and offence to audiences, in New Zealand.

[15]  Ultimately, we do not consider the scenes were likely to have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or to have seriously undermined widely shared community standards in light of the contextual factors above.

[16]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaints. 

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
2 September 2024    

Appendix

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

Brown

1  Phillippa Brown’s formal complaint to WBD – 27 May 2024

2  WBD’s response to complaint – 12 June 2024

3  Brown’s referral to the Authority – 15 June 2024

4  WBD’s confirmation of no further comment – 24 June 2024

Sloog

5  Tracey Sloog’s formal complaint to WBD – 27 May 2024

6   WBD’s response to complaint – 12 June 2024

7  Sloog’s referral to the Authority – 24 June 2024

8  WBD’s confirmation of no further comment – 19 July 2024

¹ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
² Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 8
⁵ Guideline 1.3
⁶ Guideline 1.1
⁷ Guideline 1.16
⁸ Karl Puschmann “Married at First Sight New Zealand: The many ways MAFS NZ doesn’t measure up to MAFS AU” NZ Herald (online ed, 20 June 2024)