BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A trailer for the AO-classified programme Water Rats was shown during the PGR-classified programme Party of Five at about 8.03 pm on TV2 on 17 November 1998.

Mrs Barker complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the trailer showed a couple in bed, clearly naked and kissing. There was a clear inference that they were having sex, she contended. Given the time of broadcast, the behaviour shown was distressing, she wrote, and was best kept to private bedrooms. The trailer also did not show acceptable behaviour for the time band within which it was screened, Mrs Barker said.

TVNZ responded that the scene in the trailer was very brief, contained no frontal nudity and only implied sexual activity. It had screened during a programme which contained references to sexual activity, and in context it was not unsuitable viewing for children under the guidance of an adult. Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ contended that the trailer complied with the requirements for PGR programming.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mrs Barker 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 Authority has viewed the trailer complained about and has read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A trailer for the programme Water Rats was shown on TV2 at about 8.03 pm on 17 November 1998. The programme to which the trailer referred was classified by the broadcaster as AO and was scheduled for screening at 8.30 pm. Party of Five, the programme during which the trailer was shown, was classified as PGR and was screened during PGR time. A scene in the trailer showed a couple in bed, kissing and apparently naked.

Mrs Barker of Christchurch complained that she and her daughter were shocked and distressed by the scene. It portrayed, she wrote:

…a couple in bed, clearly naked and kissing, one on top of the other. The inference was obvious, that they were having sex. Something best kept to private bedrooms.

Mrs Barker averred that the behaviour depicted was not decent or tasteful for the time at which it was shown. She understood, she wrote, that "this behaviour" was not to be shown on television before 8.30 pm, and questioned why she had seen it "this early at night". She concluded that the trailer was inappropriate for the time band during which it was presented.

TVNZ considered the complaint under standards G2 and G22 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, as had been nominated by Mrs Barker. The first standard requires 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.

The second standard provides:

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.

TVNZ responded that the scene in the trailer was very brief, and did no more than carry an implication that the couple might be engaged in sex. While it implied that the couple was without clothes, there was no frontal nudity shown, it wrote.

In assessing the complaint under standard G2, TVNZ noted that the programme within which the trailer had been shown itself contained implications of sexual activity, and references to drunk driving and child abuse. While respecting Mrs Barker’s view that sexual activity was best kept to the bedroom, the broadcaster noted that a large proportion of literature, drama and cinema involved themes in which sexual activity played a part. TVNZ contended that the brief and inexplicit scene did not stray beyond "currently accepted norms" of decency and taste, given the PGR timing and the well known themes of the series. It declined to uphold the standard G2 aspect of the complaint.

In its consideration of the complaint under standard G22, TVNZ claimed that while the trailer probably contained material more suited to adult audiences, its brief and inexplicit nature did not make it unsuitable viewing for children watching under the guidance of a caregiver. The material, TVNZ continued, was certainly not sufficiently explicit to classify the trailer as AO, which would have suggested it was unsuitable for anyone under 18 years of age. The trailer complied with the requirements of PGR programming and that was its appropriate classification, TVNZ wrote, even though the trailer advertised a programme which was rated AO. It accordingly declined to find that standard G22 had been contravened.

When referring the complaint to the Authority, Mrs Barker maintained that at this time of night, concerned parents should be able to allow their children to watch television programmes without constant concern about them being "visually assaulted". She refuted TVNZ’s claim that the trailer only implied sexual activity, and she maintained that the characters were nude. As to the former, she wrote that the couple portrayed were nude and in bed, "a DEFINITE indication that sex is being engaged in". Mrs Barker asked whether viewers were supposed to be grateful that there was no frontal nudity. Did TVNZ not consider how inappropriate it was to put "these kind of scenes" on television at "this time of night", she questioned. Television, she continued, was a powerful influence upon young people, and such sex scenes would have a negative effect when shown:

…outside of marriage and even with multiple partners and no commitment. Television has the opportunity to encourage family life and positive attitudes towards others…Surely this can be replaced by better television programmes or … put it on late at night when families … do not have to suddenly be confronted with it while watching other programmes.

Mrs Barker reiterated her concern for the many busy parents who naively trusted "the implied PGR standards", and the effects on young people "watching at this time of night". Standards should be adhered to, she wrote, and she called upon the Authority to maintain them. Mrs Barker questioned TVNZ’s right to assault "our eyes and minds with scenes we have no wish to view or our children or teenagers to see". Either it was, or was not, acceptable for trailers involving sex and/or nudity to be screened before 8.30 pm, Mrs Barker stressed. Their duration and inferences were not relevant, she wrote.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority begins by examining the complaint under standard G2. The standard requires the Authority to assess whether the contents of the trailer (or promo) exceeded currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour. As directed by the standard, the Authority first considers the relevant contextual factors in which the implied sexual behaviour, the subject of Mrs Barker’s complaint, was depicted. Having viewed the trailer, the Authority finds one of the factors relevant to its decision is the PGR time within which the trailer was broadcast. A PGR classification, the Authority notes, advises intended viewers that the material is more suited to an adult audience, but not necessarily unsuited to child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or adult. In view of the warning to caregivers contained in that classification, and taking into account the brevity of the scene, and its lack of explicitness in detailing the implied sexual activity, the Authority is unable to find any behaviour depicted in the trailer which would threaten the standard.

Next, the Authority turns to standard G22. The standard allows for a trailer for an AO programme to be screened during PGR time, provided the trailer is so made as to be classified PGR. While Mrs Barker argued that the trailer did not show acceptable behaviour for the time band within which it was presented, TVNZ responded that the very brief scene showing a man and a woman in bed was not sufficient to classify the trailer AO. The Authority finds that the scene was brief and inexplicit. While it depicted the couple in bed, and provided a glimpse of the woman’s breast, the Authority appreciates the legitimacy of TVNZ’s claim that the trailer did not contain material which would have warranted an AO classification. It therefore declines to uphold the complaint under standard G22.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 February 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority in determining the complaint:

1. Mrs Barker’s Formal Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 18 November 1998

2. TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 2 December 1998

3. Mrs Barker’s Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
   10 December 1998

4. TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 18 December 1998

5. Mrs Barker’s Final Comment to the Authority – 7 January 1999