BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about the movie Overlord as the complaint to the broadcaster did not amount to an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the broadcaster did not have to accept this as a valid formal complaint, on the grounds the complaint was about the storyline and genre, rather than an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards.

Declined jurisdiction

The complaint

[1]  On 19 August 2019 Stuart Brown complained to SKY that the description of the Overlord movie provided by SKY in its programme guide did not ‘contain any information that the movie contained impossible feats.’

[2]  SKY responded to Mr Brown on 15 October 2019, that his complaint could not be treated as a formal complaint under the Broadcasting Act 1989 as ‘the Code relates to content within a broadcast, or associated classifications and warnings in an EPG – it does not relate to [synopses].’

[3]  Mr Brown referred the complaint to the Authority on 24 October 2019 on the basis that he was unsatisfied with SKY’s response and that SKY did not respond to his complaint within 20 working days.

[4]  Mr Brown provided the Authority with contextual information explaining why he was affected by the introduction of supernatural elements in what he thought was a historical film about WWII, and has argued that the synopsis should have made it clear to viewers that the film contained supernatural elements.

[5]  As the broadcaster did not accept Mr Brown’s complaint as a valid formal complaint, the issue for us is whether the Authority has jurisdiction to accept Mr Brown’s complaint referral. In consideration of this complaint we have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Outcome: Declined jurisdiction

[6]  The question for us is whether SKY should have treated Mr Brown’s complaint as a formal complaint under the Broadcasting Act 1989. SKY did not consider that Mr Brown’s correspondence amounted to a formal complaint as his complaint was presented as being solely about the contents of the programme synopsis.

[7]  In some complaints, we may consider the programme synopsis as a relevant contextual factor when we consider whether the broadcaster has fulfilled its obligations under the programme information standard.¹ This is because the standard is based on the principle that the broadcasters must ensure that viewers are informed about programme content so that the viewer can make an informed decision about what they choose to watch. Under the Pay Television Code, this standard focuses on the provision of information such as classifications and warnings.

[8]  However, in this case the complaint appeared to be that the synopsis did not provide specific details about the movie story line, namely the appearance of supernatural elements. The standards are not prescriptive as to what must go in a synopsis. 

[9]  We acknowledge that fictional depictions of war stories may have important resonance and personal significance for some viewers.  However, we accept that the broadcaster was entitled to treat this complaint as feedback about its synopsis rather than as a formal complaint under broadcasting standards.

[10]  As Mr Brown’s complaint relates solely to how the genre and storyline was described in the synopsis, it does not raise standards issues. Therefore, we find Mr Brown’s complaint did not amount to an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Accordingly, SKY was not required to treat it as a formal broadcasting standards complaint and we do not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint further.

[11]  Notwithstanding our view in this case, we do emphasise for broadcasters that the synopsis may, in other cases, be a relevant contextual factor which we may consider when determining whether broadcasters have discharged their broadcasting standards obligations.

For the above reasons the Authority declines jurisdiction to accept the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judge Bill Hastings

Chair
18 February 2020

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority:

1  Stuart Brown’s complaint to SKY – 19 August 2019

2  SKY’s response – 15 October 2019

3  Mr Brown’s referral to the BSA – 24 October 2019

4  SKY’s comments on the referral – 19 November 2019

5  SKY providing synopsis – 19 November 2019

6  Mr Brown’s further comments on the referral – 24 November 2019

¹ See Sanders and APNA Networks Ltd, Decision No. 2017-017