BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Many of the world's top models displayed swimwear in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit

Special: Class of 95 screened on TV2 on 26 October 1995 between 7.30–8.30pm.

Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it had not

been mindful of the effect of the programme on children and that the programme was

inappropriately classified as it should not have been broadcast in children's viewing

time.

TVNZ responded that the programme, featuring some of the world's super models, was

designed to appeal to a wide cross-section of viewers, and denied that it was simply an

exercise in voyeurism. It did not believe the programme justified a more restricted

certificate than PGR and did not believe it would have had a harmful impact on children

who were watching in the company of an adult. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not

to uphold his complaint, Mr Smits 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 declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

Some of the world's top super models were featured in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit

Special: Class of 95 broadcast by TVNZ on TV2 on 26 October 1995 between

7.30–8.30pm. They modelled the latest fashions in swimwear at various locations and

answered questions about their modelling careers.

Mr Smits complained that the programme was unsuitable for broadcast at a time when

children would be watching and that TVNZ had failed to fulfil its obligation to be

mindful of the effect of the programme on children. In his view, the programme was

directed at a heterosexual male audience and was objectionable because it taught men

how to consume women as images, reinforced stereotypes about women and promoted

an industry which exploited women.

In its response, TVNZ advised that it had assessed the programme under the standards

in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice cited by Mr Smits. Those standards

require broadcasters:

G8  To abide by the classification codes and their appropriate time bands

as outlined in the agreed criteria for programme classifications.

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

during their normally accepted viewing hours.

TVNZ rejected the suggestion that the programme was directed at men, describing it as

one which it believed would have appealed to a wide cross-section of viewers, and

reported that its ratings revealed that it attracted a larger audience of women than men.

It observed that about three quarters of the programme featured interviews with the

women and a discussion about their careers as models. TVNZ denied that the

programme could be considered as an exercise in voyeurism, pointing out that the

women were presented as people with business acumen who worked hard and long for

their top status in the modelling world.

Turning to the alleged standards breaches, TVNZ maintained that the programme did

not contain the language, explicit sexual content or violence which would have justified

a more restricted certificate than PGR. It explained that the programme was given a

PGR certificate because it was one directed more at adult audiences than the very young

and reminded Mr Smits of the definition of PGR which reads:

Parental Guidance Recommended – PGR

Programmes containing material more suited to adult audiences but not

necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a

parent or adult.

Following that reasoning, TVNZ asserted that consequently G12 was not breached. It

did not consider that the programme would have had any harmful effect on children

watching in the company of and under the guidance of an adult and suggested that many

parents might have considered the women to be appropriate role models. Furthermore,

TVNZ added, it did not agree that the swimsuit industry exploited women, describing

swimsuits as just another fashion garment. It declined to uphold any aspect of the

complaint.

The Authority acknowledged that the classification of a programme as PGR imposes a

responsibility on caregivers to monitor their children's viewing. Although it would

have preferred the programme to have been broadcast in AO time, the Authority

accepted that 7.30pm is a time at which caregivers are expected to exercise some

discretion on behalf of children in their care.

The Authority understands that this was the kind of programme which can reinforce

attitudes about women which many people consider undesirable and exploitive. It also

acknowledged that there was nothing which distinguished it from others designed for

teenagers and young adults which are broadcast in a similar time slot.

Turning to the standards allegedly breached, the Authority concluded that the

classification of a programme as PGR signalled to caregivers that children's viewing

should be monitored. The responsibility of the broadcaster lay in the classification

of the programme, and TVNZ had discharged its obligation by classifying it as PGR.

With respect to the allegation that TVNZ had not been mindful of the effect of the

programme on children, the Authority agreed with TVNZ that its PGR classification

indicated that it had indeed been mindful of children and had alerted parents and

caregivers to their responsibilities. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

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

complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
8 February 1996

Appendix

Phillip Smits' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 26 October 1995

Phillip Smits of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that its broadcast

of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Special: Class of 95 on TV2 on 26 October 1995

between 7.30 - 8.30pm breached broadcasting standards. He believed standard G8 was

breached because the programme was screened during children's viewing time (he

noted that the trailer immediately after the programme was TVNZ's public service

advertisement advising children it was adults only time) and that G12 was breached

because TVNZ had not been mindful of the effect of the programme on children.

In Mr Smits' view, this kind of programme, directed at heterosexual men, taught them

to consume women as images or commodities, reinforced stereotypes and promoted an

industry which exploits women.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 7 November 1995

Pointing out that the programme featured many of the world's top models, TVNZ

expressed its view that it felt it would appeal to a large cross-section of the viewing

audience. According to its ratings it attracted 11% of the possible female audience and

only 9% of the possible male audience.

TVNZ considered that the programme provided a real sense of the personalities of the

women through the interviews which took up about three quarters of the programme. It

believed the programme was not simply an exercise in voyeurism since it presented the

women as people with good business sense who worked hard to achieve their status.

Referring to standard G8, TVNZ's view was that the programme did not contain the

language, explicit sexual content or violence which would justify a more restricted

classification than PGR. It advised that the programme was classified as PGR because

it was directed more at adult audiences than at the very young, and reminded Mr Smits

that PGR material is that which is not necessarily unsuitable for children when subject

to the guidance of a parent or adult.

Turning next to standard G12, TVNZ advised that it did not believe the programme

would have had a harmful effect on children watching in the company of and under the

guidance of an adult. It maintained that the models were portrayed as intelligent and

astute women at the top of their chosen profession who might be considered appropriate

role models by some parents. It did not agree with Mr Smits that the swimsuit industry

exploited women, arguing that swimsuits were just another fashion garment. It

declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Smits' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 25 October

1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold the complaint, Mr Smits referred it to

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

Mr Smits rejected TVNZ's claims that the ratings indicated that more women than men

comprised the audience for the programme and the suggestion that the swimsuits were

being modelled as "fashion garments". In his view, the programme was simply

"softest" pornography with scantily dressed women being objectified and ogled at to

music. He maintained that pornography had little to do with explicitness but everything

to do with women being portrayed as sexual commodities and images to be consumed.

In his opinion the programme was blatantly pornographic.

Mr Smits forwarded to the Authority a CD Rom entitled "Supermodels go Wild" which

he said had been confiscated by a mother from her teenage son.

Mr Smits rejected the argument that the programme was suitable for viewing by children

with parental guidance. He also expressed his annoyance that supermodels Rachel

Hunter and Christie Brinkley were included in the programme as if that legitimised the

remaining footage.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 21 December 1995

In its brief response to the Authority, TVNZ advised that there was nothing in Mr

Smits' letter to which it wished to respond. It added that it saw no reason to partake in

a process in which a complainant directs abuse at its employees. It submitted that the

Authority should exercise its powers under section 11 of the Broadcasting Act to decline

to determine the complaint.