BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

When artist Grant Muir took part in an exhibition at the Wellington Festival of the Arts,

police were called. He had rolled naked in paint and then on a canvas. The news item

which recorded his encounter with the police was shown on Tonight at about 9.40pm

on 13 March 1996.

Mr Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of an

electronic mask to cover Mr Muir's pubic area during the item meant that the report was

not a true reflection of the original event.

Pointing out that the item correctly reported Mr Muir's interaction with the police and

that the use of the electronic mask ensured that the broadcasting standards were not

contravened, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Lowe referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines 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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

John Lowe complained to TVNZ that the news item, in which covered the pubic area of

a naked artist with an electronic mask, involved the "deliberate distortion" of the event

which occurred and did not reflect the factual truth of the human form.

In view of the wording of the complaint, TVNZ assessed it under standard G19 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which reads:

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure

that the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the

original event or the overall views expressed.

TVNZ insisted that the broadcast complied with the standard in that the item was the

story of an unusual police call-out in central Wellington. The item was not, it wrote, a

critique of the artist's work, or his method of painting, which involved rolling his paint-

covered naked body over a canvas.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Lowe argued that a message of

sleaze was conveyed when innocent nudity was masked as occurred on this occasion.

He listed a number of programmes in which innocent nudity had been shown on

television without complaint. The Authority, he observed, would be unlikely to uphold

the complaint as it sat "slightly to the right of evangelical Christians".

In view of the nature of the brief news item about which Mr Lowe complained, the

Authority does not consider that this decision is the place in which to explore the

broader issues raised in the referral. On this occasion, a news editor was required to

make a judgment about the content of a news item. Having viewed the item, the

Authority accepts that the editor's exercise of caution was not inappropriate.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
11 July 1996

Appendix

John Lowe's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 10 April 1996

Mr Lowe of Oakura complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast

on the news programme Tonight at 9.40pm on 13 March 1996.

The item showed artist Grant Muir taking part in an exhibition while naked and covered

in paint. Mr Lowe said that the addition of an electronic mask to cover Mr Muir's pubic

area meant that the picture was not a true reflection of the original event. He added:

Apart from being totally unnecessary; the masking is also a deliberate distortion of

the original event and cannot reflect the factual truth of the human form.

Moreover, he wrote, the masking of innocent nudity involved a message of "sleaze",

and he noted that the scene had been screened unmasked by Capital TV on the 7.00pm

news and there had been no complaints.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 2 May 1996

Having earlier advised Mr Lowe that it intended to assess the complaint under standard

G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice to which he had not objected,

TVNZ explained that the item reported that police had been called to the exhibition.

After discussion, Mr Muir had agreed to wear some brief underwear to cover his penis

while he completed the work. TVNZ wrote:

It is TVNZ's view that this story was told on "One Network News" in a

straightforward fashion. It was a true reflection of the event that occurred and did

not distort that event.

We point out that this was not a critique of the work of Grant Muir, nor a study of

his unconventional method of painting. It was the story of an unusual police call-

out in central Wellington.

TVNZ maintained that its news editor acted properly in recognising that sight of a penis

might breach the standards. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Lowe's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 28 May

1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Lowe referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

maintained that masking ensured that the item did not reflect the original event and that

TVNZ had rejected the complaint as it was aware that the current members of the

Authority "sit slightly to the right of evangelical Christians". He cited Authority

decision No: 1996-033 as the justification for that opinion.

Mr Lowe repeated his complaint that, by masking innocent nudity, TVNZ sent a

message of "sleaze" to the community. Moreover, the masking was unnecessary in

view of the lack of complaints received by Capital TV when it screened the item with the

artist unmasked.

Mr Lowe objected to TVNZ's assessment of the complaint under standard G19,

pointing out that he had not specified a particular standard. He disputed TVNZ's claim

that the item was "a true and undistorted account". He maintained that New Zealanders

accepted the depiction of genitalia in a non-exploitative context and that it was an

American practice to express concern about such nudity. As evidence of his claim about

New Zealanders, he referred to a number of occasions when nudity was shown on

television and, he maintained, complaints had not followed. He also referred to

research which disclosed that males who were comfortable with the naked body were

less aggressive than males in general and, he concluded:

In view of that, the Authority must find post-production masking of non-sexual

male nudity, to be injurious to the public good.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 5 June 1996

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said it had nothing of substance to add. It noted

that the complaint had been assessed under standard G19 as phrases from it had been

used by Mr Lowe in his original letter of complaint. Further, he had been advised that

the complaint would be assessed under that standard and had not objected.

TVNZ concluded:

We continue to believe that the sight of a penis was not relevant to the story being

told. The man was obviously naked, so why risk causing offence by the

gratuitous use of a penis?

Mr Lowe's Final Comment - 11 June 1996

Stressing his lengthy interest in the topic of attitudes to nudity, Mr Lowe maintained that

only fundamentalist Christians were opposed to the display of innocent nudity on

television. He pointed to the research which showed that males who were comfortable

with nudity were less aggressive than other males.

However, he wrote, the broadcasting industry was frightened of the Authority. While

the Authority's research disclosed that explicit nudity was not a major concern for

viewers, Mr Lowe argued that broadcasters were dominated by the incorrect assumption

that the view of a penis was offensive. Eventually, however, he concluded, common

sense would prevail.