BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The physical sexual practices of gay men and some of the health risks involved were

dealt with in an episode of Express Report broadcast at about 10.15pm on 29 April

1996.

Mr Konings complained to Horizon Pacific Television Limited, the broadcaster, that

given the cavalier approach adopted, the programme amounted to the promotion of

activities which were physically dangerous.

While acknowledging that there was a limit on the extent to which a discussion of gay

activities was acceptable in the wider community, Horizon Pacific argued that there

were contextual elements which made the programme complained about acceptable –

the target audience, the health issues addressed, and the time of broadcast. It declined

to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied that the complaint was not upheld, Mr Konings referred it 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.

Express Report is a programme broadcast by Horizon Pacific which explicitly deals

with homosexual issues and which is targeted at a homosexual audience. The edition

broadcast at 10.15pm on 29 April explained some of the sexual activities of gay men

and dealt with the health risks inherent in those practices.

Mr Konings complained that the programme was an attempt to promote the idea that

any perversion was normal. He said that he was revolted at the presentation of

perverse and potentially dangerous sex practices as commonplace.

When a complainant does not refer to a specific standard allegedly breached, there is

an obligation on the broadcaster to nominate a standard of broadcasting practice

against which to assess the complaint. Horizon Pacific did not do so and it has been

necessary for the Authority to correct this lapse.

The Authority has assessed the complaint under standard G2 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice which 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.

In its response to the complaint, Horizon Pacific acknowledged that the discussion

was extremely frank. It continued:

However, we would argue that the frank discussion on this subject on a

television programme specifically targeting the gay and lesbian community,

played an important role in educating target viewers on the dangers of what

appear to be commonplace practices amongst gay men.

Pointing out that the programme disclosed that dangerous sexual practices were still

practised in the gay male community, Horizon Pacific emphasised that health issues

had been highlighted. Horizon Pacific also maintained that the time of the broadcast

was relevant in its decision not to uphold the complaint.

In his final comment, Mr Konings said that the programme would have been watched

by viewers who were not homosexual. He questioned the impact of the health

message in view of the cavalier way the programme was presented.

The Authority is required to decide whether the broadcast, in context, breached the

accepted norms of good taste and decency. It accepts Mr Konings' point that some, if

not many, of the viewers would not be homosexuals – the target audience.

Accordingly, the norms of good taste and decency to be applied are those which apply

throughout society. Nevertheless, in view of the publicity which Express Report has

received, the Authority also accepts that it would be common knowledge to most

viewers that the programme was made to deal with issues of relevance to the gay

community.

The Authority notes that the programme included four warnings that the content

might offend. Two of the warnings were captions printed on the screen and two were

statements by the presenter. In view of the item's focus, the Authority is of the view

that the warnings could be more informative if they referred to the target audience at

whom the material was aimed.

In addition to the warning, the Authority takes note of the other contextual matters

raised by the broadcaster. They are the time of the broadcast (10.15pm) and the

health message contained in the item. The Authority does not agree that the item's

approach to this issue was cavalier. Although there was some degree of jocularity, the

Authority believes that this arose from, and would be perceived as, some degree of

unease or embarrassment on the part of the panel when discussing intensely personal

matters on television.

The Authority concludes that a warning was essential. A warning was given on four

occasions, and the Authority has mentioned above a way in which it believes the

warning would be more informative. As the programme was a serious attempt

broadcast late in the evening to deal with an important issue, the Authority does not

believe that standard G2 was contravened.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority.

Judith Potter
Chairperson
19 September 1996

Appendix

Mr Konings' Complaint to Horizon Pacific Television Limited - 5 May 1996

John Konings of Pakuranga complained through the Broadcasting Standards Authority

to Horizon Pacific Television Limited about the broadcast of Express Report at about

10.15pm on 29 April 1996.

While the programme purported to be research on the sexuality of gay men, he wrote,

he was shocked at the sickening content. The sleazy material, he added, was

dangerous to both physical and mental health.

Horizon Pacific's Response to the Formal Complaint - 31 May 1996

Horizon Pacific explained that the episode complained about dealt with the physical

sexual activities of gay men and the health risks inherent in those practices. It added:

Horizon Pacific agrees that the discussion was extremely frank. However, we

would argue that the frank discussion on this subject on a television programme

specifically targeting the gay and lesbian community, played an important role in

educating target viewers on the dangers of what appear to be commonplace

practices amongst gay men.

Explaining that it was not the intention of the programme to promote the practices

discussed, Horizon Pacific argued that it was wrong to ignore the practices given the

health issues involved. Express Report, it added, was the appropriate programme for

such a discussion as it was specifically tailored for the gay and lesbian communities.

Mr Konings' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 19 June 1996

Dissatisfied with Horizon Pacific's reply, Mr Konings referred the complaint to the

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

sending to the Authority a copy of his letter to Horizon Pacific in which he disputed

its response.

Mr Konings began:

My complaint was not against a discussion on the risks of homosexual practices

but to the way the subject was treated which I regarded as cavalier as stated in

the letter and in the light-hearted, almost gay way the subjects such as 'fisting'

and 'rimming' as well as sodomy under any other description were presented as

acts rather then the horrific dangers they present, which seemed almost

incidental.

He argued that the programme amounted to proselytising the cause of perversion,

rather than as a warning about such practices. A programme showing HIV infected

people, he said, would be more likely to discourage homosexuals from dangerous

practices.

Further Correspondence

After an exchange of letters, the Authority accepted that Mr Konings' referral of the

complaint to the Authority complied with the statutory time limits.

Horizon Pacific's Response to the Authority - 20 August 1996

In its report to the Authority, Horizon Pacific said that the following matters were

relevant: the target audience; the health issues being addressed; and the time of the

broadcast. It added:

The HPTV Complaints Committee felt that while the methodology of conveying

the health message was at times explicit, it would have had considerable impact

on 'at risk' members of the gay community, and therefore was likely to have

achieved its objective.

Repeating the points made in its 19 June letter to Mr Konings, Horizon Pacific

acknowledged that there was an issue as to the extent that the discussion about gay

activities was acceptable outside the gay community. It was a matter which had been

kept in mind and given the contextual points noted above, Horizon Pacific did not

consider that the standards had been contravened.

Mr Konings' Final Comment - 27 August 1996

Expressing concern that he did not have a copy of the programme to view while

preparing his final comment, Mr Konings observed that given the small percentage of

the population which was homosexual, it was very likely that many others were

exposed to the perversions referred to. He wondered whether HPTV used sex as a

form of attracting an audience and, consequently, advertising.

In view of the cavalier way in which the show was presented, Mr Konings doubted

whether it would have had an impact in passing on the health message to 'at risk'

members of the population. He believed that the message would have been better

targeted through print which would not have offended those who were not

homosexual.