BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The first episode of the locally produced series City Life was screened on TV2 at

7.30pm on 15 July 1996. The series was promoted as one which showed a

contemporary, upbeat world of urban living for a group of twenty-somethings.

On behalf of Children's Media Watch, Ms Gilderdale and Ms Duncan complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd that the programme was inappropriately classified as

PGR and had been screened too early in the evening. They referred to some specific

scenes and some dialogue to justify their contentions.

G A Sparks complained that the scene which showed a male homosexual couple

kissing and talking about marriage breached the good taste and decency standard, and

that the programme had been screened too early in the evening.

On the basis that the programme was appropriately classified as PGR and that

discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was prohibited by the human rights

legislation, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaints.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds both complaints as to the programme's

classification.

Decision

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

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

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The first episode of a locally produced series entitled City Life was screened on TV2 at

7.30pm on 15 July 1996. As explained by TVNZ:

The programme set the scene and established the characters for a series which

reflects the contemporary, upbeat world of urban living in which the group of

twenty-somethings reside.

On behalf of Children's Media Watch, Betty Gilderdale and Claire Duncan complained

about the programme's classification. Referring specifically to the exchange between

and a man and woman in a men's urinal, they maintained that the programme should

be classified as AO rather than PGR, and be screened at 8.30pm or later.

Mr Sparks was also concerned about the programme's rating. Referring to the

exchange between two men and the kiss they exchanged, he argued that it was

unacceptable to broadcast such behaviour while children were watching at 7.30pm.

TVNZ assessed the complaint from Children's Media Watch under standard G8 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice and the one for Mr Sparks under standards

G2, G8 and G12. They require 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.

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 times.

The classifications for PGR and AO record:

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.


'PGR' programmes may be screened between 9 am and 4 pm and after 7 pm

until 6 am.

Adults Only – AO

Programmes containing adult themes or those which, because of the way the

material is handled, would be unsuitable for persons under 18 years of age.

'AO' programmes are restricted to screening between midday and 3 pm on

weekdays (except during school and public holidays) and after 8.30 pm until 5 am.

Dealing with the complaint from Children's Media Watch, TVNZ focused on the

language used in the exchange in the urinal and maintained the words 'bitch',

'gayboy', and 'bonking' were not unacceptable in view of the reference to parental

discretion contained in the 'PGR' rating.

On the basis that the complaint reflected a preference rather than an allegation of a

serious breach of standards, TVNZ wrote to Children's Media Watch:

We have been unable to detect anything in this programme which requires it to

carry a certificate more restrictive than PGR. We believe PGR clearly signals to

parents and caregivers that the programme contains material for which younger

viewers might need guidance. It clearly indicates that child viewing of the

programme is at the discretion of adults and offers parents the chance to exercise

that discretion.

As for the complaint from Mr Sparks, TVNZ pointed out that the human rights

legislation prohibited discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Thus, if a

kiss between a heterosexual couple was acceptable, then a similar kiss between a

homosexual couple would also be legitimate. TVNZ declined to uphold both

complaints.

When they referred the Children Media Watch's complaint to the Authority, Betty

Gilderdale and Claire Duncan maintained that neither the life-style portrayed nor the

language used was appropriate in family viewing time. Mr Sparks repeated his

concern, which he said was shared by others, that the homosexual exchange at 7.30pm

breached the standards of good taste.

The Authority's consideration of this complaint focusses on the PGR and AO

classification. It acknowledges that adult content in itself is not necessarily classified

as AO. The distinguishing feature between PGR and AO is the reference to 'adult

themes'. Programmes which contain adult themes and which would be unsuitable for

persons under 18 years of age are to be classified as AO.

TVNZ promoted City Life as dealing with contemporary urban living of the twenty

somethings. Most of the characters are in the 'twenty something' age category with

minimal apparent responsibilities for anybody or anything but themselves. The life-

style of most is portrayed as essentially hedonistic.

While it is possible to pick on particular exchanges or specific incidents and to decide

whether they are or are not appropriate for young viewers with adult guidance, the

Authority does not believe that this is a suitable way to arrive at an overall decision on

the classification of a programme.

Having viewed the programme, the Authority is unhesitatingly of the view that it dealt

with issues which principally were of relevance to the characters portrayed. It agrees

with TVNZ's description that the programme portrays the 'contemporary, upbeat

world ... of twenty-somethings'. The characters were adults and the issues which

caused them concern, and in which they were involved, were adult. In other words,

the programme focussed on adult themes. Accordingly, the Authority concludes that

City Life had been wrongly classified as PGR and it upholds both complaints as a

breach of standard G8.

For the reasons above, the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast

by Television New Zealand Limited of City Life at 7.30pm on 15 July 1996

breached standard G8 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold the other aspects of the complaints.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. Since the broadcast of the episode complained about, TVNZ

has rescheduled City Life to screen at 9.30pm. Consequently, the Authority considers

that there would be little point in imposing an order at this stage.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
24 October 1996

Appendix I

Children Media Watch's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 29 July 1996

On behalf of Children's Media Watch, Betty Gilderdale and Claire Duncan complained

to Television New Zealand Ltd about the classification given to the locally produced

series City Life.

Referring to the first episode broadcast on TV2 at 7.30pm on 15 July 1996, they

maintained that a considerable amount of the material in the programme failed to

comply with the PGR criterion. They referred specifically to the incident when a man

and woman were talking in a urinal while the man was urinating and where the

conversation referred to bonking, gay relations and sexual jealousy. They wrote:

These are specific instances, but we found the lifestyles depicted unsuitable for

family viewing and would strongly urge that this series be re-classified AO, and

screened after 8.30pm. We understand that the series is aimed at the late teens

and early twenties age groups, and they are certainly still awake at the later

times. We can, therefore, find no justification for showing this series at 7.30pm

or for classifying it as PGR.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 6 August 1996

TVNZ began by explaining the purpose of the first episode:

The programme set the scene and established the characters for a series which

reflects the contemporary, upbeat world of urban living in which the group of

twenty-somethings reside.

It assessed the complaint that the programme should have been classified AO, rather

than PGR, under standard G8 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. In

view of the definition of AO and PGR, TVNZ said its task was to consider whether

there was anything in the programme which was unsuitable viewing for anyone under

the age of 18 years.

As for the scene in the urinal and the use of the word 'bitch', TVNZ wrote:

In the context of a series reflecting the frank, outgoing attitudes of a particular

age group (just short of full maturity) it would strike the audience as a little

unreal if some of the language used in tense moments was not both emphatic and

candid. While 'bitch' is clearly a derogatory term, in this dramatic context it

was meant to be derogatory. We would argue that 'bitch' is not a swear word

but a description widely used when a derogatory remark is made about a woman

perceived to be malicious or treacherous.

TVNZ maintained that the word 'bitch' was not inappropriate for a PGR

classification. It advanced a similar opinion for the use of the term 'gay boy'. As

references to sexual activity were not uncommon in PGR programmes, it could not

understand the objection to the phrase 'you've been having sex - I can tell by the way

you are smiling'. TVNZ also considered that the word 'bonking' was not

unacceptable in context and, it argued, viewing was a matter of parental discretion

which was the guideline contained in the PGR rating.

TVNZ commented:

We have difficulty understanding your objection to the other two lines you

quote. We feel that you may have overlooked the setting of this drama, and the

lifestyle reflected in it. It does show a 'liberal' pattern of behaviour - but it is a

pattern that we can all recognise as a real part of the community in which we

live, especially those of us residing in urban areas. It is City Life, as the title of

the series implies.

On the basis that the complaint reflected a preference rather than an allegation of a

serious breach of standards, TVNZ explained that preferences were not usually

capable of resolution through the complaints procedure. It concluded:

We have been unable to detect anything in this programme which requires it to

carry a certificate more restrictive than PGR. We believe PGR clearly signals to

parents and caregivers that the programme contains material for which younger

viewers might need guidance. It clearly indicates that child viewing of the

programme is at the discretion of adults and offers parents the chance to exercise

that discretion. While we understand that from your perspective the content of

the programme is not suitable for young viewers, we feel sure there are many

responsible parents for whom such subject matter is not of concern.

Recognising that there is a wide variety of attitudes to this area, TVNZ (after

widely publicising the nature of the programme) classified it PGR to encourage

parental discretion.

Children Media Watch's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 15

August 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision Ms Duncan and Ms Gilderdale referred the

Children's Media Watch complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

Maintaining that the broadcast breached standard G8, they wrote:

In our opinion neither the life style nor the language of 'City Life' is

appropriate in family viewing time. We wonder whether TVNZ has screened

the programme at 7.30pm in order to entrap the 'Shortland Street' viewers but

is itself uncertain as to the classification since 'City Life' has been given no

classification in the current 'Listener' nor in the NZ Herald of 12 August. We

can see no reason why this programme, aimed at the 'Twenty-somethings',

could not be shown at a later time in the evening with an AO classification.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 23 August 1996

TVNZ wrote:

TVNZ has nothing further to add, except to note that the programme reflected a

recognisable young urban lifestyle in this country and we do not understand how

such a lifestyle can be regarded as inappropriate in family viewing time. Surely

this is a case where parents should counsel and advise their children for its a

lifestyle most will assuredly encounter before long if they have not done so

already? PGR was the appropriate certificate

Appendix II

G A Sparks' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 17 July 1996

G A Sparks of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

first episode of City Life broadcast on TV2 at 7.30pm on 15 July.

Describing the programme as disgraceful, G A Sparks spoke of the horror felt at one

scene in which one male said to another, 'why don't you leave him and marry me',

after which they kissed. G A Sparks said that was not appropriate viewing at 7.30pm

when 10 to 12 year olds were watching television.

In a letter dated 26 July, G A Sparks alleged breaches of standards G2, G8 and G12 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 9 August 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ said that

discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was prohibited by the human rights

legislation. Accordingly, if it was able to show a kiss between a man and a woman in a

drama series, it would be wrong to eliminate a kiss between homosexuals.

TVNZ denied that a reference to homosexuality - or a kiss or embrace - stepped

beyond the bounds of good taste and decency. It did not accept that standard G2 was

contravened. As the material was appropriately classified as PGR, and as the PGR

symbol was shown on a number of occasions during the programme, TVNZ did not

uphold the standard G8 aspect of the complaint.

With regard to standard G12, it wrote:

Turning to G12 we believe that the attaching of a PGR certificate to a

programme demonstrates that we are mindful of the effect the programme may

have on children. In a society where a wide range of views exist on a number of

issues, the PGR rating is regarded by us of particular importance because it

encourages parental discretion.

Expressing regret that the scene had caused offence, TVNZ declined to uphold the

complaint.

G A Sparks' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 14 August 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, G A Sparks referred the complaint to the

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

Pointing out that nine other people had also signed the letter of complaint, G A Sparks

disagreed that times had changed as TVNZ claimed. G A Sparks argued that the

homosexual proposal and kiss were outside society's accepted norms of behaviour.

While the programme might have been classified as PGR, G A Sparks asked why that

classification was not included in the printed schedules. Not only were parents often

busy at 7.30pm, G A Sparks argued that a more restrictive classification was

necessary to ensure that the programme was broadcast after 8.30pm, and wrote:

This programme is not suitable for children.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 22 August 1996

In a brief report, TVNZ observed:

TVNZ has nothing further to add, save to point out that the complainant's

references to classification symbols appearing in various publications is a matter

which is outside the ambit of the statutory formal complaints procedure. City

Life carried on-screen symbols indicating its PGR status.