BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

An item on Breakfast discussed shortages in the supply of cat food. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s and guest’s use of the phrases ‘fussy puss’ and ‘are pussies fussy’ breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority found that the phrases would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress, and were unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. With regard to the children’s interests standard, noting that children were not the target audience for the programme and were unlikely to understand any sexual innuendo in the terms, the Authority considered any potential harm did not reach a level justifying regulatory intervention.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests

The broadcast

[1]  During the 9 March 2022 episode of Breakfast, presenter Matty McLean interviewed veterinarian Stacey Tremain about shortages in the supply of cat food.

[2]  The presenter introduced the interview with Dr Tremain with the following sentence: ‘if you too have a fussy puss, veterinarian Stacey Tremain has some great advice’. This statement was followed by the presenter saying that they may have been ‘stitched up’ and Dr Tremain stating that they ‘had a fussy puss as well’. The presenter then questioned ‘is this a real thing? Are pussies fussy?’ Later in the programme, Tremain again stated they had a ‘fussy puss’. Both the presenter and Tremain appeared amused during the interaction.

The complaint

[3]  Ben Carswell complained that the broadcast breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, for the following reasons:

Matt McLean read a pre-written script speaking about "a fussy pussy" - there was clear sexual innuendo & connotation & this was clearly pre-meditated (not by Matt McLean, but whoever had written the script), however, the interview continued down this sexualised theme throughout. It lacked good taste & decency, was clearly sexualised and at a time when children would be watching/listening… To be honest, it's not the kind of thing I want to hear as an adult, either.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ did not uphold Carswell’s complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘Breakfast is aimed at an adult audience and screens in PG and G certificate time.’
• The Authority has acknowledged in previous decisions that children of a vulnerable age are unlikely to watch the news unattended.
• News and current affairs broadcasts often discuss challenging material which is why there is an associated expectation that child viewers will be supervised.
• ‘The presenter and interviewee were clearly amused by the phrase “fussy puss”, but there was no explanation as to why they might have found it funny. It was left up to the viewers to draw their own inferences.’
• ‘The segment did not contain any inappropriate imagery or descriptions.’
• ‘The “fussy puss” references were not sustained and were only a very small part of a lengthy interview. It did not have a “sexualised theme” throughout.’
• It was unlikely that children viewers would have the knowledge required ‘to draw a sexual meaning from the phrase’.
• ‘The segment overall was light-hearted and was consistent with the informal conversational style that characterises Breakfast and which regular viewers would expect.’

The standards

[5]  The good taste and decency standard¹ states current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme. The standard is intended to protect audiences from content likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.²

[6]  The children’s interests standard³ requires broadcasters to ensure children are protected from broadcasts which might adversely affect them. Material likely to be considered under this standard includes violent content or themes, offensive language, social or domestic friction and dangerous, antisocial or illegal behaviour where such material is outside the expectations of the programme’s classification.⁴

Our analysis

[7]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[8]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁵

Good taste and decency

[9]  Context is crucial to assessing whether a broadcast is likely to cause widespread undue offence, or undermine widely shared community standards, including the context in which the material complained about occurred, and the wider context of the broadcast.⁶ We consider the following contextual factors particularly relevant to our assessment:

• Breakfast is a news/current affairs programme with an adult target audience.
• The segment was consistent with the kind of light-hearted and colloquial discussion typically on Breakfast and the tone and language used would be within general audience expectations of the programme.
• The phrases ‘fussy puss’ and ‘are pussies fussy’ were used in relation to a segment about cats, and use words which are generally accepted and understood synonyms for the word cat.
• As outlined at paragraph [2] the terms were used multiple times in the segment.

[10]  Although ‘pussy’ is also a slang word often used in reference to female genitalia, in our Language That May Offend in Broadcasting research the word ‘pussy’ ranked 27 out of 31 words tested for offensiveness.⁷ This suggests the general level of unacceptability for this word in the community is low.

[11]  Having regard to the contextual factors above, we do not consider the phrases likely to cause widespread undue offence, or distress, or to undermine widely shared community standards. The terms were used by the host and guest in relation to their discussion on cat food, and were not directed at anyone, or intended to cause offence.

Children’s interests

[12]  The contextual factors identified under good taste and decency are important considerations under the children’s interests standard as well.⁸

[13]  With regard to the complainant’s concerns about children’s exposure to the words and possible sexual innuendo in the programme, we note that children were not the target audience of the broadcast. As identified by TVNZ, the Authority has consistently expressed its expectation that parents exercise discretion around viewing news and current affairs programmes with their children, so they can give appropriate guidance.⁹

[14]  Additionally children are less likely to understand any sexual innuendo in the words. As noted by TVNZ, no further explanation of the words was given.

[15]  Both ‘puss’ and ‘pussies’ are common words used for cats, particularly in children’s books and films, eg Puss in Boots, and would be the natural understanding of the words for children, especially in the context of a segment about cats.

[16]  In the circumstances, we consider any potential harm did not reach the level justifying regulatory intervention

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
18 May 2022   

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Ben Carswell’s formal complaint – 18 March 2022

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 8 April 2022

3  Carswell’s referral to the Authority – 8 April 2022

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 12 April 2022

¹ Standard 1 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
³ Standard 3 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁴ Guideline 3b
⁵ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁶ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
⁷ Language That May Offend in Broadcasting (Broadcasting Standards Authority, 17 February 2022), page 11
⁸ Guideline 3c
⁹ See, for example, Bracey and EE and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-084