BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A programme in the Documentary New Zealand series entitled "Hell for Leather" was broadcast on TV One on 14 June 1999 at 8.30pm. It examined the fortunes of a footwear company managed by a prominent Maori businesswoman, as it struggled to avoid closure. Staff and management were seen to be severely stressed by the prospect of the business collapsing.

Mr Christensen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used in a sequence where the manager and her staff were engaged in heated discussions regarding the company’s future. In his view, the language was unacceptable for broadcast, and should have been edited out.

TVNZ responded that it considered the sequence to be important for contextual reasons as it revealed the extent of the strain the people were under. It acknowledged that it would have been preferable for the programme to have been preceded by a warning in relation to the language used, but noted that it had been broadcast during AO time and had been classified as AO. It concluded that the sequence was not in breach of standard G2, given that it was appropriately classified.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Christensen 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 declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A programme entitled "Hell for Leather" was broadcast in the Documentary New Zealand series on TV One on 14 June 1999 beginning at 8.30pm. The documentary recounted the difficulties experienced by a footwear company which was on the brink of collapse. Late in the programme there was a sequence where both the manager and her staff were seen to be physically and emotionally close to breaking point as they contemplated the possibility of the business failing.

Mr Christensen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the language used in that sequence was objectionable. In his view, it was unnecessary to include the offensive language in order to illustrate the strain that the people were under. He suggested that a more acceptable solution would have been to beep out the offending words. In that way, he argued, the broadcaster would have conveyed the notion that the language was unacceptable, and the content would still have been present without viewers having to actually listen to it.

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, as nominated by the complainant. That standard 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.

TVNZ argued that the sequence in which the offending language was used was important, in its view, for contextual reasons. It described it as a "remarkable reflection" of the strain the people were feeling that they behaved in such an uninhibited manner in front of the television cameras. It acknowledged that it would have been preferable for a warning relating to the language to have preceded the programme so that viewers who objected to such language could have elected not to watch. However, it noted, the programme was classified as AO and was screened in AO time. The AO symbol was shown at the beginning of the programme and after each programme break.

In reaching its conclusion that no standards were breached, TVNZ concluded that in the context of a serious documentary about a struggling business enterprise, the language was not unsuitable for adult viewers.

To Mr Christensen’s suggestion that the language be beeped, TVNZ responded that it had reservations about this technique. First, it argued, in this case, beeping would have had the effect of separating the words from the context, and secondly, that it would have drawn even more attention to the offending words. It added:

The language was not used gratuitously. It was a spontaneous explosion of emotion by people whose livelihoods were so close to collapsing and who could take no more. It was how those people expressed themselves at that moment (it was not acted) and the documentary would have been less than truthful had it implied anything milder.

In concluding that no breach occurred, TVNZ repeated that it would have preferred a warning to have been given, but did not consider that its absence sufficed to breach the standard.

In his referral to the Authority, Mr Christensen took issue with TVNZ’s contention that the language accurately conveyed the strain the people were under. He dismissed this notion as nonsense, arguing that the drama and intensity of the situation would not have been affected at all if the obscene language had been beeped out. He argued that viewers would still have had an appreciation of the situation.

To TVNZ’s point that a warning would have given viewers the opportunity to change channels, Mr Christensen responded that that was not a satisfactory option to those – like himself – who wished to watch the documentary but not listen to the foul language.

As for the argument that beeping would have drawn attention to the language, Mr Christensen said he presumed TVNZ believed this was more undesirable than listening to the offending language. In fact, he speculated whether TVNZ wished to normalise the language and render it inoffensive and acceptable. He also questioned TVNZ’s argument that the beeping would have been a distraction for viewers.

The problem, Mr Christensen said, was that when this language was presented on television it became normalised. However, that in his view did not make it right.

He posed some questions for the Authority to consider, asking whether it could be said that New Zealanders were demanding that more foul language be broadcast on television, or whether broadcasters were being criticised for beeping out such words. He then suggested that perhaps broadcasters were testing the water, or trying to improve their ratings, or were very liberal and wished to impose their low standards on viewers.

TVNZ advised that it had no further comment to make.

The Authority’s Findings

When it considers complaints about a breach of good taste and decency, the Authority is obliged to take into account the context in which the language or behaviour complained about occurs.

The contextual factors which it considers relevant on this occasion include the time of the broadcast, the time when the sequence occurred during the programme and the programme’s AO classification. In addition, it takes into account the documentary’s theme and the specific events which precipitated the outburst of language which is the subject of this complaint.

Programmes which are scheduled during AO time and which are classified thus are those which are intended for adult audiences. The documentary "Hell for Leather" was, in the Authority’s view, appropriately classified and scheduled. It recounted the pressures on an Auckland businesswoman as she struggled to keep her shoe-making factory solvent, and showed the problems she faced in trying to fulfil orders and keep the business financially viable. Throughout the documentary, it was apparent that some of the factory staff were unwilling or unable to perform to the owner’s expectations. Encounters with two key workers showed that the regular unexplained absenteeism of one was having a significant effect on the production rate, as was the unwillingness of another to increase her production levels to what they had been formerly. It was understandable, the Authority concludes, in that context, that angry exchanges degenerated into abusive tirades peppered with the frequent use of the word "fuck" and its derivatives. The question for the Authority is whether the broadcaster breached broadcasting standards by permitting those exchanges to go to air unedited and without prior warning to viewers about the language.

The Authority notes the complainant’s argument that by broadcasting such language TVNZ encouraged it to become normalised. TVNZ’s response was that the language had not been used gratuitously, but was "a spontaneous explosion of emotion" in a highly-charged atmosphere when the company was on the brink of collapse. In those circumstances, TVNZ argued it was an honest portrayal of the tense situation. To have edited out the language would have been less than truthful, it submitted. It acknowledged that it would have preferred the programme to have been preceded by a warning.

For the Authority, the overriding consideration in making its decision on this complaint is the context in which the language was used. The Authority notes that "fuck" – and its related words – was used as adjective, verb and noun during intensely emotional and angry exchanges. The Authority considers that given the frequency with which those words were used, to have edited them out would have deprived the programme of much of its impact and effect. It also concludes that in the circumstances, the decision not to use some screening device such as "beeping" was a justifiable editorial decision. As for TVNZ’s failure to broadcast a warning, the Authority agrees with TVNZ that this should have occurred. But given that the exchanges occurred late in the programme and the language was not used gratuitously, it remains unpersuaded that the absence of the warning constituted a breach of standard G2.

In reaching its decision that no breach occurred in these circumstances, it accepts that the words are a norm of the language of the people featured. The documentary was filmed as the company was about to founder – its future was being jeopardised by a few who were seen to be not pulling their weight. In that context, an emotional reaction was hardly surprising. The programme accurately portrayed the fears, anger, frustration and anxiety of those involved by broadcasting the vocabulary actually used. Accordingly, the Authority concludes that in this context, the language broadcast did not breach standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
23 September 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined the complaint:

1.    Evan Christensen’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 6 July 1999

2.    TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 20 July 1999

3.    Mr Christensen’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 2 August 1999

4.    TVNZ’s Final Comment – 12 August 1999