BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

References to sexual activity were made in an episode of Dharma and Greg broadcast on TV2 on 4 November 1998 at 7.30pm. Two different couples were said to have had sex in a public place.

Mr Davies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such explicit programme content was unsuitable for broadcast before 8.30pm. He lamented a decline in standards which he noted had occurred in recent years, and sought to have all references to sex excluded from any PGR programme.

At the outset, TVNZ noted that no sexual activity was shown in the programme, but was only implied in the action and dialogue. It acknowledged that the programme was more suited to adult audiences, but did not accept that it was unsuitable for children who were watching under the guidance of an adult. In its view, the programme was correctly classified and did not breach any broadcasting standards.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Davies referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that standards G8 and G12 were breached.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed 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 reference to earlier sexual exploits encouraged two different couples to make love in a public place in an episode of Dharma and Greg broadcast on TV2 on 4 November 1998 at 7.30pm.

Mr Davies complained to TVNZ that the content of the programme was unsuitable for children, even if they had parental supervision. He argued that broadcasters persisted in a trend towards more explicit programme content in an attempt to maximise viewer ratings, and that viewers, having become accustomed to more explicit content, ceased to complain and thus justified broadcasters’ claims that public opinions had changed. In Mr Davies’ view, this was a quite fallacious argument, and would result in programme content continuing to be extended.

Mr Davies advised that his required outcome from the complaint was a prohibition on any programme or programme trailer containing any direct and explicit reference to sex being broadcast during PGR time.

In its response, TVNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint under standards G2, G8 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards 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 classification.

G12  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during their normally accepted viewing hours.

TVNZ began with the observation that no sexual activity was seen in the programme, and that although it was implied in the action and dialogue, there was no nudity or scenes where bodies were seen in indiscreet or compromising positions. It questioned the legitimacy of Mr Davies’ claim that there was a trend towards more explicit programming, noting that sex had been the subject of comedy for years, and that its portrayal in this episode was no more explicit than many films, plays and television programmes which had gone before it.

With respect to the classification of the episode, TVNZ acknowledged that the content was more suited to adult audiences, but did not accept that it was unsuitable viewing for children under the guidance of an adult. It noted that the content was made clear at the start of the programme, and suggested that parents who did not wish their children to watch it would have had the opportunity to turn it off. It concluded that the programme did not justify an AO rating, and submitted that it was not unsuitable material for any person under 18 years of age. In its view, PGR was the correct classification, and the PGR symbol had been properly displayed after each programme break.

Turning to standard G2, TVNZ said that it did not accept the content exceeded accepted norms of decency and taste, given the context of a modern-day bedroom farce played out in San Francisco. It noted that there were no visual sequences of dubious taste and the dialogue avoided sinking to the prurient.

As far as standard G8 was concerned, TVNZ contended that it had properly classified the programme with a PGR classification.

With reference to standard G12, it responded that it had complied with the standard by correctly classifying the programme as PGR. It maintained that the responsibility for children’s viewing was shared between the broadcaster and a parent or guardian. By classifying the programme as PGR, it noted, it had clearly expressed the view that the material was more suited to adult audiences.

In concluding, TVNZ noted that it took a close interest in broadcasting standards and made the observation that concepts such as good taste and decency were constantly changing to reflect changing public attitudes. It advised that those attitudes were regularly being monitored by research supervised by the Broadcasting Standards Authority and by TVNZ itself in its own audience and rating surveys.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Davies disagreed with TVNZ’s contention that it was the role of the parent to switch off the television if they did not think a programme was suitable. His interpretation of the meaning of PGR was quite different, he asserted.

Mr Davies said that he looked forward to reviewing any material regarding the market research conducted by the Authority as part of the next stage of his complaint.

He asked the Authority to censure TVNZ in respect of the episode and to take action to put a stop to direct and explicit references to sex in G and PGR times of day. He referred to two other programmes which he considered also transgressed this standard.

Mr Davies advised that he wished to make verbal submissions in support of his complaint.

In its report to the Authority TVNZ responded that it saw no reason why the Authority should depart from its usual practice of determining the complaint on the basis of viewing the programme and considering the correspondence.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority turns first to Mr Davies’ request to make verbal submissions in support of his complaint. It emphasises that its usual practice is to determine complaints on the basis of the written submissions from the parties. In view of the comprehensiveness of the submissions received, and its familiarity with the issues raised, the Authority finds no reason to depart from its normal practice on this occasion.

The essence of Mr Davies’ complaint is that the episode of Dharma and Greg which was broadcast on 4 November 1998 contained material which was inappropriate for the timeslot because it was broadcast at 7.30pm, a time when children are likely to be still watching television. The entire focus of the programme, the Authority observes, was sex, and although no explicit sexual activity was shown, it was implied throughout the programme. The storyline was premised on a challenge to Dharma and Greg to have sex in a public place. Ultimately they succeeded in responding to the challenge, but not before they had witnessed Greg’s parents also having sex in a public place.

The Authority notes TVNZ’s acknowledgment that the content was more suited to adults, and its argument that the PGR classification clearly indicated to parents and caregivers that they should supervise their children’s viewing. On that basis, TVNZ contended the broadcast had not breached the requirement to be mindful of children. As for the alleged breach of good taste, TVNZ responded that because of the comedy context and the fact that the sexual activity was not explicit, no breach of the standard occurred.

The Authority takes seriously its responsibility under the Broadcasting Act in relation to the protection of children (s.21(1)(e)(i)). As part of the research project it conducted when it reviewed the Pay Television Code of Broadcasting Practice in 1997, the Authority sought parents’ views on what they considered to be suitable themes for children in their care. Of the parents sampled, 62% reported that their children were forbidden to watch programmes with sexual content. This question was asked in the context of a survey on adult programmes on pay television, and there was no opportunity to explore whether there were concerns about programmes broadcast on free to air television during the early evening. In the Authority’s view, it is reasonable to that a majority of parents do not wish their children, particularly those under 12 years of age, to be exposed to adult themes at 7.30pm.

The Authority notes that under standard G12, a broadcaster is required to be mindful of the effect of any programme on children during their normally accepted viewing hours. It observes that the sole theme of the episode complained about was sex. References to sex were direct as well as oblique. At the show’s conclusion, viewers were invited to believe that two couples had had sex in a public place, although no explicit visuals were shown. The question for the Authority is whether that was appropriate subject matter for a programme which attracted a young viewing audience at 7.30pm. It takes into account that the broadcast was on TV2, a channel which particularly targets younger viewers, and that it followed immediately after Shortland Street, which claims a wide following in that age group. Reference to viewing figures for that particular episode reveals that among New Zealanders aged 5–14, 20% were watching the programme.

The Authority is divided in its decision. On the basis that the programme attracts a large proportion of younger viewers, a majority of the Authority concludes that TVNZ had not demonstrated that it was mindful that the subject matter was not suitable for them. While it acknowledges that a PGR classification alerts parents and caregivers that they should supervise their children’s viewing, it does not consider that it gives a broadcaster licence to screen material with solely adult themes in the early evening. The majority upholds the complaint that standard G12 was breached.

Following the same reasoning, the majority also upholds the complaint that standard G8 was breached. It considers that the content of the episode was more suited to an adult timeslot and should have been classified accordingly, and broadcast later in the evening.

The minority disagrees. In its view, the programme was correctly classified as being suitable for children under the guidance of adults. Although it acknowledges that the subject matter was adult, it finds that the light-hearted and humorous context in which it was presented ensured that no standards were breached. In addition, it notes that there was no explicit sexual activity shown. It therefore declines to uphold the complaint that standards G8 and G12 were breached.

Finally the Authority deals with the complaint that standard G2 was breached. It decides to subsume this aspect of the complaint under standards G12 and G8, noting that no issue of good taste would have arisen had the programme been classified differently and scheduled later in the evening.

In concluding the Authority notes that it does not wish to be drawn into a debate within the context of this complaint about the question of whether standards of propriety are eroding. It deals with the issues on a case by case basis.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of an episode of Dharma and Greg on TV2 on 4 November 1998 at 7.30pm breached standards G8 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13 and s.16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It makes no order on this occasion in view of the range of views expressed above.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
11 March 1999

Appendix

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

Mr Davies’ Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 11 November 1998

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 27 November 1998

Mr Davies’ Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 24 December 1998

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 12 January 1999

Mr Davies’ Final Comment – 18 January 1999