BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The House on Grey Street was the title of the documentary broadcast on Television One at

8.35pm on Tuesday 8 February. The programme dealt with the intellectually handicapped

and focussed on a group of four men who were living together in a house in the

community.

Mr Soeteman complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the language included in

the broadcast. The repeated use of the word "fuck", he said, was extremely offensive and

breached the broadcasting standard requirement for good taste.

Pointing out the programme was broadcast in "AO" time and had been preceded by a

warning about the language used, TVNZ said that the use of the word "fuck" on three

occasions by one of the men was included to show his reaction to frustration. Dissatisfied

with TVNZ's response, Mr Soeteman referred to the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined 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 has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

Mr Adolf Soeteman complained to TVNZ about the offensive language contained in the

documentary, The House on Grey Street, broadcast on Television One at 8.35pm on 8

February. The word "fuck", repeated on a number of occasions, he said, breached the

standard which states that broadcasters must observe good taste and decency. He

acknowledged that the programme was broadcast in "AO" time but he did not accept that

the time or the classification of the broadcast was an excuse for "foul language".

TVNZ 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.

The programme, it continued, dealt with a group of four intellectually handicapped men

who lived together in a house in the community. It was designed to overcome the

prejudice against the intellectually handicapped and to demonstrate that each of the four

men had a personality of his own.

One of the men had used the word complained about on three occasions and, TVNZ stated,

the programme's commentary reported that this person was not dangerous but one whose

frustration with his handicap found expression in the use of bad language.

TVNZ made a number of other points including the following:

It was noted that on both occasions in the programme when Stefan lapsed into

swearing he was reproved – first by the producer who is heard to say "you're

swearing again" – and then by the caregiver.

...

The removal of the words would also seem to perpetuate the lie that there are no

problems at all. The documentary wanted to show that there are problems and

adjustments to be made, not only by the men coming out of the institutions but

also by the general public, not least the neighbours in Grey Street who know the

reality of the situation.

It concluded its report to Mr Soeteman by apologising for the offence that had been caused

by the use of the language.

When dealing with a complaint about the language used in a broadcast, the Authority, as

required by standard G2, examines the context in which it is used. The Authority

considered that the following aspects of context were relevant to this complaint:

- the broadcast was in "AO" time

- the broadcast was introduced with a warning about language

- the subject of the documentary which dealt with four intellectually

  handicapped men who, after living in institutions, were now living within

  the community

- the explanations given by the broadcaster for the inclusion of the language

  in the broadcast

- the limited number of occasions when the language was used

- the use of the language was essential to portray the personality of one of the

  men featured

- disapproval was expressed in the broadcast at the use of the language.

The Authority also took account of its comprehensive public opinion survey in 1993 on

good taste and decency matters. In that survey, coarse language was clearly identified as

causing offence to a significant number of people. However, the level of offensiveness was

considerably reduced when it occurred in "AO" viewing time and when its use was integral

to the story or event shown. Taking that factor into consideration in addition to the

relevant aspects listed above relating to context, the Authority accepted that the language

in the programme complained about, having regard to its context, was not in breach of

standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
9 May 1994

Appendix

Mr Soeteman's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited

In a letter dated 15 February 1994, Mr Adolf Soeteman of Auckland complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about the broadcast of The House on Grey Street on Television

One at 8.35pm on Tuesday 8 February.

He maintained that the broadcast of the word "fuck", repeated on a number of occasions,

breached the broadcasting standard requiring good taste and decency. Describing the

word as "extremely offensive", he argued that it should not be broadcast on public

television at any time.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint

TVNZ advised Mr Soeteman of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter dated 3

March 1994.

It began by explaining that the documentary dealt with the intellectually handicapped and

was designed to overcome prejudice against them. It had attempted to do this by showing

that a group of four intellectually handicapped men living in a house in the community

each had a personality of his own.

Assessing the complaint against standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TVNZ said that the programme was broadcast in "AO" time and had been

preceded with a warning about language. During the broadcast one of the men, Stefan,

had used the word "fuck" on three occasions and, TVNZ reported, the item's narration had

explained that prejudice against the intellectually handicapped was often based on such

things as the language they used. During the documentary, however, Stefan was shown

sympathetically and as a person "whose frustration at his handicap finds expression in the

use of bad language". TVNZ stated:

It was noted that on both occasions in the programme when Stefan lapsed into

swearing he was reproved - first by the producer who is heard to say "you're

swearing again", and then by the caregiver.

It reported:

In the view of the [Complaints] Committee, the removal of the three uses of the

word "fuck" would seriously distort the audience's perception of Stefan's personality.

The language is Stefan and tells the viewers a lot about the sort of chap he is, and

his intellectual handicap.

Noting that the removal of the language would make nonsense of some of the following

scenes which dealt with Stefan's odd behaviour, TVNZ maintained that the use of the

language was not gratuitous but essential in context.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Soeteman's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, in a letter dated 8 March 1993, Mr Soeteman referred

the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act for investigation and review.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint. Its

letter is dated 11 March 1994 and TVNZ, in its response dated 29 March, emphasised the

context in which the language had been used.

Mr Soeteman's Final Comment to the Authority

Mr Soeteman was sent a copy of TVNZ's response and asked if he wished to comment. He

did not reply.