BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A trailer (promo) preceding a discussion about the Hero Gay and Lesbian Parade in

Auckland broadcast on TV3's 3 National News at about 6.15pm on 21 February

showed near naked men and women dancing and a woman whose naked breasts had

black lines drawn on them.

Mr Copeland complained that the item, which he claimed included two women

apparently participating in a lesbian act, breached the broadcasting standards requiring

good taste and decency and the protection of children.

Arguing that the three women shown were taking part in modern dance and that the

brief item had been informative about the forthcoming discussion between the

parade's organisers and the Christian Heritage Party, TV3 declined to uphold the

complaint.

Mr Copeland initially referred the complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989 as TV3 failed to respond within 60 working days. After

receiving the late response, he referred the complaint under s.8(1)(a) of the Act as he

was dissatisfied with TV3's decision.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have seen both the footage included in the promo

complained about and, at TV3's suggestion, the full news item about the Hero Parade,

and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice,

the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

A promo about an upcoming item was screened about 6.15pm during 3 National News

on 21 February 1994 and contained footage of the annual Hero Parade in Auckland.

Semi-naked men and women were seen dancing and cavorting on floats in an

uninhibited display of exuberance. Mr Copeland complained about two images, one

which he described as a lesbian act involving two women who appeared to be near-

naked and the other related to a topless woman, whose breasts had black lines painted

around them, who was dancing. He objected to the portrayal of these images in a

promo screened during the news, noting that there was no warning given and that all

viewers, including children, would have been confronted with the pictures.

Mr Copeland listed three grounds for his objection to the footage. First he alleged the

material was in breach of the standard requiring good taste and decency, secondly it

was shown during a time when children would be watching and thirdly, it lacked a

warning to viewers. Mr Copeland lodged his complaint within the statutory time

limit and when TV3 failed to respond within 60 working days, he referred the

complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. After

receiving a late response from TV3, he then referred the complaint under s.8(1)(a)

since he was dissatisfied with the response from TV3. In his referral to the

Authority, Mr Copeland raised standards V12, V16 and V17 in addition to the two

cited below.

TV3 reported that it assessed the complaint under the following standards of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which 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.

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing times.

Explaining that the shots were used to illustrate the debate about whether or not

Queen Street was a suitable venue for the Hero Parade, TV3 defended their inclusion,

noting that the five seconds of footage on the parade was followed by a lengthy studio

debate between the organisers of the debate and the Christian Heritage Party. TV3

also noted that what Mr Copeland described as a "lesbian act" was in fact a modern

dance sequence on one of the many floats. It denied that it portrayed a lesbian act,

arguing that it was simply part of the overall theatrical production that is a

characteristic of the Hero Parade. Similarly, the shot of the woman with the painted

breasts was, according to TV3, part of a modern dance the theme of which was

associated with Greek mythology.

While the Authority found these explanations somewhat questionable, it turned its

attention first to the matter of TV3's failure to notify the complainant of its decision

within 60 working days as specified in s.8(1)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It

observed that the dissatisfaction felt by many complainants about the efficacy of the

formal complaints system is exacerbated when their complaint appears to be ignored

by the broadcaster. The delay was inexcusable, and although TV3 apparently

apologised to Mr Copeland directly, no explanation was given to the Authority as to

what occasioned that delay. Although the Authority cannot initiate proceedings when

a broadcaster fails to meet the statutory time limits, it has decided that in future it will

advise the Ministry of Commerce of such breaches.

Turning to the substance of the complaint, the Authority agreed with Mr Copeland

that many viewers would have found offensive the portrayal of the events in the Hero

Parade. However, the Authority did not interpret the scene which showed two

"green-painted" women as the portrayal of a lesbian act and did not consider that the

brief shot of the woman with the painted breasts breached standard G2. It considered

that given the brevity of the item, in the context of setting the scene for the studio

debate, the scenes gave viewers an idea of what the parade contained and were not

indecent in that context.

Furthermore although the Authority recognised that some parents would prefer that

their children not see such scenes on television during family viewing time, it decided

again, that given the brevity of the item and the alternative interpretation of the

actions, the broadcast did not breach standard G12. Although it agreed with Mr

Copeland that broadcasters should always be mindful of the effect of any programme

on children during family viewing times, the Authority declined to uphold the

complaint that this item was in breach of standard G2 or standard G12 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority did not determine whether standards V12, V16 and V17 were breached

by the item, since these standards were not raised in the original complaint to the

broadcaster. However, the Authority records that even had they been raised at that

stage, they would have been unlikely to be applicable since they refer to the portrayal

of violence.

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

that the item on 3 National News broadcast by TV3 on 21 February 1994 was in

breach of standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
18 August 1994

Appendix

Mr Copeland's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited

In a letter dated 23 February 1994, Mr Gordon Copeland of Wellington complained to

TV3 Network Services Ltd about the trailer broadcast during 3 National News, at

about 6.15pm on Monday 21 February, advising that the Ralston segment of the news

would deal with objections to the Hero Gay and Lesbian Parade staged in Auckland

during the weekend.

Mr Copeland said the complaint focussed on the visuals accompanying the trailer as it

showed, first, two near-naked women painted green involved in a lesbian act and,

secondly, a woman dancing topless with black lines drawn around her breasts. The

second image, he added, was shown again as part of the lead-in to the Ralston

segment.

Reporting that he had lodged an objection by telephone at the time of the broadcast,

Mr Copeland expressed "outrage and anger" that such scenes should be screened

without warning during a news broadcast. He alleged breaches of the standards for

three reasons.

a) the item was a gross breach of the good taste and decency requirement;

b) the item failed to protect children as it showed a parade which parents

would probably have not allowed their children to attend;

c) the item was not preceded by a warning.

Mr Copeland's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Although TV3 acknowledged the complaint, Mr Copeland referred the matter to the

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

60 working days (on 31 May 1994) as he had not received the broadcaster's formal

response to the complaint.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint

TV3 was advised by Mr Copeland directly and by the Authority that the matter had

been referred to the Authority under s.8(1)(b). Subsequently, TV3 advised Mr

Copeland of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter dated 15 June 1994.

Having assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint. It reported that the

parade took place at about 8.00pm on a public street watched by about 25,000

people.

The alleged "lesbian act", TV3 continued, was a modern dance sequence and part of

the theatrical production of the Hero Parade. The topless woman was apparently

involved in a modern dance representation of Greek mythology.

TV3 explained that the brief sequences were designed to show viewers the sort of

parade which had taken place and was later followed by a studio debate between the

organisers of the Parade and the leader of the Christian Heritage Party. It was, TV3

added, designed to inform and not to titillate.

In a separate letter to Mr Copeland, also dated 15 June 1994, TV3 explained that it

had overlooked advising him of the Complaints Committee's decision made at its

meeting on 29 March. It expressed its apologies for failing to comply with the

statutory time limits.

Mr Copeland's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, in a letter dated 21 June 1994, Mr Copeland

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

Act. TV3 had endeavoured, he said, "to defend the indefensible".

He made seven points.

1) The impression given during the broadcast was that the items were filmed at

the party after the parade rather than during the parade itself.

2) Standards V12, V16 and V17 were directly relevant in addition to standards G2

and G12.

3) In view of the requirements in standards V12 and V17, from which he cited,

the programme should have been scheduled later in the evening.

4) The number of viewers at the parade (25,000 in a city approaching 1,000,000)

meant that the number of children watchers would have been small. He added:

I believe that the great majority of New Zealand parents would take

care to ensure that their children were not in the vicinity of Queen

Street that evening.

Mr Copeland emphasised that the main point of his complaint was the

broadcast of the shots he complained about at 6.15pm - a time, when

potentially, "all of the nation's children could be watching". Shots of the

parade from a distance, he argued, would have been adequate as a basis for the

studio discussion.

5) He left it with the Authority to decide whether the sequence complained about

was a lesbian act or a modern dance sequence.

6) He trusted that TV3 would not avoid accountability because of its late

response to his complaint.

7) Mr Copeland concluded:

As a grandfather of 5 children between the ages of 2 and 8, I repeat that

I am outraged and extremely angry that the editorial decision was taken

by TV3 to screen these shots at 6.15 in the evening to the children of

this nation. I believe that decision was clearly wrong and is

unjustifiable.

TV3's Response to the Authority

When advising Mr Copeland of its Complaints Committee's decision and apologising

for the delay, TV3 sent the Authority a copy of a tape of the item. TV3 explained

that the sort of item complained about - a visual promo leading to a commercial break -

was not retained in its library but that it had found a copy of this specific item. TV3

continued:

We have also enclosed a copy of the news story that showed within 3 National

News to give the Authority some context of the evening's bulletin which

included several mentions of the Hero Parade.

There were four mentions of the Hero Parade: the news item; a promo for the later

debate; a short (20 - 25 second) re-cap; and Mr Ralston's interview with the leader of

the Christian Heritage Party.

TV3's Response to the Authority

After Mr Copeland referred the complaint (under s.8(1)(a)) on the basis of his

dissatisfaction with TV3's decision, the Authority, as is its practice, sought the

broadcaster's response. Its letter is dated 24 June 1994 and TV3's reply, 26 July.

TV3 repeated that it stood by its original decision but made some additional

comments. It noted that the parade took place at 8pm in a public place and was

watched by about 25,000 people. A large number of police were present, but there

were no arrests for indecency.

TV3 observed that the shots were used to illustrate a major debate in Auckland over

whether Queen Street was a suitable venue for the Hero parade. It added that it had

made a deliberate decision to use the shots because they conveyed the spirit of the

Hero Festival "without breaching standards, given their short duration and in the

context of the story that was about to follow."

Further, TV3 continued, the 5 seconds of film was followed by a lengthy studio

debate between the organisers of the event and the CHP.

TV3 drew to the Authority's attention its decision No 31/94 in which it accepted

TVNZ's argument (when discussing its coverage of the Hero parade) that it would

have been "misleading and dishonest" to have shown the parade as if it were without

controversy and devoid of exhibitionism. Like TVNZ, TV3 reported that it had

difficulty in gaining pictures because many of those taking part in the parade were

naked.

Responding to Mr Copeland's letter of 21 June, TV3 argued that it was immaterial

where the shots were taken, since they were in a public place. Further, it did not

believe standards V12, V16 and V17 were relevant, as they deal specifically with

violence, which was not an issue in this complaint.

Mr Copeland's Final Comment to the Authority

When asked to make a brief final comment, in a letter dated 1 August 1994 Mr

Copeland maintained that TV3 had failed to note that the substance of his complaint

was that standard G12 was breached.

He reported that he had carefully re-read TV3's letters and noted that the word

"children" only appeared once and that it had made no attempt to defend its action in

terms of that standard. He also found it unbelievable that standards V16 and V17

were found to be irrelevant when they were headed Protection of Children.

Mr Copeland added two further comments. First he noted that the coverage by

TVNZ of the Hero Parade exhibited a much higher standard and very different

images. Secondly he enclosed an article from The Evening Post which dealt with

television's responsibility to children in the way it presents images on the early

evening news.