BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A skit called "DD Cup" which imitated the music style and video technique of the

group "ZZ Top" was included on Channel 2's comedy programme Hale and Pace

broadcast at 9.30pm on August 18.

Mr Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item

was not a parody but gratuitous self indulgence which, as it emphasised the poor taste

and the sexual exploitation of women in ZZ Top's music and videos, breached the

broadcasting standards.

Maintaining that the item was a bawdy parody which was acceptable in the context in

which it was broadcast and that the standards had not been breached, TVNZ declined

to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, Mr Smits referred his

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 two full Hale and Pace programmes - one

of which included 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.

The style of a ZZ Top music video was imitated in a Hale and Pace skit called "DD

Cup". Mr Smits, the complainant, alleged that the skit was an exaggerated version of

the ZZ Top style which could demean women. He complained to TVNZ that the

parody was a failure and that the self-indulgent skit which included a dismembered

woman and focussed on women's genital areas, breasts and legs was in fact

pornographic.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G13 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. They require broadcasters (excluding the inapplicable

paragraphs (i) and (ii) of standard G13):

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.

G13  To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior or is likely to encourage discrimination against any section of the

community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupation status,

sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political

belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of

material which is:

...

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

Explaining that Hale and Pace sometimes lampooned important moral principles in

"quite an outrageous fashion", TVNZ maintained that the skit, rather than demeaning

women, satirised the type of music video which displayed such behaviour. With

reference to standard G2, TVNZ pointed to the context which included the well-

established satirical nature of the programme and the hour of the broadcast and argued

that the standard had not been breached. Standard G13 had not been contravened,

TVNZ added, as the satirical item was not only exempt under para G13(iii) but, in

addition, women would not be thought less of given the highly exaggerated manner of

the comedy sketch.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Smits argued that the skit was

neither parody nor was it satirical. The broadcast of the item performed by "3rd-rate

hacks", he said, showed that TVNZ was soft on pornography which objectified

women. He wrote:

I want to make it quite clear that my interpretation is that there was no parody

of ZZ Top – they were not ridiculed. It was clearly and unambiguously

(opinion) a vehicle to degrade and demean women.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ disagreed with Mr Smits' interpretation of the

word parody, offering as an alternative the suggestion:

... that the essential elements of a parody are that the person or persons being

parodied are recognisable, and that their characteristics are imitated in such a

way as to highlight in humorous fashion whatever it is that makes them

distinctive. Ridicule is not usually part of the process.

TVNZ also disputed Mr Smits' description of the abilities of Hale and Pace and

stated that their humour, although both "visually and verbally bawdy", was

acceptable for broadcast at 9.30pm. In his final comment, Mr Smits maintained that

the skit was not acceptable.

In dealing with the complaint, the Authority was required to decide whether the item

involved self-indulgence – as Mr Smits maintained – or was a parody as TVNZ argued.

It decided to adopt the Concise Oxford definition of parody which is:

a humorous exaggerated imitation of an author, literary work, style etc.

On the basis that the style used in the "DD Cup" sketch was clearly that of ZZ Top

but was an exaggeration which was humorous, the Authority had no hesitation in

deciding that the item was a parody. Indeed the Authority considered that the skit

not only made fun of ZZ Top but it pointed out the banality of the ZZ Top style

which involved the demeaning of women.

When considering whether the "bawdy" skit breached the good taste and decency in

context requirement in standard G2, the Authority noted that it was unable – without

very careful viewing and repeated listening – to pick up some of the visual and verbal

references which Mr Smits maintained were contained in the lyrics of the song. For

most viewers, the Authority decided that there was no material which would be

unacceptable in the context of a comedy routine. Standard G2, it concluded, was not

contravened.

The Authority agreed with TVNZ that the broadcast was exempt from the

requirements of standard G13 because of paragraph (iii) and further was of the

opinion that the message contained in the item discouraged sexism rather than

promoted it.

For the above reasons, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
24 November 1994

Appendix

Mr Smits' Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 20 August 1994

Mr Phillip Smits of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

"DD Cup" skit on the programme Hale and Pace broadcast on Channel 2 at 9.30pm

on 18 August. The item, he said, breached the requirement for good taste and

decency.

Mr Smits pointed out that the skit was supposed to be a "take-off" of ZZ Top music

videos but, he said, it amounted to gratuitous self indulgence rather than parody and

involved the demeaning and offensive depictions of women.

He described the use of a "topless" woman, who was literally dismembered, as

inhumane. Another sequence involved a woman "going down" on two men and the

lyrics of the song being sung by them referred to "blowing". Other shots emphasised

women's genital area or their breasts.

Denying that the item was funny in any way, Mr Smits concluded:

I don't care where its from, I don't care that it was in an Ôadult timeslot'. I

don't care if the programme is described or classified as a Ôcomedy show'. It

was arguably offensive - I contend that this item was pornographic (in

technique) and as such was not comedy.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 23 September 1994

TVNZ advised Mr Smits that it had assessed his complaint about the Hale and Pace

sketch, which lampooned the ZZ Top group's music and its videos, under standards

G1 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ explained that the humour employed in the skit was typical of Hale and Pace

where nothing was regarded as sacred. It continued:

Indeed the series depends for much of its laughter on the way it lampoons in

often quite outrageous fashion, aspects of life which many might regard as being

the basis for important moral principles.

TVNZ also wrote:

We recognise your concerns about the portrayal of women but suggest that this

skit, rather than itself demeaning women, in fact satirises the type of music

videos that could be accused of such behaviour. It is a well known ploy, is it

not, to parody a situation in order to draw attention to its shortcomings?

Dealing with the alleged breach of the standards, TVNZ maintained that standard G2

had not been contravened by the broadcast of the skit after 9.30pm in a well

established satirical programme. With regard to standard G13, TV3 said that women

were not treated as inferior given the "highly exaggerated manner" in which they had

been portrayed, and besides, exemption (iii) to the standard applied.

Expressing regret that Mr Smits was offended, TVNZ declined to uphold the

complaint.

Mr Smits' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 2 October 1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Smits referred his complaint to the

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

Mr Smits explained the central reason for his dissatisfaction:

TVNZ have misinterpreted my complaint. They say ZZ Top degrade and

exploit women but the skit didn't.

I say the "skit" did exactly the same thing, only more so.

Explaining that he accepted that people should not be thin-skinned when sensitive

topics were dealt with humorously, he referred to such magazines as Playboy and

Penthouse and argued nevertheless that some humorous material had an underlying

agenda of subordination.

In contrast to the approach taken by TVNZ, he maintained that the item was neither

satire nor a parody. He also maintained that the programme involved "3rd-rate hacks"

who used dubious material. He argued that the skit should not have been broadcast

but was not surprised that it had as, he insisted:

TVNZ are "soft" on pornography.

He concluded by repeating his complaint that the item was not a parody but a vehicle

to degrade and demean women.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 10 October 1994

TVNZ began by agreeing with Mr Smits that they differed in their definition of

"parody". Mr Smits had implied that to parody was to ridicule but:

We would suggest that the essential elements of a parody are that the person or

persons being parodied are recognisable, and that their characteristics are

imitated in such a way as to highlight in humorous fashion whatever it is that

makes them distinctive. Ridicule is not usually part of the process.

Followers of ZZ Top, it continued, would have recognised the band and the type of

music videos it produced.

TVNZ disagreed with Mr Smits' subjective opinion about the comedy team, adding

that the long-running series had drawn few complaints. It described the series:

We do not pretend that the series is not at times (even frequently) irreverent,

and both visually and verbally bawdy, but the humour is kept within bounds

and is not, in our view, unsuitable for audiences watching at 9.30pm at night.

(In case Mr Smits should leap upon the word "bawdy", we use it in the sense of

being just a little bit "naughty"!)

In the context of the well-established nature of the British comedy of the sort used,

TVNZ maintained that the standards were not breached.

Mr Smits' Final Comment - 18 October 1994

In his comment in response to TVNZ, Mr Smits accepted that some viewers might

find the portrayal "wacky" but that did not mean it might not be offensive and

disgusting to others.

Mr Smits commented that he did not usually complain about comedy. Just because

the preceding and following items were not in breach, he added, did not mean that the

item complained about was acceptable. He also maintained that the context argument

was irrelevant as the item which objectified and denigrated women was unacceptable

in any context.