BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A practical joke in which a man in a straitjacket was seen asking passers-by for help in

releasing him, featured in a segment of Just Kidding broadcast at 7.30pm on TV2 on 1

March. When released, he leapt about laughing hysterically. Just Kidding is a light-

hearted show broadcast weekly which uses an international selection of practical

jokes.

Ms Chapman complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

shot had portrayed mentally ill people in a denigratory manner and as inherently

inferior.

Maintaining that the passers-by and not the figure in the straitjacket were the victims

of a humorous practical joke and that the figure in the straitjacket was obviously an

object of fantasy, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with

TVNZ's response, Ms Chapman referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

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

For the reasons 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.

A skit featuring a man tied up in a straitjacket while sitting on a seat outside a shop

was shown on Just Kidding broadcast on TV2 at 7.30pm.

The man asked passers-by to release him and, when they did, he jumped about and

cackled hysterically. Just Kidding used the format devised for Candid Camera and

the viewers, unlike the spectators shown on screen, know that a practical joke is

taking place.

Ms Chapman complained that the item portrayed psychiatric patients as inherently

inferior and had encouraged discrimination against them. The skit was introduced to

viewers as involving an "escaped lunatic" which, Ms Chapman wrote, was insensitive

and, together with the use of an obsolete method of restraint, endorsed the ignorance

of many about psychiatric illness.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G13 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

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, occupational 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:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current

affairs programme, or

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

Pointing to the use by Just Kidding of an international selection of televised practical

jokes, TVNZ emphasised the importance of humour to any culture. It explained that

the passers-by – ordinary members of the community – were the butt of the humour in

the skit complained about and not the figure in the straitjacket.

TVNZ also argued that the use of a straitjacket and the term "lunatic", because they

were outmoded, took the skit beyond the realm of reality into the world of fantasy.

When she referred her complaint to the Authority, Ms Chapman disagreed with

TVNZ about the extent of the general level of knowledge about psychiatric disorders

within the community and, in addition, maintained that it was both questionable and

disturbing that a broadcaster would exploit people with mental illness "in order to gain

a few laughs".

In response, TVNZ repeated its belief that the viewers were amused by the

bewilderment displayed by the passers-by and not by the actor wearing the

straitjacket. There was, it stated, "no slur against people with mental illness".

After examining the complaint, the Authority concluded that it had not involved a

breach of standard G13. It reached this decision on the basis of the points advanced

by TVNZ – ie that because the word "lunatic" and the straitjacket were archaic the

skit moved beyond the confines of reality. The word "lunatic", for example, is now

usually associated with "the lunatic fringe" – ie extremists who need not be mentally

disordered.

The bewilderment displayed by some of the passers-by, the Authority considered,

was more than likely to be based on incomprehension or images of stocks and other

such antiquated equipment rather than the association of the straitjacketed man with

mental illness or psychiatric hospitals.

Although the complaint was not upheld because of the distance between fact and

fiction in this situation, the Authority nevertheless understood the basis for the

complaint. Had the standard merely required "sensitivity" for example, then the

complaint might well have been upheld. Despite the archaic nature of the term

"lunatic" and the straitjacket, connotations associated with them persist within the

community. It was not unreasonable to advance an argument that the skit mocked the

mentally ill and the Authority was disappointed at the questionable sensitivity

displayed by TVNZ when it chose that particular item from what must be a wide

variety of more wholesome practical tricks.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
18 May 1995

Appendix

Ms Chapman's Formal Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 7 March

1995

Ms Janet Chapman of New Plymouth complained to Television New Zealand Ltd

about an item broadcast on the programme Just Kidding on TV2 on 1 March at

7.30pm.

The segment in question, Ms Chapman reported, showed a man in a straitjacket

asking people on the street to release him. When some people obliged, she said, he

proceeded to leap randomly around the place cackling and laughing hysterically. Prior

to the item being aired, Ms Chapman stated, the presenter said:

How would you feel if you were to find a "Lunatic" running around the streets

asking for help.

Ms Chapman complained that the item had portrayed people with psychiatric

illnesses as inherently inferior and had encouraged discrimination against the mentally

ill in the community and accordingly had breached standard G13 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Ms Chapman believed that to use the term "lunatic" to describe a person with a

mental illness was insensitive and demonstrated a lack of knowledge and

understanding of mental illness. She also pointed out that straitjackets were an

outdated method of therapy that could trigger unpleasant memories for some New

Zealanders.

The behaviour of the so-called "lunatic", she continued, was not typical of a person

with a mental illness and, she added, the item endorsed the ignorant view, held by a

majority of the population, that all people with psychiatric disabilities were lunatics

who required restraining and who behaved in the manner portrayed in the item. She

concluded by stating that this view was inaccurate, insensitive, incorrect and

offensive.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 30 March 1995

TVNZ advised Ms Chapman that it had considered her formal complaint in the

context of Standard G13 of the Television Programme Standards.

TVNZ noted that Just Kidding was a light-hearted show, comprising an international

selection of televised practical jokes which some viewers found uncomfortable to

watch and others found extremely funny.

Noting that the role of humour and laughter was important in our culture, TVNZ said

that it had to be very careful when considering any move which might seem to

circumscribe where humorists can go to gain their material and, it added, a culture

which lacked the ability to laugh at itself would be a dreary existence indeed.

TVNZ explained that the intended butt of the humour in most of the practical jokes

was the ordinary member of the public who found him or herself unwittingly caught

up in a strange and unreal situation. In this case, it continued, the viewers would have

laughed at the passers-by and not at the figure in the straitjacket.

Observing that the figure in the straitjacket was far removed from reality and that no

mentally disturbed person would be found on the street in a straitjacket or behaving in

the manner that the actor did, TVNZ said it was made clear, both in the introduction

("we set up our next actor ...."), and in the skit itself, that this was a completely bogus

situation intended only to subject the "victims" to a humorous practical joke.

TVNZ did not believe that the skit in any way represented the mentally ill as

inherently inferior or that it had discriminated against them and, in addition, alluded to

clause (iii) of the standard which specifically allows for the context of a humorous

work.

Regarding the word "lunatic", TVNZ stated that it took the view that the word in fact

further removed the skit from the realm of mental illness as it underlined the fantasy

nature of the situation. It commented:

There are no such things as "escaped lunatics"!

TVNZ then noted that the complainant had taken the word "lunatic" specifically to

mean someone who was mentally ill. It suggested that this was a redundant definition

and referred to a recent definition which defined "lunatic" as being "a person whose

actions and manner are marred by extreme eccentricity or recklessness or are gaily or

lightheartedly mad, frivolous, eccentric etc".

In conclusion, TVNZ said this was the sort of character the presenter was trying to

conjure up to set the scene for the humour which followed. While TVNZ was sorry

the complainant was upset by the item, it did not believe that its screening was a

breach of the standards.

Ms Chapman's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 5 April

1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Ms Chapman referred her complaint to the

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

Ms Chapman contested TVNZ's claim that people were laughing at the members of

the public passing by and not the man in the straitjacket and added that even if that

was the case, the item was still in extremely poor taste. She wrote:

It is disturbing to think that TVNZ would exploit people with mental illness,

whether in history or present day, in order to gain a few laughs.

The complainant also challenged TVNZ's belief that it was clear to viewers that the

man in the straitjacket was an actor and not a "lunatic", adding:

TVNZ and its producers may have the privilege of inside information (such as

knowing this was a hoax) and analysis of their particular decisions, however this

is something not all of us are privy to.

Ms Chapman said that she could readily accept that there was no intention on the

part of the broadcaster to discriminate against those with mental illness but said that

the average viewer often did not share the same insight and/or awareness of such

issues and responded only to what they were presented with.

She concluded by stating that in her opinion TVNZ had breached the standards and

was using semantics and unsound logic to defend itself.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 12 April 1995

As for the complainant's concern that the straitjacket drew attention to the

"treatment" of the mentally ill, TVNZ contended that the passers-by were bewildered

by the unusual situation with which they were confronted and that:

There is no slur against people suffering mental illness.

It added:

We again emphasis that extreme care must be taken in circumscribing humour

because of the very important part laughter plays in all our lives.

TVNZ also stated that viewers were advised that an actor was taking part and that

bewilderment was the reason for the varying reactions of the passers-by. It

concluded:

TVNZ did not, as Ms Chapman claimed, exploit people with mental illness -

nor would it dream of doing so.

Ms Chapman's Final Comment - 20 April 1995

Acknowledging that "viewers" would be well aware of the hoax nature of the

situation, Ms Chapman said her concern focussed on the "victims" who might not

only have experienced fear but might also have had their stereotypes of mentally ill

people "inaccurately reinforced". TVNZ's comments, she maintained, were ill-

informed and purely subjective. Pointing out that she had been involved in the mental

health field for over seven years, she said her clients and colleagues shared her views.

TVNZ, she said, should have discussed the skit with relevant groups before screening

it.

As for TVNZ's point that the skit should be seen within the context of the

programme

overall, Ms Chapman said it indicated that TVNZ's concern that the complaint about

the skit, if viewed alone, might be upheld. She urged the Authority to keep that point

in mind when reaching its decision.