BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Black Magic crew member Rick Dodson said "fuck" while being interviewed during

the live broadcast on TV1 of the celebrations in San Diego after Team New Zealand

won the America's Cup. The comment was broadcast in New Zealand at about

1.30pm on Sunday 14 May 1995.

Mr Campbell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the use of the word

breached the good taste and decency standard. As it was irresponsible to interview a

semi-inebriated person on live television, he wrote, the context did not excuse the

broadcast.

While acknowledging that the word should not have been used, as its reporter had told

the crew member during the broadcast, TVNZ said that the reason for the celebration,

and the euphoria both in San Diego and New Zealand, excused its use on this occasion.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Campbell 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.

The celebrations in San Diego after Team New Zealand had won the America's Cup

were broadcast "live" by TVNZ. The interview with crew member Rick Dodson was

affected by a camera fault in San Diego, but the interview quite clearly included the

crew member's use of the word "fuck". The broadcast took place in New Zealand at

about 1.30pm on Sunday 14 May.

Mr Campbell complained to TVNZ that the use of the word breached the standard

which required good taste and decency in the use of language. Because the interviewee

by his own admission was inebriated, he asked why the interview was conducted

without including some delay process. Partying in San Diego and New Zealand, he

added, did not justify the use of the "highly offensive word".

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the nominated standard 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.

TVNZ emphasised that during the live broadcast an effort had been made to interview

as many people as possible who had been involved in the challenge. It considered that

the risk of unsavoury language or behaviour during a live broadcast was "a relatively

small price" for showing viewers pictures of events as they actually happened

anywhere in the world. It also noted the interviewer advised the interviewee that he

should not have used the word.

In view of the requirement in standard G2 to take context into account, TVNZ

pointed out that the broadcast occurred during a situation – an euphoric party in San

Diego – over which it had very little control. There had been no other complaints

either by letter or telephone and, TVNZ argued, the broadcast, given its context, had

not breached the standards.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Campbell advanced the

proposition that if such language could be expected, then it should be mandatory for

such broadcasts to include a warning to viewers that "Coarse Language Can be

Expected".

In response, TVNZ said that it did not endorse the use of the word "fuck" but:

... that in the very unusual context of a live telecast at a moment of national

euphoria this expression did not go beyond the expectations of the viewing

audience.

The Authority agreed with TVNZ and decided that, given the unusual circumstances,

the broadcast on this occasion did not breach the standards. While not supporting the

use of the word complained about, the Authority considered that it was

understandable why it had been said by the delighted, if inebriated, interviewee.

Despite declining to uphold the referral, the Authority appreciated Mr Campbell's

concern. For example, technological innovations – such as reporting from overseas live

– do not take precedence over the standards. In addition, broadcasts involving

euphoric people after they have been drinking alcohol contain the potential for

including questionable language and behaviour. Although the circumstances relating to

the present occasion were highly unusual, the Authority would expect broadcasters to

exercise more care should they decide to broadcast live from potentially volatile

situations in which the context is not so unique.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 July 1995

Appendix

Mr Campbell's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 14 May 1995

Mr D R Campbell of Papamoa complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about a

comment broadcast on TV1 after Team New Zealand's yacht had won the America's

Cup in San Diego.

At about 1.30pm in New Zealand, TVNZ's reporter asked a crew member for this

reaction and his response had included the following:

I am not allowed to use the word fuck am I?

Mr Campbell said he was offended that the word was broadcast and maintained that it

breached the standard requiring good taste.

Expressing his concern that the incident marred an otherwise good coverage of an

exciting event, he believed that controls should be put in place if it was considered

necessary to interview "semi-inebriated" people.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 23 May 1995

Reporting that the complaint had been assessed under standard G2 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ noted that the word had been used in the

context of live coverage of post-race celebrations during which many of those involved

in the challenge had been interviewed. In view of some aspects of the complaint

which referred to editing the complaint, TVNZ emphasised that the broadcast had

shown events as they had occurred. It continued:

While we would have preferred that Mr Dodson had not used the word "fuck"

during the interview, it is a constant risk during a live broadcast that unsavoury

words or behaviour may sometimes inadvertently be put to air. It is a price (a

relatively small price, we think) to pay for showing our viewers pictures of

major events as they happen rather than delaying them to a later time.

Technology is such that pictures can now be shown live from any point on

Earth, and any time a live picture is involved there is the attendant danger that

something unexpected will occur.

TVNZ also said that the interviewer was seen to tell Mr Dodson that he should not

have used the word.

Noting that standard G2 required that context be considered, TVNZ said that it had no

direct control over the live broadcast of a euphoric party. It added:

TVNZ concludes that in that context, the language used is unlikely to have

exceeded the expectations of the audience. In support of that view we note that

although our receptionists keep very detailed logs of telephone calls, and

although TVNZ receives a large volume of mail, yours appears to be only

complaint we have received concerning the use of language - that despite the fact

that over a million viewers were watching at the time.

Apologising for the offence caused, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Campbell's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26 May

1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Campbell referred his complaint to the

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

Maintaining that the use of the word "fuck" breached the standard of taste and

decency in context, Mr Campbell advanced his reasons as to why he was not satisfied

with TVNZ's decision.

First, while appreciating that the broadcast complained about was live, he maintained

that some form of control - such as a three second delay - was necessary in a risky

situation. He also questioned the degree of responsibility shown by TVNZ's staff in

San Diego in continuing with the interview with Mr Dodson after his inebriated

opening comments.

Secondly, he described TVNZ's contention that the language was acceptable in the

particular situation as abhorrent. He wrote:

I find it difficult, however, to believe that the vast majority of the viewing

audience was in the euphoric "anything goes" mood described in TVNZ's

judgment on the matter. I for my part, having enjoyed a good Mother's Day

dinner, was viewing the TV1 broadcast, with a large measure of pride and

pleasure, in the company of my wife and family. Surely there must have been

many thousands of other sober but elated viewers - probably the majority.

Mr Campbell concluded:

If, as TVNZ says, this sort of language is to be expected in these situations, and

if, as in this instance, no controls are to be imposed, either by means of warnings

to those being interviewed, or by better selection of such people, or by some

form of editing, then perhaps it should be mandatory for such broadcasts to

warn viewers that "Coarse Language Can be Expected".

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 2 June 1995

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ repeated that it would have preferred it if the

word had not been used but the situation was beyond its control. There was, it added,

always the risk of the unexpected happening during a live broadcast.

Expressing considerable doubt as to whether a delay, even if possible, would be

desirable given the essence of live television, TVNZ commented:

While we do not endorse the use of the word "fuck" we believe that in the very

unusual context of a live telecast at a moment of national euphoria this

expression did not go beyond the expectations of the viewing audience.

Such expectations are, of course, difficult to measure. However on this occasion

we do know that more than a million viewers watched the programme, and we

also know that we received no complaints about the language (formal, informal

or by telephone) other than that lodged by D R Campbell. While we do not

claim this as being a scientific survey of public attitudes in any way we do

advise that our viewers are generally not slow to make their displeasure known

when something offends them.

Mr Campbell's Final Comment - 9 June 1995

Maintaining his belief that the use of the word breached the standards - even taking

into account the unusual context - Mr Campbell argued that TVNZ's expression of

regret amounted to an acknowledgment of that point.

He was unable to explain why he was the sole complainant but thought it might be

related to the ignorance of many about the complaints process.

In concluding, he reiterated his contention that the interview was irresponsible and, in

view of the circumstances, he argued that it would have been prudent not to have

interviewed Mr Dodson. He maintained that the complaint should be upheld and

observed:

I agree with TVNZ that unsavoury words and behaviour are an inevitable risk in

live broadcasts, but the risk of unsavoury language occurring would be greatly

reduced by more responsible interviewing.