BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Drug addicts were described as unreliable and untrustworthy "junkies" in an episode

of Plainclothes broadcast by TV1 at 8.35pm on 3 May 1995.

Mr Tunnicliff complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast, by

disparaging a group of people who suffered from a medical disability, breached the

broadcasting standard which requires broadcasters not to treat any section of the

community as inferior.

Arguing that under the standards a credible storyline in a fictional police drama was

entitled to include such characters, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Tunnicliff referred his 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.

Drug addicts were described as "junkies" on an episode of Plainclothes broadcast on 3

May and, Mr Tunnicliff said, this word and phrases included in the broadcast such as

"Once a junkie, always a junkie" breached standard G13 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. Drug addiction, he continued, was recognised as "an

horrendous medical disability" and the use of the word "junkie" involved the

continued marginalisation of those with the disability. As a result, he wrote, it was

more difficult for them to escape the horror of their addiction.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the nominated standard and it 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

Emphasising that Plainclothes was a fictional drama series intended for entertainment,

TVNZ argued that some addicts committed crimes to support their habit. That was

the perspective of the senior fictional policeman portrayed and, TVNZ wrote:

From your point of view that may seem unfortunate and unfair – but a writer of

fiction is fully entitled to include a character of this sort in a dramatic scenario.

Fiction writers can legitimately go much further than that. For instance there is

nothing wrong, in a dramatic context, for a character to be portrayed as a bigoted

racist, or an obnoxious male chauvinist.

TVNZ also noted that one police character displayed considerable sympathy for

another drug addict. In conclusion, it stated that as the dialogue had been "legitimately

and effectively used in a fictional story", the standard had not been transgressed.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Tunnicliff pointed out that the

addict who TVNZ claimed was portrayed sensitively was, in fact, being used to

betray his associates. "Another negative stereotype", he observed. Maintaining that

the broadcast also breached standards G1, G2 and G6, Mr Tunnicliff enclosed a copy

of another formal complaint to TVNZ about a more recent episode of Plainclothes in

which another addict was called a "junkie" and which again portrayed people with

that disability negatively.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said that as the original complaint only referred

to standard G13, that standard alone should be considered by the Authority.

Emphasising again that Plainclothes was a fictional series, TVNZ observed:

Fiction writers would be placed in an impossible situation if their artistic licence

were to be withdrawn and replaced with a requirement to depict all manner of

peoples and their conditions in a scrupulously accurate manner. Whither all the

hospital dramas in such circumstances? Whither "Shortland Street"?

In his response to TVNZ's comment, Mr Tunnicliff enclosed a decision from TV3

when it had upheld, as a breach of standard G13, a complaint about a promo for a

20/20 item which referred to "murderers and drug addicts". TVNZ later commented

that 20/20 was a current affairs programme whereas Plainclothes was a fictional

work to which the exemption in standard G13(iii) applied.

Deciding under which standard or standards to assess the complaint was the first issue

for the Authority. On the basis that the complainant had nominated standard G13 –

and standard G13 alone – and in view of the Authority's legislative role to investigate

and review the broadcaster's decision on the original complaint, the Authority

concluded that standard G13 was the only relevant standard. It noted that Mr

Tunnicliff had made another formal complaint about a later episode of Plainclothes in

which the word "junkie" had been used and in which a breach of some other standards

had been alleged. That was the appropriate way on which a complaint under the other

standards could be assessed.

With complaints which allege a breach of standard G13, it is the Authority's practice,

first, to consider whether a section of the community has been represented as

inherently inferior or whether discrimination against them has been encouraged. If the

Authority arrives at a positive conclusion on this point, it then considers whether any

of the exemptions listed in standard G13(i), (ii) and (iii) apply.

On this occasion, TVNZ has argued that the first point need not be considered as the

reference to a "junkie" was excused under standard G13 (iii). The comments objected

to, it maintained, were made in the legitimate context of a fictional dramatic work.

Nevertheless, the Authority followed its usual practice. It accepted that the use of

the word "junkie" need not in itself contravene the requirement in standard G13.

Although "junkie" is defined in the Concise Oxford as a slang term for "a drug addict",

the Authority noted that it can be used to describe those who are apparently addicted

to some kind of behaviour, clothing or food. References to a "fast-food junkie" or a

"fitness junkie" are not necessarily pejorative.

However, even if there were discrimination under standard G13, the Authority

decided that the exemption in standard G13(iii) applied. The Authority noted that a

writer of fiction uses commonly understood stereotypes. The Authority did not

accept Mr Tunnicliff's argument that the word "junkie" was an Americanism which

was used infrequently in New Zealand. Rather, as can be seen by its extension to

other addictions, the Authority concluded that the use of the term "junkie" on

Plainclothes would be easily understandable to viewers and, consequently, its use had

occurred in the legitimate context of a dramatic programme.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 July 1995

Appendix

Mr Tunnicliff's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 4 May 1995

Mr R Tunnicliff of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

programme Plainclothes broadcast on TV1 at 8.35pm on 3 May 1995. One section of

the dialogue, Mr Tunnicliff continued, was "a vicious, protracted and largely

unnecessary condemnation of people suffering from a particularly horrendous medical

disability - drug addiction".

As drug addiction was recognised internationally as a disability, Mr Tunnicliff wrote,

the dialogue amounted to a breach of standard G13 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The dialogue complained about made such statements as

"Never trust a junkie" and "Once a junkie - always a junkie".

Mr Tunnicliff noted that people with disabilities tended to be stigmatised and the

continuing marginalisation of people with the disability of drug addiction made it more

difficult for them to ask for help.

Anticipating that TVNZ might argue that the term was used legitimately in the context

of a drama, Mr Tunnicliff believed that TVNZ should value all members of society -

not just the fully functioning.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 18 May 1995

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standard, TVNZ argued that

Plainclothes was a fictional drama series intended for entertainment and that the

standard had not been breached.

TVNZ argued that the character who used the phrases objected to spoke like many

police officers. It added:

After all, whether drug addiction is defined as an illness or not, it would seem

beyond dispute that some addicts become desperate and do commit crime in

order to support their habit. That is what the lines of dialogue suggested, and

they were a credible viewpoint for a fictional experienced policeman to hold

within the context of this story.

From your point of view that may seem unfortunate and unfair - but a writer of

fiction is fully entitled to include a character of this sort in a dramatic scenario.

Fiction writers can legitimately go much further than that. For instance, there is

nothing wrong, in a dramatic context, for a character to be portrayed as a bigoted

racist, or an obnoxious male chauvinist.

The exception in standard G13(iii) allowed for the expression of views other than the

"correct" ones. However, TVNZ added, another of the police characters displayed

considerable sympathy for the drug addict portrayed.

While expressing regret that Mr Tunnicliff had been distressed, TVNZ denied that any

standards had been breached.

Mr Tunnicliff's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 31 May

1995

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

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

Expressing the opinion that the television medium suggested credibility, Mr Tunnicliff

argued that television companies had a responsibility to promote the well-being of all

groups. The programme had not provided balance, as TVNZ claimed, as the addict

who it was said could be trusted was in fact asked to betray his associates. That was

yet another negative stereotype.

Mr Tunnicliff argued that the programme, in addition to transgressing standard G13,

breached standards G1, G2 and G6. He enclosed a copy of another complaint to

TVNZ about the use of the word "junkie" in a recent episode of Plainclothes and, in

view of the small number of times drug addiction was shown in the English police

drama The Bill, asked whether that meant New Zealand had a disproportionately

higher rate of drug addiction than Britain.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 8 June 1995

In its report to the Authority on the complaint, TVNZ described the series as a police

drama which was designed to tell a good "yarn" to entertain viewers. It added:

Fiction writers would be placed in an impossible situation if their artistic licence

were to be withdrawn and replaced with a requirement to depict all manner of

peoples and their conditions in a scrupulously accurate manner. Whither all the

hospital dramas in such circumstances? Whither "Shortland Street"?

As a good deal of police activity dealt with people involved with drugs, TVNZ

maintained that the episode of Plainclothes complained about was credible and did not

breach standard G13. As standards G1, G2 and G6 were not raised in the original

letter of complaint, TVNZ argued that they should be disregarded at this stage.

TVNZ's Programme Standards manager concluded:

In passing, however, we note that a police drama would lose considerable

credibility were its "officers" to be heard describing drug users as "people

suffering from addiction". Once such terms are in common use in police

stations, I expect fiction writers will reflect it.

Mr Tunnicliff's Final Comment - 26 June 1995

In his response to TVNZ's report, Mr Tunnicliff enclosed a letter he had received

from TV3 in which it had upheld a complaint that the use of the phrase "locked-up

with murderers and drug addicts" in a promo for a 20/20 item breached standard G13.

TV3 had advised Mr Tunnicliff:

The Complaints Committee considered the points you raise in your letter

regarding drug addicts being a medical problem and that addiction can arise as a

result of developmental problems initiated as a consequence of trauma such as

abuse.

And:

It is accepted by the Committee that the words in the form used as complained

of could encourage denigration or discrimination against a section of the

community, ie drug addicts.

Mr Tunnicliff commented:

TV3's response appears more thoughtful and sincere than that of TVNZ and, I

also believe, it shows a greater understanding of the concept of social

responsibility and the intent of the Code.

In his response to TVNZ's argument that new standards should not be included when

a complaint was referred to the Authority, Mr Tunnicliff said that standards G1, G2

and G6 were referred to in his second complaint about a later episode of Plainclothes

as he had acquired increased knowledge as to the scope of the Television Code. He

proposed that both complaints be considered together provided the four standards

were applied.

As for standard G13, Mr Tunnicliff disagreed with TVNZ's claim that "a credible

storyline cannot be in breach of G13" as that did not reflect the standard's intention.

As for the use of the term "junkie" to describe drug addicts, he argued first that it was

an Americanism which was not in common use in New Zealand. Secondly, he reported

a call to the Wellington Police control room where, in response to his questions about

the use of the word "junkie", he was asked "you mean narcotic users ... druggies".

That reply, he argued, suggested the word "junkie" was not in common usage.

TVNZ's Response - 29 June 1995

TVNZ was sent a copy of Mr Tunnicliff's letter and, in response, it pointed out that

TV3 was dealing with a complaint about a current affairs programme while

Plainclothes was a fiction. Standard G13(iii), it concluded:

... Specifically allows for the legitimate context of a dramatic work.