BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A sequence showing a woman slapping a man's face was included as part of the

promo broadcast on a number of occasions on TV2 advertising the forthcoming

episode of Chicago Hope: Over the Rainbow. The episode so promoted was

broadcast at 8.30pm on 15 June 1995.

Francis Fischer complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that, while the incident

might be relevant to the full episode, isolating the behaviour for a promo contravened a

number of broadcasting standards relating to taste, violence and the contents of

promos.

Explaining that the role of the promo was to arouse a viewer's interest, TVNZ said

the incident was acceptable as it represented a significant moment in the programme

being trailered. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's

decision, Mr Fischer 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 promo for Chicago Hope: Over the Rainbow broadcast a number of times before

the specific episode was screened at 8.30pm on 15 June included a scene which

showed a woman slapping a man's face. While noting that the incident might be

relevant to the full programme, Mr Fischer complained to TVNZ that the incident, out

of context, breached a number of standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the standards nominated. The first two 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.

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.

The others state:

G24 Broadcasters must be mindful that scenes containing incidents of

violence or other explicit material may be acceptable when seen in the

total context of a programme, but when extracted for promotion

purposes such incidents will be seen out of context and may thereby be

unacceptable, not only in terms of the codes but also for the time band

during which the trailer is placed.

V1  Broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that any violence shown is

justifiable, ie is essential in the context of the programme.

V4  The combination of violence and sexuality in a way designed to titillate

must not be shown.

V17 Scenes and themes dealing with disturbing social and domestic friction

or sequences in which people - especially children - or animals may be

humiliated or badly treated, should be handled with great care and

sensitivity. All gratuitous material of this nature must be avoided and

any scenes which are shown must pass the test of relevancy within the

context of the programme. If thought likely to disturb children, the

programme should be scheduled later in the evening.

Mr Fischer emphasised the point that he considered that the broadcast of the promo

breached standard G24. The current advertisement highlighting domestic violence, he

commented, did not portray actual violence as had been depicted in the Chicago Hope

promo.

In its response to Mr Fischer, TVNZ explained that the function of a promo was to

"tease" the viewing audience. It added:

In this case the slap on the face of the main characters would elicit in the

average viewer the question – "I wonder what caused that?" And that

question, once asked, might persuade the interested viewer to watch the

programme.

TVNZ also pointed out that viewers of the programme would not have been surprised

at the encounter given the known stormy relationship between the two characters

involved.

In its assessment of the complaint, TVNZ questioned the relevance of G2 and, in

addition, commented that context was allowed for. As it was not clear which sex was

being discriminated against, it considered that standard G13 was not breached. It also

maintained that standards V1, V4 and V17 were not transgressed.

With regard to standard G24, TVNZ pointed out that the material contained in a

promo was inevitably taken out of context. It argued that the material shown must

fairly represent the significant moments in the programme being promoted and, it

observed:

You could, if you like, compare this series with our home-grown "Shortland

Street" which similarly makes much of personal relationships with the wider

context of a medical facility. Should one of the "Shortland Street" women lose

her temper and strike one of the male characters, a viewer would expect to see

that reflected in a promo for the series. So it is with "Chicago Hope".

While Mr Fischer expressed his concern about what he considered to be an increasing

number of promos which showed a woman hitting a man, the Authority focussed on

the particular promo complained about. It also paid particular attention to standard

G24 which states that a scene containing violence, which may be acceptable in context

in the full programme, may be unacceptable when taken out of that context.

Accordingly, to comply with the standard, the Authority examined the scene

complained about solely in the context of the promo.

The promo referred to a series which, it was apparent from the material shown,

involved professional staff working in a hospital environment. The slap to the face

was seen to be both abhorrent and aberrant to the characters portrayed. Thus, in the

context of the promo, the Authority decided that the scene was not unacceptable.

Mr Fischer commented that the current series of advertisements referring to domestic

violence did not show actual violence. The Authority shares the community's

concern about the display of explicit violence on television. It accepts that

broadcasters are also conscious of this concern and, generally, avoid the use of

gratuitous violence. While it would not be prepared to accept a promo solely on the

basis that it dealt with a moment of high drama, the Authority decided, with regard to

the present complaint, because sufficient context was shown, that the promo for

Chicago Hope: Over the Rainbow did not breach standard G24.

As the Authority did not regard the violence portrayed as gratuitous, it considered

that standards V1, V4 and V17 had not been breached. It agreed with Mr Fischer that

the behaviour displayed was not socially acceptable. However, as the portrayal of

unacceptable behaviour underlies much drama, the Authority did not accept that was

sufficient to establish a breach of standard G2. As the promo did not treat a section

of the community as inferior or encourage discrimination, the Authority decided that

standard G13 had not been breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
5 October 1995

Appendix

Mr Fischer's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 19 June 1995

Francis Fischer of Dipton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the promo

shown on a number of occasions for the episode of Chicago Hope: Over the Rainbow,

to be broadcast on TV2 at 8.30pm on 15 June 1995, breached some specified

standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Noting that the promo showed a female striking a male in the face, Mr Fischer argued

that while it might be relevant to the full programme, it was not necessary in a promo.

The police advertisement for domestic violence currently screening on television, he

observed, did not show a woman hitting a man.

Mr Fischer said his complaint principally alleged a breach of the standard (G24)

which acknowledged that it was unacceptable to broadcast, out of context, promos

containing violence. He also alleged a breach of the standards requiring good taste and

decency, a prohibition on encouraging discrimination against one sex and some

standards dealing specifically with violence.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 26 June 1995

Assessing the complaint about the promo which showed a man being slapped by a

woman under the nominated standards, TVNZ said that, during the full programme,

the character who was slapped had deliberately insulted the woman earlier and later

apologised for his behaviour. TVNZ continued:

TVNZ notes that it is the role of a promo to act as a "tease" to the viewing

audience. The purpose is to persuade viewers to watch the programme being

trailered and if there is to be contretemps in a series such as "Chicago Hope"

(which has a heavy reliance on relationships between hospital staff members)

then it is worth pointing it out.

It added:

In this case the slap on the face of the main characters would elicit in the average

viewer the question - "I wonder what caused that?" And that question, once

asked, might persuade the interested viewer to watch the programme.

The scene did not seem out of context, given the stormy relationship between

the two characters involved.

Dealing with the nominated standards, TVNZ questioned the relevance of standard G2

and observed, in addition, that context was specifically allowed for. Standard G13

was not breached, TVNZ stated, as it was not clear which sex was being discriminated

against. As for standard G24, TVNZ maintained:

G24 cautions broadcasters about lifting scenes out of context for promotional

purposes because any violent incident may thereby become unacceptable.

TVNZ notes that the assembly of a promo inevitably requires that material be

taken out of context. What is important is that the material shown fairly

represents significant moments in the programme being trailered. In this case

"Chicago Hope" is a series about a group of people working in a hospital and

their relationships with one another is key interest factor.

You could, if you like, compare this series with out home-grown "Shortland

Street" which similarly makes much of personal relationships with the wider

context of a medical facility. Should one of the "Shortland Street" women lose

her temper and strike one of the male characters, a viewer would expect to see

that reflected in a promo for the series. So it is with "Chicago Hope".

TVNZ also said that standards V1, V4 and V17 were not contravened and expressing

regret that fault was found with the promo, declined to uphold any aspect of the

complaint.

Mr Fischer's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 13 July 1995

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

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

In addition to the promo for Chicago Hope, he referred to the promos for some other

dramas broadcast in the previous weeks which had also shown a woman slapping a

man. He wrote:

None of these stories are factual and male-female or female-male physical abuse

is not a genuinely accepted social norm. Indeed the police advert on domestic

violence does not even portray it. In a recent programme of Due South the actor

prevented a woman striking a man with the words, "You cannot do that. I'm a

policeman" and it was not in a humorous context.

Therefore I fail to see how TVNZ can use every possible such scene as a trailer

at all hours.

Furthermore, he argued, standard G24 did not excuse the use of scenes which were

unlawful in real life. Similarly, the good taste standard was breached.

Asking also why the promos showed a woman striking a man, rather than the reverse,

Mr Fischer said it amounted to sexual discrimination which transgressed standard

G13. Standard G24 was contravened as, he maintained, the promos contained adult

scenes and should only be screened in AO time. Moreover, standards V1 and V17

were breached.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 4 August 1995

Pointing out in the referral that Mr Fischer could seek the Authority's investigation

only on the Chicago Hope promo - not on the other programmes listed - TVNZ did

not dispute the claim that none of the programmes cited were factual or that either

male-female or female-male physical abuse was an acceptable social norm.

TVNZ argued that the complaint amounted to a criticism of the standards - rather than

of TVNZ's compliance with the standards - and maintained that it made every effort

to comply with standards G22 and G23 and, it averred, the promo met the standards

which were set down.

Mr Fischer's Final Comment - 11 August 1995

In his final comment, Mr Fischer maintained that the pattern of TV2's promos was

unacceptable and, in particular, the repetition of female/male assault between cartoons

from 3.00 - 6.00pm was "grossly overdone".

He concluded:

The Authority should re-evaluate its scope to deal with such unacceptable

"group patterns" of AO promos instead of requiring a host of isolated instances.