BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The sex shop industry on Auckland's Karangahape Road was considered in an item

broadcast on TV2's Newsnight at 10.45pm on 18 July 1995. The item stated that sex

shops were moving away from their former sleazy image and were becoming more

customer friendly.

Mr Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item, by omitting any

reference to pornography, was unbalanced.

TVNZ initially declined to accept the complaint because of the tone of the letter of

complaint. Responding to the Authority's request to deal with it, TVNZ maintained

that the late night news item focussed on "new style" sex shops and was not

unbalanced. It denied that hard-core pornography was an issue. 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.

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 Newsnight item which stated that sex shops were now catering for couples rather

than "men in raincoats" provoked a complaint from Mr Phillip Smits. Noting that he

worked in the area of Auckland shown in the item and disputing the item's description

of the clientele of the shops, Mr Smits maintained that sex shops should be removed

from the main streets. As the item did not refer to pornography, which he said was

the product with which sex shops dealt, he alleged that the broadcast breached

standard G6. It requires broadcasters:

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

Because Mr Smits used abusive language, TVNZ initially declined to accept the

complaint. Mr Smits referred that reply to the Authority which then asked TVNZ to

respond to the substance of the complaint.

TVNZ began by explaining that Newsnight was targeted at a late night young adult

audience and included "off-beat" items. It argued that the item dealt with a legitimate

reality and that sex shops were becoming more "customer friendly".

The Authority noted that the item advanced the proposal that customers of "sex

shops" came from a broader cross-section of society than had been the case in the

past. It also observed that the item explained the extent of the controls on the type of

items which could be sold and that it was emphasised that the goods for sale were

legal. The youth and gender of one shop assistant was pointed to and it was implied

she represented the new order in sex shops – in comparison with an older male

proprietor who spoke of his lengthy experience in the business and the recent changes

he perceived in the type of customers.

This complaint alleged a lack of balance. The balance standard, unlike the requirement

for good taste, does not accept that context is a consideration. Thus the hour of the

broadcast, the type of news broadcast and the target audience, were not relevant. The

item in itself must be balanced.

The item was unbalanced, Mr Smits alleged, because it did not deal with pornography

in a balanced way and his correspondence with and replies from TVNZ focussed on

the different definitions each gave to that term. That was another matter, like context,

which was not relevant to the Authority's decision.

The item advanced the contention that the style of sex shops, and their customers,

were changing. It put that case briefly and with minimal evidence to substantiate it.

However, as the complainant argued that the issue of pornography had not been dealt

with in a balanced way and, as noted above, because pornography was not the issue

canvassed in the item, the Authority concluded that the item, in omitting any

discussion about pornography, had not contravened standard G6.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
30 November 1995

Appendix

Mr Smits' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 20 July 1995

Phillip Smits of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the

broadcast of an item about sex shops on Newsnight on 18 July 1995 was unbalanced

as it had not referred to pornography.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 14 August 1995

Apologising for the delay in responding owing to the illness of the Programme

Standards Manager, TVNZ, in view of the overall manner in which the complaint was

expressed, declined to accept it.

Mr Smits' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 30 August

1995

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

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

two letters.

Referring in the first letter to both the visuals and commentary contained in the

Newsnight item on sex shops, Mr Smits maintained that the item did not show the

signs at the front of the shop which advertised pornography. He maintained that

references to pornography were minimised in the item and that the interview had

pandered to the female shop assistant interviewed. There were references to couples

patronising the shops but, he commented, no couples were shown.

As the item did not refer to pornography (the commodity which he said was sold in

such shops), Mr Smits maintained that the item was "misleading\inaccurate\dishonest

etc".

In the second letter, Mr Smits dealt with TVNZ's decision to decline to accept his

complaint.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 20 September 1995

In view of the Authority's advice that broadcasters were bound by the legislation to

accept and respond to formal complaints, TVNZ commented directly to the

Authority on Mr Smits' complaint.

TVNZ began by explaining that Newsnight was targeted at a late night young adult

audience and included "off-beat" stories. Observing that the item complained about

was broadcast close to 11.00pm, TVNZ said that the introduction explained that sex

shops were moving away from the raincoat brigade image to being more "customer

friendly". It continued:

It seems perfectly legitimate to TVNZ to reflect this particular slice of life, and

to show what the shops look like and the type of people who work there. Sex

shops are not illegal and the comments by Mr Barry Morgan emphasise the

tight regulations under which they operate.

Describing Mr Smits' view of the sex shop industry as "outdated", TVNZ added:

The item was tightly focused on the "new style" shops and not on the matters

raised by Mr Smits in his various letters. The item was tackled under a "safe

sex" banner. It drew the attention of viewers to the options available and

revealed that sex shops are not intimidating, nor staffed by weirdos.

Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ concluded:

We note that in his original letter Mr Smits accused "Newsnight" of not making

reference to "pornography" and later he spoke of "hard-core" pornography. As

we have indicated in previous correspondence, it is TVNZ's view that the term

"hard-core pornography" to describe video material displaying mutually

satisfying lovemaking is a misnomer. That sort of material should not be

idiomatically equated with the brutal, sadistic material involving children, pain,

rape and bestiality which is rightly illegal in this country.

Mr Smits' Final Comment - 3 October 1995

Expressing surprise at what he considered to be TVNZ's lack of understanding about

the issues surrounding pornography, Mr Smits insisted that the item was unbalanced

as it promoted "sex shops" without acknowledging that "porn shops" was the correct

description.