BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Promos for Waiting for God and Blackadder respectively were broadcast on TV One

at 7.30pm on 16 September 1995 and at 7.15pm on 22 September. The first one

contained a bawdy term, ie "nuts", and the second involved a play on words which

could be taken as referring to a body part, ie "prick".

Mr Roughton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that both items were

offensive and breached the standard relating to taste and decency and the standard

prohibiting the extract of unacceptably explicit material for promotion purposes.

Pointing out that both items were broadcast in a "PGR" timeslot and reflected

traditional British humour's preoccupation with body parts, TVNZ maintained that

the trailers would not have caused widespread offence. It declined to uphold the

complaints. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decisions, Mr Roughton referred the

complaints 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

has determined the complaints without a formal hearing.

Promos for Waiting for God and Blackadder were broadcast respectively at 7.30pm

on 16 September and at 7.15pm on 22 September. The former contained a bawdy

term and the other involved a play on words which could also be taken as referring to a

body part: ie "nuts" and "prick". Mr Roughton alleged that each broadcast breached

standards G2 and G24 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first one

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.

The other one reads:

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.

In its response to the complaints, TVNZ argued that the dialogue complained about

reflected traditional British lavatory humour. Such humour had a long tradition and, it

maintained, it was relatively inoffensive in the PGR timeslot. Blackadder, TVNZ

continued, involved the traditional British preoccupation with body parts and that

was reflected in the trailer.

When he referred the complaints to the Authority, Mr Roughton argued that the

broadcasts were not acceptable merely because they reflected traditional British

humour. Such humour, he added, was offensive and would have caused widespread

offence as an affront to family values.

Noting that TVNZ had specifically described the Blackadder promo as "relatively

inoffensive", Mr Roughton said that the comment acknowledged some degree of

offensiveness. In his opinion, it was "extremely offensive".

Mr Roughton also expressed his concern at the standards now evident in programmes

on television and urged the Authority:

... to clearly remind TVNZ that they do indeed have a moral and legal obligation

towards protecting the minds and values of the young of our nation.

In response, TVNZ argued that, through its assessment of telephone calls and letters,

it was able to judge reasonably accurately whether a programme cause widespread

offence and there was no evidence that the promos complained about had done so.

Referring to the family values of those at TVNZ involved in the complaints process, it

wrote:

... with respect to Mr Roughton we do not believe that the values we imbue in

our children are inferior to those he espouses just because we happen to disagree

about the impact of a couple of programme trailers.

The Authority began by acknowledging that both promos contained examples of what

could be called traditional British humour which focusses on body parts. However,

such a description was of little use in itself in deciding whether or not the broadcasts

contravened the standards. It is a style of humour which, as is shown by the

commonly-used adjective "lavatorial", involves at least some degree of offensiveness.

The Authority's task involved deciding whether the degree of offensiveness was such

as to breach the standards.

Dealing first with standard G24, the Authority noted that it consists of two parts.

First. it requires broadcasters to be careful that the material, when used in a promo,

will not be unacceptable when seen out of context. Secondly, the standard requires the

Authority to take account of contextual issues having regard to the timeband in which

the promo is broadcast.

Taking into account that both the promos were played in the PGR timeslot and were

taken from programmes classified as PGR, the Authority decided that the second

aspect of standard G24 had not been contravened by the broadcast of the promos.

The Authority then considered the promo for Waiting for God and taking account of

all the scenes included in it and relying on the members' knowledge of the programme,

the Authority did not accept the material was an unfair representation of the

programme. Whereas Waiting for God makes some use of bawdy humour, the promo

did not focus on such material. It had included a shot of the leading male character's

disastrous driving lesson. Consequently, the Authority did not accept that the

material included in the promo was shown out of context.

Proceeding to consider the Blackadder promo under standard G24, the Authority

acknowledged that the amount of traditional British – lavatorial – humour in

Blackadder makes up a much larger portion of the total programme's humour than

occurred in Waiting for God. Thus the promo, by focussing on such material, had not,

in the Authority's opinion contravened the contextual requirement in standard G24.

The Authority then turned to assess the promos under the good taste and decency

context requirements in standard G2. It quickly came to the conclusion that the term

"nuts" in Waiting for God did not breach the standard. The promo, and the

programme, displayed a certain innocent naivety which minimised any concerns about

offensiveness.

The Blackadder promo represented a different style. It was taken from a series where

the traditional British humour about body parts regularly featured both verbally and

visually. It is a style of humour which is sometimes called "smut" and one which

some people find offensive. Indeed, the Authority accepted that the style of humour

portrayed in the promo could be called tasteless. However, the Authority concluded,

that although it contained a degree of offensiveness it did not in context amount to a

breach of standard G2 of the Code.

The Authority further acknowledged that most viewers of Blackadder would be very

likely to find the broadcast humorous – not offensive. However, it was dealing with a

complaint about a promo – not the full programme. While it has not upheld the

complaint about the promo, the Authority repeats a comment included in an earlier

decision that, because promos are seen by viewers who might choose not to watch the

full programme, broadcasters must take care to ensure that the material included in a

promo is not unacceptable when seen out of context.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith M Potter
Chairperson
14 December 1995

Appendix

Mr Roughton's Complaints to Television New Zealand Ltd - 22 September 1995

Todd Roughton of Wellsford complained about the broadcast by Television New

Zealand Ltd of two promos. The first, shown on TV One at 7.30pm on 16

September, referred to Waiting for God. It showed a man stuck in a parachute in a tree

and proposing to a woman on the ground. An on-looker urges her:

For God's sake say yes before that harness cuts his nuts off.

The second was a trailer for Blackadder and was broadcast at 7.15pm on 22

September. Mr Roughton said it was offensive as it showed the main male character

wearing imitation naked breasts and the dialogue contained an innuendo about a man's

"prick".

Noting that both promos were screened when he and his wife were watching with their

young children, Mr Roughton stated that the broadcasts breached standards G2 and

G24 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaints - 11 October 1995

Assessing the complaints under the nominated standards, TVNZ responded

separately to each one.

With regard to the promo for Waiting for God, TVNZ noted that it was broadcast in

"PGR" time. It had shown a male character taking a parachute jump in order to

impress the leading woman character who was reluctant to marry him.

Assuming that Mr Roughton objected to the use of the word "nuts", TVNZ argued

that the scene reflected traditional British or "lavatory" humour. As such material

went as far back to Chaucer at least, TVNZ argued that there was no evidence that

such humour had eroded British society. It continued:

It was the view of the committee that the trailer accurately reflected the nature

and content of the programme it was previewing and that the trailer would not

have caused widespread offence in the community. It could not see how the

expression quoted could be viewed as an "affront to family values".

The Complaints Committee expressed respect and admiration for the firm views

you clearly hold in this area. However, it was unable to see how this trailer for a

programme which was itself to screen in "PGR" time could be considered in

breach of either G2 or G24.

As for the complaint about the promo for Blackadder, TVNZ again noted that it was

broadcast in a PGR timeslot and described it is relatively inoffensive. It also argued

that it was recognisable as traditional British humour and it stated:

The [Complaints] Committee did not believe that the sight of what were clearly

plastic, ill-fitting breasts can have been an "affront to family values" as your

letter might be read to imply. Neither did it believe that the oblique reference to

a "prick" would mean anything at all to a sexually innocent child.

The preoccupation with body parts is identifiably a part of traditional British

humour, and the trailer correctly reflected that.

While respecting Mr Roughton's views, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaints and

asked:

Doesn't laughter contribute to a happy family?

Mr Roughton's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 24

October 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response to both complaints, Mr Roughton referred them

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

Dealing first with the response to his complaint about the promo for Waiting for God,

Mr Roughton questioned TVNZ's claim that it reflected "traditional British humour",

explaining that he considered lavatory humour and a preoccupation with body parts to

be offensive. Describing the reference to Chaucer as "an ill-fitting attempt to lend

credence to indecency", Mr Roughton expressed his concern about the influence of

low standards of television on a nation's moral framework.

In this matter I believe that the broadcaster clearly is at fault. The time was

7.30pm, and my 7 year old daughter had especially asked to see ÔThe Private

Life of Plants', something we thought we could be confident in viewing together

as a family in moral safety.

Maintaining that TVNZ was unable to substantiate its opinion that the promo would

not have caused widespread offence, Mr Roughton said he was a principal of a

primary school and questioned whether TVNZ was in touch with New Zealand

parents. Surely, he continued, it was the broadcaster's responsibility to ensure that

material which could be in breach was not broadcast.

TVNZ's stance that the statement did not affront family values, Mr Roughton said,

brought home to him his concerns about TVNZ's judgement. What yardsticks were

used, he asked, arguing that the words "family" and "wholesomeness" had always

gone together. He stated:

[If TVNZ's Programme Standards Manager feels] that blatant verbal jokes about

a man's testicles are not an affront to family values, then I would suggest that

even within his own industry he and his committee are at loggerheads with the

internationally recognised market leaders in the relevant area of entertainment.

As for the complaint about the promo for Blackadder, Mr Roughton again assessed

TVNZ's reply in detail. He pointed out that TVNZ had said that the item was

"relatively inoffensive" which accepted that it was offensive to some degree. In Mr

Roughton's opinion, it was "extremely offensive". As TVNZ's arguments about why

the broadcast of the Blackadder promo did not breach the standards were similar to

the points about the promo for Waiting for God, Mr Roughton repeated aspects of his

referral. He said that TVNZ's description that the material was "instantly

recognisable as traditional British humour" was a lie. Even 20 years ago, he

maintained, the broadcast of such material could have resulted in a prison sentence.

In its reply, TVNZ had said that the shots of the ill-fitting plastic breasts were not

offensive. Did that mean, Mr Roughton queried, that shots of correctly-fitting rubber

breasts would have been offensive?

In response to TVNZ's argument that the reference to a "prick" was "oblique" and

would not mean anything to a "sexually innocent child", Mr Roughton again asked

what was meant precisely and concluded:

As far as "sexually innocent" goes, my young children will not remain so if

TVNZ does not straighten up its act and refrains from invading their viewing

hours with such innuendo and blatant implicit and explicit sexuality.

Dealing with concern about social values, Mr Roughton wrote:

[That TVNZ's Complaints] Committee found the sequence simply "mildly

amusing" does not surprise me - they obviously have personal standards that

can accommodate such things. That, however, is again nothing more than their

personal opinion, and does not justify that view as the acceptable broadcasting

standard for an entire nation.

In his final point, Mr Roughton dealt with TVNZ's argument that laughter contributed

to a happy family and stated that the comment assumed that a family would find

comedy in the material screened. However:

We did not. We found disgust.

Mr Roughton concluded:

I thank the Broadcasting Standards Authority for taking the time to work

through what may seem to be a lengthy complaint. However, the two

complaints I have detailed are not the only instances of this type of abuse

recently on public television. I am concerned enough to write in detail in the

hope that the Authority may consider some of the wider implications of the two

specific complaints and take strong action to clearly remind TVNZ that they do

indeed have a moral and legal obligation towards protecting the minds and values

of the young in our nation.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 31 October 1995

TVNZ made five points in its report to the Authority on the complaints referred by

Mr Roughton.

First, as all phone calls it received were meticulously logged and the numerous letters

perused, TVNZ argued that it was able to judge reasonably accurately whether an item

caused widespread offence.

Secondly, TVNZ disputed Mr Roughton's claim that broadcasting such material could

have resulted in a prison sentence 20 years earlier. Sexual innuendo in traditional

British humour could be found in such material as the "Carry On" films or the late

Benny Hill's performances. Indeed, similar material could be found in earlier radio

programmes.

As the third point, TVNZ did not accept that items' play on words about body parts

amounted to "blatant implicit and explicit sexuality".

Fourthly, TVNZ shared Mr Roughton's admiration for Disney products but rather

than making the world a better place for children if they were the only programmes

available, it argued that such programmes would ill-prepare youngsters for the real

world.

Finally, TVNZ stated:

Fifth, we are sorry that Mr Roughton has chosen to question the family values

of those of us at TVNZ who contribute to the complaints process. We are

family people (I have children of 12 and 9) and with respect to Mr Roughton we

do not believe that the values we imbue on our children are inferior to those he

espouses just because we happen to disagree about the impact of a couple of

programme trailers.

Mr Roughton's Final Comment - 10 November 1995

Expressing disappointment that standards were flexible and measured by the number

of calls received, Mr Roughton said that innuendos in comparative films in the past

were accompanied by a warning. He persisted in his view that the item's references to

sexuality were both implicit and explicit.

He had not, he wrote, argued that only Disney films should be shown to children but

maintained that standard G24 placed the responsibility on the broadcaster to ensure

that the trailer was appropriately classified for the time in which it was broadcast.