BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

"Booze Culture – Aspects of Drinking in New Zealand" was the title of the Inside

New Zealand documentary broadcast by TV3 at 8.30pm on 31 May 1995.

Lion Nathan Ltd complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast omitted

significant points of view and was unbalanced as it had focussed in a salacious way on

the negative aspects of alcohol abuse. The programme, it continued, encouraged that

kind of booze culture while ignoring both the changes in consumption practices and

the industry's socially responsible activities.

Maintaining that the item was not an in-depth review of alcohol use in New Zealand

but a broad picture which dealt with aspects of drinking, TV3 stated that it had

included the industry's promotion of moderate and responsible drinking. It declined

to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Lion Nathan referred the

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upheld 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.

"Booze Culture – Aspects of Drinking in New Zealand" was the title of the

programme broadcast by TV3 as one of the Inside New Zealand series. It touched on

a number of aspects of drinking behaviour but focussed on heavy drinking sprees by

young New Zealanders at such events as parties, sports functions, pub crawls and

New Years Eve gatherings.

On behalf of Lion Nathan, Owen Morgan complained to TV3 that the programme's

focus on alcohol abuse gave the impression that such behaviour was the norm.

Because of the programme's apparent fascination with alcohol abuse and its effects,

he continued, it was unbalanced and only minimal consideration was given to drinking

in moderation which was the practice of the majority. Moreover, the item had

incorrectly blamed the industry for the abuse shown rather than the former repressive

controls. Overall, he described the images portrayed as "sensational and exploitative"

which, in addition, could well suggest methods of abusive drinking to the young and

impressionable.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standard G20 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. It reads:

G20 No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested

parties on controversial issues. Broadcasters should aim to present all

significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only by

judging every case on its merits.

TV3 emphasised, as noted in the item's title, that the programme was not an in-depth

study of drinking practices in New Zealand. Rather, it was designed to be a broad

picture of the historical development of the booze culture to explain the current

practices. The programme, it added, had included comments from a range of

perspectives to ensure that all significant views were presented fairly.

Explaining that the specific shots complained about were included to show the

pervasiveness of alcohol in society, TV3 said the impact of the law changes since

1960 were noted. Nevertheless, it argued, alcohol continued to be abused, especially

by young men in their twenties, and the programme had looked at the dangerous

practice of "binge drinking" by young adult males.

When he referred Lion's complaint to the Authority, Mr Morgan said that the

programme was not a "broad picture" as TV3 claimed. Rather, it had focussed on

"the negative, the salacious and the unpleasant". The broad picture would have dealt

with such matters as the decline in overall consumption, the trend towards moderation

and the consumption of alcohol with food. However, those matters were ignored and

the unbalanced perspective advanced opted for "old ideas and old myths".

The Authority began its assessment of the complaint by examining the programme

complained about. It noted, as highlighted by TV3, the extracts from the interviews

with representatives of Lion Nathan who referred to the changing drinking practices

which were associated with the law changes, and the company's current emphasis on

moderation and socially responsible activities such as sports sponsorship. It also

noted, as pointed out by Lion Nathan, the programme's focus on binge drinking, and

the repetitive shots of unruly intoxicated young adult males.

The Authority decided that the programme's focus, the "Booze Culture", was on the

public drinking practices of young adults, mostly male. They were shown consuming

alcohol at sports clubs, public bars, student pub crawls, parties and other social

gatherings and the programme portrayed the excessive alcohol consumption and levels

of intoxication often displayed in such situations. The Authority felt the behaviour

strongly epitomised the documentary's title. The programme in addition

acknowledged that family violence and motor vehicle accidents were major

consequences of alcohol abuse and emphasised that the victims in those circumstances

were not just the intoxicated individuals.

The way the programme was presented undeniably had an impact which tended to

reflect poorly on the liquor industry. The filming of intoxicated behaviour was

interspersed with comments from the industry and from social agencies dealing with

its adverse consequences. While the representatives of social agencies tended to have

their comments married to powerful supporting visuals, by contrast, the industry

spokespeople tended to be more philosophical and theoretical and their comments at

times appeared non-contextual. As a result, in the Authority's opinion, the item

carried the implication that the industry had distanced itself from the effects of alcohol

abuse. That view was reinforced by the failure of the item to invite direct responses

to the behaviour of the young people depicted.

The Authority noted nevertheless that an industry spokesman in one instance did

respond directly to criticism from a refuge worker about the industry's apparent

disregard for the abuse of alcohol when he reported that a rugby league star had been

hired for the recent Christmas period to speak to many groups about the dangers of

drinking and driving.

Notwithstanding this one example, the Authority understood Lion Nathan's

complaint that insufficient attention was given to the drinking practices of the

majority in the 1990s and that too much attention had been given to what it described

as the "salacious and unpleasant". The complainant's discontent was understandable

given that the programme had been explicitly introduced by the presenter as an "in-

depth documentary" looking at alcohol use in New Zealand and some of the

consequences of abuse. The Authority considered that this introduction implied a

balanced look at the varying uses of alcohol in modern New Zealand society. It also

considered that the introduction largely contradicted the title's sub-heading which

purported to narrow the coverage to "aspects" of alcohol use.

The Authority had some sympathy with the broadcaster's response that, contrary to

the complainant's argument, the programme had in fact touched on the change to

more civilised drinking practices and had reported the brewing industry's concern for

moderation.

The standard under which TV3 assessed the complaint, standard G20, requires that all

significant views on a controversial public issue be presented in as fair a way as

possible in the circumstances.

The Authority considered that, before it could deal with the issue of fairness, its initial

task was to determine the true subject of the documentary. The item's title and the

presenter's introduction introduced confusion. In view of the item's dominant focus

noted above, the Authority concluded that the principal theme was the public drinking

practices of young adults whose unrefined drinking habits constituted the "Booze

Culture" to which the title referred and which the broadcast portrayed.

However, the presenter's statement suggested something else, that the programme

was in fact an "in-depth study of alcohol consumption in New Zealand".

The Authority considered that this was a statement of the programme's intention as

well as its title and subtitle. The confusion between the item's title(s) and the

presenter's introduction was reiterated in the programme itself. What might have been

a powerful statement solely about the "Booze Culture" was leavened by interviews

with industry spokespeople who seemed to be addressing an "in-depth study of

alcohol consumption in New Zealand". In that context, their comments would have

been appropriate, but against footage of the "Booze Culture" they seemed evasive or

irrelevant. The result was that although inclusion of their comments might

theoretically have addressed the need for balance, their perspective on the most salient

theme of the programme – booze culture – was never elucidated. It is a fine distinction,

but an important one. In the Authority's view, it resulted in a lack of balance.

As to Lion Nathan's complaint that the programme focussed in a "salacious" way on

alcohol abuse, the Authority did not accept that this was the case. Commentary from

most interviewees had a strong condemnatory tone. While it had misgivings about the

depiction of abusive drinking methods, the Authority decided on balance, and in the

context, they were shown legitimately.

For the reasons given above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd of the "Booze Culture" programme on

31 May 1995, as one of the Inside New Zealand series, breached standard G20 of

The Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority does not consider it appropriate to impose an

order on this occasion. It notes the efforts made by the broadcaster to present the

industry's point of view and the programme's socially responsible intention,

notwithstanding the Authority's decision that in this programme, the requirements of

standard G20 were not met.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
19 December 1995

Appendix

Lion Nathan Ltd's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 28 June 1995

On behalf of Lion Nathan Ltd, the Director of Corporate Affairs (Owen Morgan)

complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the Inside New Zealand programme,

"Booze Culture", broadcast at 8.30pm on 31 May 1995.

By way of introduction, Mr Morgan alleged that the broadcast breached the standard

which requires the presentation of all significant points of view. He commented:

"Booze Culture" was fascinated with the extremes of alcohol abuse, scenes of

which were repeated so frequently that impressionable viewers could have

regarded this extreme behaviour as normative. The programme completely

ignored the opportunity to set any example of moderate consumption. And, as

a result, it encouraged rather than discouraged the kind of booze culture it

displayed.

He complained under four headings.

In the first section, "Unrepresentative Selection of Shots", Mr Morgan referred to the

programme's fascination with the minority who abused alcohol which resulted in the

absence of the message of moderation - the practice of the majority.

Under the title "Lack of Balance", Mr Morgan maintained that the item was not an in-

depth analysis as claimed as:

... it glossed over many positive aspects of alcohol in favour of a fascination

with the negatives. The programme's focus was on gratuitous images of alcohol

abuse and its effects. We heard about domestic abuse, road accidents and

drunkenness. And we saw footage of university pub crawls and the aftermath

of alcohol-related violence.

Other than lip service, he continued, the item did not acknowledge the brewing

industry's role in promoting moderate and responsible drinking. He concluded on this

point:

A genuinely in-depth documentary would have addressed the industry's stance

through more than just a handful of interview edits.

The next section was headed "A Cliched Approach to Factors Behind Alcohol Abuse"

and, Mr Morgan argued, the item incorrectly blamed the industry for the abuse

disclosed. The worst excesses, Mr Morgan contended, were the result of repressive

controls such as 6.00pm closing. As a result of law changes, New Zealand's attitude

to drinking were becoming more sophisticated but this perspective was not included.

It was, he wrote, another example of the "shallow" approach adopted.

The final matter was called "Modelling of Abusive Drinking Behaviour". While

accepting that New Zealand youth abused alcohol, Mr Morgan said that the shots of

hoses and funnels were "sensational and exploitative". In addition:

It invited those who might have been disposed to this kind of drinking activity

to explore new excesses. It models a form of abusive drinking that the young

and impressionable might not be aware of and could, once seen on television,

readily adopt.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 23 August 1995

TV3 assessed the complaint under standard G20 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. It began by arguing that it was not possible in 44 minutes to

broadcast an in-depth documentary about every aspect of alcohol consumption in

New Zealand. That had been acknowledged in the item's introduction which had

referred to some of the consequences of abuse and the broadcast's full title which was

"Booze Culture - Aspects of Drinking in New Zealand". TV3 wrote:

The specific intention of the programme was to examine the culture of drinking

in this country - how that culture has developed historically and how it is

influenced today. Alcohol does indeed play a major role in our community, it is

present in almost every significant occasion. It is almost universally consumed,

and consumed in large quantities by more than a few. Its presence is seldom

questioned or considered remarkable and its over-consumption in certain

circumstances is widely tolerated and even encouraged. Consumption of alcohol

has certain consequences for everyone in our society. One could describe the

perspective of the documentary as being the wide-angle view, or broad picture,

rather than being a narrowly focused or macro study of a single aspect of alcohol

use in New Zealand.

The broadcast had included interviews with a number of representatives from Lion

Nathan and from interviews with some spokespeople for a variety of social agencies.

TV3 added:

The [Complaints] Committee believes this to be a fairly broad cast of characters

who between them represent a wide variety of views on alcohol use in New

Zealand. For the above reasons the Committee rejects suggestions that the

documentary failed "to present all significant sides in as fair a way as possible".

TV3 then presented 16 script excerpts from the programme which, it continued,

contained the industry's perspective on the causes of the problems and illustrated its

socially responsible responses. TV3 concluded on this point:

The Committee believes that these comments did cover the brewing industry's

promotion of moderate and responsible drinking.

As for the complaint about the "Unrepresentative Selection of Shots", TV3 denied

that the material was gratuitous and maintained:

The footage your complaint objects to being used went to the heart of the

documentary which was about the pervasiveness of alcohol in our society and

the consequences of that.

In response to the concerns that the broadcast adopted a cliched response, TV3 stated

that the item had looked at how attitudes were formed by the laws and noted that

there had been a lot of progress since the 1960s. Nevertheless, it argued, alcohol

continued to be abused, especially by young men in their twenties, and the programme

had looked at the dangerous practice of "binge drinking" by young males.

As for the complaint about the modelling of abusive drinking behaviour, TV3 declined

to uphold the complaint, maintaining that, as it was part of New Zealand's culture, it

was appropriate to show explicit footage of abusive alcohol consumption and its

consequences.

Lion Nathan's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20

September 1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, on Lion Nathan's behalf Mr Morgan referred the

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

Act 1989.

Mr Morgan observed that TV3 had claimed that the programme was a "broad picture"

of drinking in New Zealand but, he continued, it had glossed over many aspects of

drinking and had focussed on "the negative, the salacious and the unpleasant". He

contended that the programme gave the impression that drinking was a problem and

that there had been little focus on the more accurate picture which would show that

the consumption of alcohol was a positive element of social life for many.

Mr Morgan maintained:

A genuinely balanced "broad picture" of drinking in New Zealand would have

told a story that "Booze Culture" ignored. It is a story of a decline in overall

consumption, a proliferation of product and brand choices meeting demand from

increasingly sophisticated consumers, a trend towards moderation in drinking,

and a parallel trend towards enjoying alcoholic beverages with food.

Arguing that there were plenty of occasions where alcohol was used positively, Mr

Morgan concluded:

"Booze Culture" was not a "broad picture", it was not balanced and it has not

done justice to how most New Zealanders really drink. Instead, it opted for old

ideas and old myths, and it focused on the spectacular and the obvious.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 26 September 1995

TV3 advised the Authority that it did not wish to comment further.