BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The leading female character of the series Cover Story was depicted as being a cigarette

smoker. The series was broadcast weekly on Wednesday evenings between 

8.30–9.30pm on TV One in August and September 1996.

Mary Kennedy of Auckland complained to TVNZ, the broadcaster, that the depiction

of a successful, glamorous career woman as a smoker was totally unacceptable, not

only because of the dangers of cigarette smoking but also because smoking in the

workplace (in this case, the film set) was a breach of the Smoke-free Environments

Act 1990.

Arguing that Cover Story was a work of fiction and that the character portrayed was

not a role model, TVNZ maintained that the portrayal of her as a smoker identified her

as socially dysfunctional and did not glamorise her smoking. It denied that the series

contained any message that smoking was socially desirable, and declined to uphold the

complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Ms Kennedy referred the complaint

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

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a programme from the series and have

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

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The second series of Cover Story was broadcast on Wednesday evenings between

8.30–9.30pm on TV One. In the episode which was screened on 4 September 1996,

one of the principal characters, Amanda Robbins, was seen to be smoking.

Ms Mary Kennedy complained that the portrayal of a strong female character as a

smoker conveyed a message to young women that smoking was socially acceptable,

desirable and glamorous. She considered the portrayal was offensive, given the

knowledge about the dangers of smoking and accused TVNZ of deliberately

encouraging young women to smoke. In addition, she suggested that the filmset where

the smoking occurred was a "workplace" in terms of the Smoke-free Environments

Act 1990 and questioned whether that legislation was being breached by the filming of

a character smoking. Ms Kennedy suggested that the smoking scenes should be cut

from the story.

When it responded to the complaint, TVNZ assessed it under standard G5 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

G5  To respect the principles of law and order which sustain our society.

TVNZ emphasised first that Cover Story was a work of fiction which featured a

character who happened to be a smoker. It denied that the character of Amanda was a

role model, pointing out that she was portrayed as socially dysfunctional and was,

among other things, unable to form long-term relationships, anti-authoritarian, at times

anti-social, did not eat properly and drank to excess. It suggested that although she

was a strong character, she was only one of two characters in the series seen to be a

smoker and that the other character, a murderer, was also dysfunctional.

TVNZ suggested that it would have been remiss if the producers had failed to portray

the contemporary reality that a large number of people were still smokers, in spite of

known health risks. It argued that portraying Amanda as a minority in effect

highlighted the unacceptability of her habit. It denied that there was a message that

smoking was a glamour prop.

With respect to the assertion that the portrayal of smoking breached the Smoke-free

Environments Act, TVNZ responded that there was no evidence to support the view

that a film set was a "workplace" within the meaning of the Act, and furthermore it

argued, all of the actors were independent contractors, not employees.

In fact, TVNZ continued, the character was shown smoking for only about two

seconds in the episode screened on 4 September. It concluded by arguing that a work

of fiction reflected the mores and the social and cultural environment in which the

work was created, and that the depiction of a character smoking simply reflected

reality.

The Authority notes that since the complainant did not identify a particular episode

of the series, TVNZ examined the complaint by referring to the episode broadcast

immediately before her letter of complaint. That episode, it transpired, contained only

a very brief scene showing the character smoking as well as a scene during the opening

credits. As a result of further inquiries, the Authority has learned that throughout the

series the character of Amanda was portrayed as a smoker and that there was no

attempt to minimise her smoking. It takes that into account when it considers the

complaint.

The Authority accepts that characters in works of fiction do not always behave within

the law – and that cigarette smoking, while not permitted in certain circumstances, is

still a legal activity which is enjoyed by many in the community, in spite of the

known health risks. It decides the brief depiction of a character smoking does not

breach the standard which requires broadcasters to protect the principles of law.

Turning to the argument that the programme portrayed the commission of an actual

offence – smoking in a workplace – the Authority makes no finding since it is arguable

whether the filmset was a workplace and that the actors were employees.

Furthermore it is unable to ascertain whether the location where the smoking was

filmed was in fact a permitted smoking area, as defined in the legislation.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 December 1996

Appendix

Mary Kennedy's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 6 September 1996

Ms Mary Kennedy of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

portrayal of the leading woman character on Cover Story, broadcast on TV One on

Wednesday evenings, as a cigarette smoker.

She argued that since the character was a strong role model for young women, it was

unacceptable to portray her as a smoker, because it gave young women the message

that smoking was a glamour prop to women, both professionally and personally. Ms

Kennedy argued that it was offensive in terms of the well-known dangers of smoking.

She considered that TVNZ was deliberately encouraging young women to smoke by

its portrayal of the leading character.

Another issue which Ms Kennedy raised was that the character's cigarette smoking

might breach the smokefree legislation because her fellow workers were inadequately

protected from cigarette smoke. She argued that a filmset was a "workplace" in terms

of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 and that TVNZ had breached the Act.

She concluded:

If TVNZ is not prepared to cut the smoking scenes, I believe that the

programme should not continue to be broadcast.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 September 1996

TVNZ suggested that Ms Kennedy was confusing the actress with the role that she

was playing for television. It pointed out that Cover Story was a fictional work which

featured a character who happened to smoke. It denied that the character played by

Katie Wolfe was a role model, noting:

Regular viewers of the series would be aware that she is socially dysfunctional,

unable to form long-term relationships, unable to relate to her mother (even in

death), unable to relate her ambitions to her work, anti-authoritarian, at times

anti-social, does not eat properly, drinks to excess, and true to her character,

smokes.

Agreeing that she was a strong and coherent character, TVNZ argued that did not make

her a role model. It denied that cigarette smoking was used to enhance her status,

suggesting instead it was used to identify her social dysfunction.

Pointing to other characters in the series, TVNZ noted that, with the exception of one

character, a murderer, it was not aware of any other character in the series who

smoked.

TVNZ observed that a large number of people still smoked, in spite of common sense

and public opinion, and suggested the producers would be remiss if they failed to

notice smokers. It argued that by showing the character as a smoker, it in effect

highlighted the unacceptability of her habit.

In TVNZ's view, there was no message in the series that smoking was a glamour prop

and it denied that its portrayal of the character as a smoker encouraged young women

to smoke.

TVNZ rejected Ms Kennedy's argument that the film set was a workplace within the

definition of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 and noted that the actors were all

independent contractors, not employees.

TVNZ pointed out that the character smoked for only about 2 seconds in the episode

screened on 4 September.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

Ms Kennedy's Referral to the Authority - 30 September 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Ms Kennedy referred the complaint to the

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

She advised that she did not accept TVNZ's response to the complaint for two

reasons. First, she argued that the filmset was a workplace within the meaning of

section 2 of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990.

Secondly, she responded to TVNZ's argument that the character's smoking could be

justified on the basis that she had certain defects. She rejected that argument, noting

that the character was clearly portrayed as a glamorous, ambitious, successful

television journalist.

Ms Kennedy was of the view that the broadcaster's response did not accord with the

provision relating to smoking in the workplace and the portrayal of women. She

maintained that TVNZ had portrayed smoking in the workplace as a glamorous

activity.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 24 October 1996

In its response to the Authority, TVNZ first made some observations about the

nature of fiction. It suggested that the role of fiction was to tell a story in a way

which reflected the mores and social and cultural environment in which the work was

created.

TVNZ advised that it was conscious of the Smoke-free Environments Act and noted

that its staff did not smoke on programmes, unless the act of smoking was being used

to make a point. It submitted that the situation was different in the context of fiction

and that there were many examples of where the smoking habits of characters were

reflected in order to make it close to reality.

Ms Kennedy's Final Comment - 4 November 1996

Ms Kennedy considered it a pity that TVNZ was not prepared to confront what she

considered was the real issue in the complaint, namely that smoking in the workplace

was illegal.

She did not believe that TVNZ should be broadcasting an actual illegality, and whether

the illegality was committed in a studio was not the entire issue. She concluded:

It may be that the programme standards manager has not properly understood

the issue and the broadcaster's obligations in terms of the portrayal of the

commission of an actual offence.