BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Footage of a naked man covering his genitals with his hands, as part of a promo for the

programme Cold Feet, was broadcast on TV One at approximately 6.25pm on 2 May

1997.

Mr Malcolm complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, that the

broadcast of the naked man was objectionable in that it lacked good taste and decency

and was not preceded by any warning as to the content, and was not suitable to be

seen by children.

TVNZ in response advised that the view of the man was no more than could be seen

on any public beach on a sunny summer's day. Moreover, while the promo conveyed

the idea that the man was naked, it showed no nudity whatsoever. TVNZ was unable

to find anything in the promo which was harmful to children, and it did not consider it

was inappropriately broadcast during the G time band. While apologising to Mr

Malcolm for any offence caused, it did not uphold the complaint.

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

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

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the promo complained about and have

read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Part of a promo for the programme Cold Feet, broadcast on TV One at approximately

6.25pm on 2 May 1997, featured briefly a naked man with his hands covering his

genitals.

John Malcolm complained to TVNZ that the footage of the naked man was

objectionable. He considered that TVNZ, by broadcasting the footage, breached

standards of good taste and decency, failed to protect children who may have been

watching, and failed to warn viewers about the nudity.

TVNZ considered the complaint under standards G2, G12 and G22 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standards G2 and G12 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.

G12  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing times.

In relation to trailers and promotions, standard G22 provides:

G22  Promotions (promos) for AO programmes may be screened during

PGR or G time bands provided the promo is made in such a way that it

can be classified as PGR or G, as appropriate. Promotions which carry

an AO classification may only be screened within AO times bands.

TVNZ considered that the footage of the man was inoffensive, and noted that it

appeared briefly at the end of the promo. It advised that the strategic placement of

the man's hands and the distance from which the shot was taken, kept the image

within the currently accepted norms of decency and taste.

TVNZ could see nothing in the footage which would prove harmful to children and

while it played in G time, it was constructed in a manner which complied with a G

classification. It declined to uphold the complaint.

When referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Malcolm argued that to try and

intrigue people to watch a programme by advertising it with a portrayal of nudity was

to arouse people with a sexual image, and to do this was pornographic.

The Authority does not consider that there was any breach of the nominated

standards by the broadcast of the footage of the naked man covering his genitals. It

notes that the footage was very brief. It also notes that the scene included in the

promo was an essential feature of the humour of the programme, and accordingly

its inclusion in the promo legitimately represented a part of the tone and content

of the programme.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
21 August 1997

Appendix

Mr Malcolm's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 5 May 1997

John Malcolm of Pukerau, Southland, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that

the promo for the programme Cold Feet, broadcast on TV One at 6.25 on 2 May

1997, was objectionable because it included shots of a naked man with his hands over

his genitals. He wrote:

I object to the screening of nudity for several reasons; the protection of

children; the lack of appropriate warning that nudity may appear at that hour;

and good taste and decency.

Mr Malcolm considered that even though the man's hands protected his genitals, the

broadcast of the pictures constituted nudity.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 26 May 1997

TVNZ considered the complaint under standards G2, G12, and G22 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standards G2 and G12 require broadcasters to:

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.

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing times.

In relation to trailers and promotions, standard G22 provides:

G22 Promotions (promos) for AO programmes may be screened during

PGR or G time bands provided the promo is made in such a way that it

can be classified as PGR or G, as appropriate. Promotions which carry

an AO classification may only be screened within AO times bands.

TVNZ disagreed with Mr Malcolm that the footage of the man represented nudity. It

was of the view that the man depicted was showing no more than could be seen on

any public beach on a sunny summer day. It noted that the depiction of the man

appeared briefly near the end of the promo, and observed:

We are also of the view that the shot, which we found inoffensive, is

sufficiently intriguing to prompt viewers to watch the British drama to which

it referred - which is, after all, the purpose of the trailer. (It turns out the man

had sworn love so true to his yet to be convinced partner that he would sing

naked in the snow to win her hand).

In reference to standard G2, TVNZ advised that the strategic placement of the man's

hands and the distance from which the shot was taken, kept the image within the

currently accepted norms of taste and decency.

TVNZ advised that it saw nothing in the trailer which in its view would prove harmful

to children and thus breach standard G12.

In respect of standard G22, TVNZ's view was that the promo which screened in G

time, was constructed in a manner which complied with a G classification requirement.

Stating that it was sorry the promo had caused offence and apologising to Mr

Malcolm, TVNZ declined to uphold his complaint.

Mr Malcolm's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 16 June 1997

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

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

Mr Malcolm reiterated the substance of his complaint to TVNZ, and responded to the

points made by TVNZ. He listed four points.

1. They state in their view that "...the man depicted was showing no more

than can be seen on any public beach." However I would suggest that if a man

appeared on a public beach with nothing covering his genitals but his hands

that he could be warned, if not charged, by the Police. I suggest that this

nudity would not be seen on any public beach.

2. They suggest that "The trailer conveys the idea that the man was naked -

but shows no nudity whatsoever". A person who is not wearing clothes is

nude - completely undressed - whether or not he covers his genitals with his

hands.

3. To try and intrigue people to watch a programme by advertising it with a

portrayal of nudity is to arouse people with a sexual image. To do this is

pornographic.

4. The context of the nudity in the programme is irrelevant, since the context

of the nudity is not covered in the trailer.

Mr Malcolm did not consider that nudity was in keeping with the currently accepted

norms of taste and decency, and he did not believe that children should be exposed to

adult nudity. His view was that the promo did not comply with a G classification.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 23 June 1997

TVNZ had nothing further it wished to add.