BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Sexually explicit, blasphemous and arguably bad taste jokes were told by a number of

comedians in the programme Pulp Comedy broadcast on TV4 on 21 January 1998

beginning at 10.20pm.

Mr Pascoe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that in spite of the programme

being screened late and being classified as an adult only programme, it was not a

license for the broadcaster to disregard standards of common decency. In his view, it

was irresponsible for the network to screen the material "in the certain knowledge that

many children do not receive appropriate supervision at home."

In its response, TV3 emphasised that the programme was broadcast after 10.00pm,

was classified as AO, and was preceded by a warning relating to the language. In that

context, it did not consider it breached accepted standards. Further, it noted that the

series as a whole contained humour that was sometimes risque, and that was why it

was screened at a later hour. TV3 also argued that comedy was subjective, but

because some people found the jokes offensive that did not mean they should not be

screened. Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Pascoe 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 the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A number of New Zealand comedians were featured in the series Pulp Comedy

screened on TV4 on 21 January 1998 beginning at 10.20pm. Sexually explicit jokes

were a common theme of their repertoires.

Mr Pascoe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the content was unsuitable

for broadcast, notwithstanding the lateness of the broadcast, the fact that it was

identified as adult viewing, and that it was preceded by a warning. He considered it

totally irresponsible, he wrote, for a television network to screen such material,

particularly as it was well known that many children did not receive adequate

supervision in the home. In his view, it was inequitable that movie theatres were

required to enforce age restrictions, but television networks were not.

When it responded, TV3 advised that it had considered the complaint under standard

G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which 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.

By way of background, TV3 explained that the Pulp Comedy programmes were

recordings of actual stand-up comic routines performed in New Zealand by New

Zealand comedians. A wide range of acts was included, and the programme screened

on TV4 after 10.00pm. It noted that the programme complained about began at

10.21pm and was preceded by a verbal and on screen warning which advised:

The following programme is recommended for adults only viewing and

contains coarse language.

TV3 emphasised that standard G2 contained a reference to the context in which any

language or behaviour occurred. It pointed out that the context on this occasion

included that the programme was rated AO, was screened at 10.21pm, and was

preceded by a warning regarding the language. On that basis, TV3 maintained that the

words complained about were acceptable.

In reaching its decision not to uphold the complaint, TV3 emphasised that the context

of the series as a whole had to be taken into account. It noted that stand-up comedy

was by its nature often challenging, and often included items which tended towards

the risque. However, it argued, it was appropriate to screen the series, as there was a

section of the viewing public which appreciated the humour and, by screening the

programme at an appropriate time, the effect of the risque elements was countered.

In addition, TV3 maintained, the fact that some people might be offended did not

necessarily mean that the jokes were inappropriate and should not be screened.

TV3 concluded that the programme was acceptable given the time of the broadcast,

and the warning specifically referring to coarse language which preceded its screening.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Pascoe rejected TV3's

characterisation of the programme as being challenging and risque. He declared it was

vulgar. He argued that despite the late hour, children and young adults were watching

television either unsupervised, or with minimal supervision. In his view, the

programme fell short of the currently accepted norms of decency and taste of "even

today's" society.

The Authority begins its deliberations with the observation that the parameters of

good taste and decency are not absolute. When it assesses complaints about breaches

of good taste and decency, the Authority is obliged to take into account context,

which includes the hour of the broadcast, the presence of warnings, and the

classification of the programme. The Authority notes that this programme was

broadcast at 10.21pm, an hour which clearly signals that it is for adult viewing; that it

was preceded by a clear warning about its content; and that it was classified as AO.

Nevertheless, the Authority cautions that the provision of a warning and a clear

indication that the material is for adult viewing does not give a broadcaster carte

blanche to broadcast material which breaches statutory broadcasting standards. It

finds that the standup comedy routines featured in Pulp Comedy contained clearly

provocative humour of a degree which tested the parameters of good taste. However,

it concludes, although the content focused on sexual matters, and contained coarse

language, it was neither erotic nor titillating, nor was it reinforced by visual elements

which would have aggravated its effect,. It finds it did not transgress the standard. In

reaching this conclusion, the Authority takes account of the fact that the broadcaster

had clearly identified the programme as being for adult viewing, and that the content

was predictable in the context of live, standup comedy directed at an adult audience.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
25 June 199

Appendix

Warwick Pascoe's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 23 January 1998

Mr Pascoe's complaint, addressed to the Broadcasting Standards Authority was

forwarded to TV3 Network Services Ltd. He complained that the episode of "Pulp

Comedy" screened on 21 January 1998 breached the good taste standard. In particular

he complained that the sexually explicit, bad taste and blasphemous jokes were

unsuitable for broadcast, and contained "a seemingly endless string of crude references

to male genitalia".

Mr Pascoe continued:

That this programme was classified "adult only", and screened later should, in

my opinion, not be a licence to disregard standards of common decency

(notwithstanding the fact that the definition of this has "slipped" somewhat in

recent years).

In Mr Pascoe's view, it was totally irresponsible for a television network to screen

such material, "in the certain knowledge that many children do not receive appropriate

supervision at home." He described as inequitable that movie theatres were required

to enforce age restrictions while television stations could show restricted programmes

on the assumption that under-age viewers would be denied access.

In a second letter, addressed to TV3, Mr Pascoe clarified that it was his belief that the

programme breached standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. He

acknowledged that it was screened late, and was correctly labelled AO, but contended

that there was no time when the material screened would not be in breach of standard

G2.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 10 March 1998

First, TV3 explained that the "Pulp Comedy" programmes were recordings of actual

stand-up comedy shows performed by New Zealand comedians. They included a

wide range of acts and were screened after 10.00pm on TV4. The show complained

about began at 10.21pm, and was preceded by a written and verbal warning which

stated: "The following programme is recommended for adults only viewing and

contains coarse language."

TV3 advised that when reviewing any complaint about a breach of standard G2,

consideration had to be given to the context in which the language or behaviour

occurred. It wrote:

In the context of an AO programme, screening at 10.21pm and preceded by a

warning for coarse language, the Committee finds that the words cited by you

as breaching the G2 general standard [ie "dicks, hard-ons, coming, and roots"]

are acceptable.

In reaching its decision, TV3 added that it was aware of the context of the series as a

whole. It pointed out that stand-up comedy was often challenging and included items

that tended to be risque. Because a section of the viewing public appreciated the

humour, TV3 considered it was appropriate to screen the programme, and in its view,

by screening at an appropriate time, the more risque elements were countered. It

added:

Comedy by its very nature is subjective and occasionally someone will find a

routine offensive to their own personal values, while other people find the

same piece amusing and worthwhile relative to their own experiences. The

potential for some people to be 'offended' does not mean the joke is

inappropriate and should not be screened.

TV3 concluded that the episode was acceptable, especially given the time at which it

screened and the specific warning which preceded it.

TV3 then responded to Mr Pascoe's comments about the potential for children to

watch the programme, in spite of the late hour of the broadcast. In its view, TV4 had

acted appropriately in scheduling the programme at 10.21pm. It considered it was

reasonable to expect that children would be asleep then.

TV3 continued:

Free-to-air television provides a service; programmes are cut and given censor

ratings which both restricts the hour at which a programme can screen and

advises audience suitability. Warnings are provided for specific content which

may be of concern. The reasons for the provision of such a service is that the

accessibility of free-to-air means broadcasters must take into account that

viewers do not have as much control over what they view as a movie-goer does

(although obviously they do have a choice of channels and the ability to turn

their television off). That is why, for example an R18 movie would never

screen uncut on free-to-air although it is available at cinemas or on SKY in

uncut form.

TV3 considered Mr Pascoe's argument - that AO programmes were unacceptable

because it was impossible to restrict a child from viewing AO material - was

unnecessarily prohibitive. It argued that some responsibility for children had to rest

with caregivers. It added:

As a broadcaster we provide censor ratings, warnings and edit material so that

each family can monitor their child's viewing to fit their personal ideals and

standards. These standards may not be the same as your own, but that does

not mean they have any less validity.

Removing adult material completely from the screens to protect a hypothetical

child viewer would place unacceptable constraints on our culture. An AO

rating does not mean that a programme is not entertaining or edifying in some

way and appropriate for its intended audience.

Mr Pascoe's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 25 March 1998

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Pascoe referred the complaint to the

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

attached the correspondence, including a letter dated 24 March to TV3 in which he set

out the reasons for his referral. He contended:

1. The programme was vulgar, rather than simply risque or challenging, as TV3

had asserted.

2. Despite the late hour and the AO recommendation, Mr Pascoe argued that the

true context was that there were children who were watching television either

unsupervised, or with minimal supervision. He considered it was naive to

assume otherwise.

3. Given that context, Mr Pascoe argued the programme fell short of the currently

accepted norms of decency and taste of today's society.

He concluded:

With regard to your comments about "unacceptable constraints on our

culture". I would suggest that your committee take a long hard look at the

children New Zealand's television culture is currently unleashing on society.

Does what you see give you cause for confidence that the "standards"

currently espoused as "acceptable" are producing the desired result?

TV3's Response to the Authority – 24 April 1998

TV3 advised that it had no further comments to make.