BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Married At First Sight Australia, broadcast at 7.30pm, breached the children’s interests standard. The complainant considered the programme ‘promotes toxic and inappropriate relationships’ and was not suitable for broadcast during children’s viewing times. The Authority found the broadcast’s content did not go beyond well-established audience expectations of the programme, and that it complied with its PG-L classification (Parental Guidance recommended; Language may offend). The Authority was therefore satisfied sufficient, reliable information was provided to enable audiences to exercise discretion with regard to children’s viewing.

Not Upheld: Children’s Interests

The broadcast

[1]  Married at First Sight Australia is a reality dating programme, described as follows:

Australia's most controversial social experiment is back as 20 hopeful singles look for love by meeting and marrying a stranger at first sight.

[2]  Episode 27 of season 10 aired on 21 March 2023 at 7.30pm on Three. The broadcast was classified PG-L (Parental Guidance recommended for younger viewers; Language may offend).

[3]  In this episode, the couples returned to their ‘partners’, following ‘feedback week’ where the participants swapped partners for three days to gain a new perspective on their own relationships. The broadcast followed each of the participants as they concluded feedback week, including footage of their conversations as well as independent reflections. After their return, the participants headed to ‘Girls’ and Boys’ night’ where the couples split up to celebrate the night, share their experiences during the week, and reunite with contestants who had previously left the programme.

[4]  Some of the events and conversations which occurred in the broadcast included:

• A participant noting they did not agree with ‘feedback week’ in principle (given history with the particular person his ‘wife’ lived with during this time), reflecting on previous conversations with his housemate, and saying he was not ready to move back with his partner as he questioned ‘whether her morals and principles’ aligned with his own.
• The same participant’s ‘wife’ reacting to her ‘husband’ not returning to the apartment, and conversations that followed with the above housemate, and her ‘husband’. These conversations appeared tense and involved the participant crying while talking to her ‘husband’, after which she returned to her apartment, he followed her, and they continued talking on their bed. The cameraperson followed the participants between apartments and filmed them on the bed through an open door.
• A former participant’s return to the group for the night, highlighting that one participant ‘did not say hi’ to her.
• A participant expressing her experience of feedback week where she was alone for the period as the other participant decided to not go through with the challenge. This resulted in apparently tense conversations between the participant and the other’s partner ‘wife’ concerning the truth of what occurred during this period (and the first participant noting she was not alone as she was visited by the other participant, but she was living by herself as he did not sleep in the same apartment). In an independent reflection, the participant noted: ‘I feel like [participant] is coming at me because I am in a secure relationship and because she is sad [on] her own.’ She then told the group she was going to the bathroom but instead left the venue, explaining in an independent reflection that she did ‘not want to speak to any of them’.
• Interactions between a former participant whose ‘husband’ had kissed another participant. The latter apologised to the former, who thanked him, noted the genuineness in the apology and suggested they move on. Participants at the boys’ night also discussed the same events.

The complaint

[5]  Ben Francis complained the broadcast breached the children’s interests standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, citing guideline 2.1 of the Code which states that children should be protected from content that might adversely affect them during children’s normally accepted viewing times (up until 8.30pm). Francis considered the broadcast, and the programme more generally, was not suitable for children as:

• It promoted ‘toxic and inappropriate relationships’.
• ‘There are no measures in place to protect kids from this programme.’
• They were disappointed with WBD’s response that conflict and drama were parts of its appeal, noting we ‘live in a world [with] too much conflict and drama and this just encourages it.’

[6]  The complainant did not consider the show should be cancelled, but rather that it should be broadcast at the later, ‘more suitable’, timeslot of 8.30pm to ‘ensure that kids are protected from such toxic relational behaviour.’

[7]  On referral, the complainant raised the promotion of illegal and antisocial behaviour standard on the basis the programme’s reliance on conflict and drama was ‘antisocial behaviour’.

[8]  The Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where it can be reasonably implied into the wording of the initial complaint, and where it is reasonably necessary in order to properly consider the complaint.¹

[9]  While the original complaint did note concerns with the broadcast ‘promoting toxic and inappropriate relationships’ we do not consider this reached the threshold of ‘serious antisocial behaviour’ intended to be captured by the standard (which is more concerned with activity ‘contrary to the laws or customs of society to such a degree that a significant number of people would find it unacceptable’).² We therefore do not consider the standard can be reasonably implied into the wording of the initial complaint, nor do we consider it necessary in order to properly consider the complaint. In any event, we consider the complainant’s concerns are adequately addressed under the children’s interests standard and have focused our decision accordingly.

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) did not uphold the complaint, noting:

• ‘Married At First Sight Australia is in its tenth season and has consistently been an extremely popular part of Three’s schedule. Therefore, there is a high level of audience awareness of the show’s nature. Conflict and drama are significant parts of its appeal.’
• This particular episode ‘received a PG-L classification. This classification is given to programmes containing material more suited for mature audiences but not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or an adult.’
• WBD’s standards committee reviewed the broadcast and was ‘satisfied the content fell within the boundaries of the PG certificate and… that children's interests have been adequately considered in rating this series appropriately.’

The standard

[11]  The children’s interests standard³ requires broadcasters to ensure children can be protected from broadcasts which might adversely affect them. Material likely to be considered under this standard includes violent or sexual content or themes, offensive language, social or domestic friction and dangerous, antisocial or illegal behaviour where such material is outside the expectations of the programme’s classification.⁴

Our analysis

[12]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[13]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified, in light of the potential harm.⁵

[14]  In considering the harm alleged in this case, we understand the complainant’s underlying concern relates to the programme’s representation of social conflict – in particular, what they consider to be ‘toxic and inappropriate relationships’ – which may be harmful to children’s development.

[15]  Indeed, Australian research into relationship-based programmes found viewers were concerned about the impact these programmes have in ‘promoting unhealthy relationships’.⁶ These concerns are amplified when considering the perceived impact on children.⁷

[16]  However, that same research found represented drama / conflict was a key (although polarising) reason for viewers to watch these programmes.⁸ Some viewers considered the programmes useful in opening up conversations about values, such as what constitutes healthy and unhealthy relationships.⁹

[17]  Turning to the content of this particular broadcast, context is a key consideration in considering whether the programme breached the children’s interests standard. This includes: ‘the programme’s classification and any audience advisory; the time of broadcast; the target and likely audience; audience expectations; the availability of filtering technology and whether it has been promoted by the broadcaster; the public interest in the broadcast; and any factors that mitigate the likely harm to children, such as humour or educational benefit.’¹⁰

[18]  We considered the following to be relevant contextual factors:

• The broadcast was classified PG (Parental Guidance recommended for younger viewers), designated for programmes ‘containing material more suited for mature audiences but not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or an adult.’¹¹ PG programmes may be broadcast at any time.¹²
• The classification also included an ‘L’ advisory label indicating the broadcast contained language that may offend.¹³
• The broadcast was aired at 7.30pm, during children’s normally accepted viewing times (although it concluded at 9pm, 30 minutes after children’s normally accepted viewing times).¹⁴
• The programme had an adult target audience. The programmes before and after Married at First Sight Australia (The Project, an unclassified current affairs programme, and SAS US) were also targeted at adults.
• There is an established audience expectation (particularly from the title and the fact the programme has recently concluded its 10th season) that this is a reality show based around adults creating romantic relationships, which includes frequent instances of drama, conflict and tension between participants. Further, the programme is popular among New Zealand viewers (as WBD submitted, and supported by research reflecting the interest in the programme In Australia, though this concerned the previous season).¹⁵
• This particular episode included various levels of tension in relationships depicted, involving dramatic moments.
• Not all dramatic moments were negative. One example of a positive moment was the apology between two participants due to a previous incident, near the conclusion of the broadcast.

[19]  Commentary to the standard acknowledges it is not possible or practicable for broadcasters to shield children from all potentially unsuitable content.¹⁶ The objective is to allow them to broadcast to a wide audience, while taking reasonable steps to provide parents and caregivers with adequate information about the nature of the programme to enable them to exercise choice and control over their children’s viewing. In this sense, responsibility for safe viewing is shared by broadcasters and parents/caregivers.¹⁷

[20]  In the context outlined above, we are satisfied the broadcaster adequately enabled child viewers to be protected and that audiences were able to make an informed decision to choose not to watch, or to exercise discretion or give guidance with regard to children’s viewing.

[21]  Although the broadcast started at 7.30pm during children’s normally accepted viewing times, the programme was not designed to attract a child audience. The episode contained some mature themes, and may not reflect values or behaviour that all parents and caregivers would endorse for children in their care.¹⁸ However it did not in our view contain content that would alarm or distress children who happened to be watching, nor was it presented in a way that would have this effect.

[22]  The standard recognises ‘social or domestic friction’ is material that might be considered under the standard,¹⁹ however this envisages situations where the material was outside of audience expectations for the programme. We do not consider anything in this broadcast went beyond what are now well‑established audience expectations of Married at First Sight Australia, or beyond expectations of the programme’s PG classification or its timeslot. We are comfortable the PG classification sufficiently indicated supervision was recommended and that the programme would contain mature themes and content that may require explanation or guidance for younger viewers. In addition to moments of tension and conflict, ‘positive’ relationships were also represented in the broadcast, such as through the apology, couples returning to their partner after concluding feedback week on amicable terms, and friendly conversations / reunions at girls’ and boys’ night.

[23]  Finally, we note the Australian Communications and Media Authority has previously declined to uphold similar complaints regarding previous episodes of the programme.²⁰

[24]  In these circumstances, we did not find any breach of the children’s interests standard or any potential harm justifying regulatory intervention or restricting freedom of expression.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
26 July 2023    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Ben Francis’s formal complaint – 23 March 2023

2  WBD’s response to the complaint – 20 April 2023

3  Francis’s referral to the Authority – 20 April 2023

4  WBD confirming no further comments – 26 April 2023

¹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Guideline 2.2
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁶ Australian Communications and Media Authority Report: Viewer response to reality television in Australia (October 2021) at 25
⁷ As above at 26
⁸ As above at 13 finding 53% of current viewers were drawn to the programme because of the drama and conflict, whereas 13% found this off-putting
⁹ As above at 14
¹⁰ Guideline 2.3
¹¹ Guideline 1.4
¹² Guideline 1.16
¹³ Guideline 1.8
¹⁴ Guideline 2.1
¹⁵ Australian Communications and Media Authority Report: Viewer response to reality television in Australia (October 2021) at 8 and 9
¹⁶ Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 10
¹⁷ Choice and Control, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 4
¹⁸ See also Sta. Lucia and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-048, for a similar finding regarding a reality dating programme.
¹⁹ Guideline 2.2
²⁰ Australian Communications and Media Authority Investigation BI-606 Summary report (6 October 2021)