BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

One of the controversial acts in "The Jim Rose Circus" was shown in a broadcast on

Holmes on 23 April 1998 between 7.00–7.30pm, following an interview with the

show's promoter concerning the withdrawal of one of its sponsors. Although his

genitals were obscured, the performer was seen lifting a bell which was apparently

attached to his penis.

Canon Hadlow complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

item breached the good taste standard, and was inappropriate and vulgar in the

extreme, considering that it was screened at a time when children would be watching.

In addition, he complained about a remark made by the show's promoter, repeated by

the presenter, which he said linked the stunt to church worship.

Describing the circus as controversial, TVNZ argued that it was not possible to cover

the background to the dispute over sponsorship without showing some of the acts at

the centre of the controversy. TVNZ accepted that some parents would not wish

their children to watch the item, but considered they had adequate warning about the

content, and an opportunity to remove their children. It declined to uphold the

complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Canon Hadlow referred the complaint

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

1989.

For the reasons given below, a majority of 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.

The promoter of "The Jim Rose Circus" was interviewed on Holmes on 23 April

1998 between 7.00–7.30pm in connection with the withdrawal of one of the sponsors

of the Auckland Laugh Festival because of the content of his show. A representative

of the venue management maintained that the organisers had been unaware of the

controversial nature of some of the acts which were included in the show. When

asked by the presenter what some of these acts were, a demonstration was arranged.

One of the acts shown was of a man lifting a large bell which was apparently taped to

his penis. When the show's promoter said "Let's go to Church", the man rocked back

and forth making the bell ring when it swung between his legs. The man's genitals

were obscured by a large graphic which had the word "Censored" written on it.

Canon Hadlow complained to TVNZ that the inclusion of this item from the show

breached the good taste standard, and exposed children to scenes which were totally

inappropriate and vulgar at a time when they were likely to be watching. He also

objected to a remark made by the show's promoter, which he said was repeated by

the presenter, linking the stunt to church worship.

TVNZ considered the complaint under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards 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 hours.

TVNZ first examined the item's context. It explained that "The Jim Rose Circus" was

one of the acts included in the International Laugh Festival in Auckland. Describing it

as more of a freak show than a circus, TVNZ noted that its controversial acts had

attracted a great deal of publicity, so much so that one of the major sponsors of the

Festival had decided to withdraw its sponsorship. The item, it noted, highlighted the

controversy between the venue management and the show's promoter, and included

examples of the various acts simply to illustrate the controversy. TVNZ pointed out

that the act complained about, which involved the performer lifting a large bell with

his penis, was superimposed with a banner containing the word "censored".

In TVNZ's opinion, there was no point in covering a story involving moral outrage

without offering viewers the opportunity to see what the controversy was all about.

It said it did not consider that the item exceeded public expectations, particularly as

the visuals from the show were appropriately brief and the question line within the

interviews provided pointers to the illustrations to come.

With respect to the presenter repeating the phrase "Let's go to church", TVNZ

submitted that it did not feel the community would see this as in any way disparaging

worship. It believed it was a light-hearted phrase which would not have caused

offence.

Turning to standard G12, TVNZ pointed to the efforts made by the production team

to conceal explicit material. It suggested that it was in the nature of news and current

affairs that it would frequently present material which had the potential to cause

distress or give offence. However, it argued, that was not a reason to steer away from

controversy. TVNZ acknowledged that some parents would not want their children

to see the item, but maintained that there was ample opportunity for them to remove

their children or to switch off the television. It did not consider that standard G12

was infringed by the broadcast.

A majority of the Authority considers that the item's content was rather tawdry and

at the limits of what can be broadcast in the early evening time slot. In particular, it

finds the discussion about some of the show's controversial acts to be somewhat

borderline. However, the visuals which accompanied the item appeared to the

majority to demonstrate that TVNZ had been aware of its obligation to observe the

good taste standard as, by the use of masking devices, the more explicit shots had been

removed. The majority also accepts that the controversy had generated significant

public interest as a result of one of the sponsors withdrawing its support. In those

circumstances, an illustration of some of the acts assisted viewers in understanding the

possible reasons for the sponsor's action. On balance, the majority concludes that the

brief excerpts from the show did not breach the standard of good taste and decency.

In addition, the majority finds no breach of standard G12, as it considers that TVNZ

did show that it was mindful that its audience could include children. In particular it

notes the use of the masking devices, and the fact that the presenter's comments

would have forewarned viewers about the possible content to come, and thus given

them an opportunity to prevent their children from watching. The majority declines

to uphold either aspect of the complaint.

A minority disagrees. It considers that the item was inappropriately broadcast during

family viewing time, especially given that the show itself, as well as the excerpts

selected for broadcast, were intended for an adult audience. In the minority's view,

the attempt to censor the bell-lifting stunt by superimposing a censored sign was

inflammatory, serving merely to draw further attention it. The minority recognises

that the requirement to observe standards of good taste and decency contains a

contextual element. On this occasion, it notes, the item was broadcast in the early

evening at a time when families are likely to be watching television. It is for this

reason that the minority finds that the item breached standard G2. It follows also that

it breached standard G12, as the minority considers the broadcaster did not, by

scheduling the item in the early evening, demonstrate that it was mindful of children.

Turning to the complaint about the presenter repeating the show's promoter when he

said "let's go to church", the Authority reports that those words were not used by the

presenter in the tape supplied. The Authority is not persuaded that the use of those

words by the show's promoter infringed standard G2. It accepts TVNZ's

explanation that the remark was made in a humorous vein, even if that humour was

not shared by all concerned. It declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold

the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
6 August 1998

Appendix

Canon Gerald Hadlow's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 22 April

1998

The Rev Canon Hadlow of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about

an item broadcast on Holmes on 23 April 1998. The item referred to the controversy

surrounding a visiting show called "The Jim Rose Circus" which featured "freak show

acts", and which had been forced to move to another venue in Auckland because a

sponsor had withdrawn its support.

After an interview with the show's promoter, the presenter invited him to show two

of the acts which had been the cause of the controversy. One involved a man lifting a

bell which was attached to his penis. By swaying his body back and forth he made

the bell ring. As he did so, the promoter said: "Let's go to Church". This was

repeated by the presenter.

Canon Hadlow complained that the item failed to observe standards of good taste and

decency. He also objected to the fact that children were exposed to scenes which were

totally inappropriate and vulgar at a time when they were likely to be watching. He

said that he found the remark which linked the scene to church worship deeply

offensive. He added:

Despite the fact that a banner with the word "censored" written across it

appeared covering the man's genitalia from view it was quite obvious from

both the movement and words being spoken as to what was taking place.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 12 May 1998

TVNZ began by placing the item and its content in context. It noted that the Jim

Rose Circus was an international act which had been featured in internationally known

television shows, and was expected to be one of the highlights at the International

Laugh Festival in Auckland.

The controversial content of the show led to the sponsors of the Festival asking that it

be withdrawn. The show's promoter denied that he had misled the Festival organisers

about the content, while the sponsors and venue managers maintained that he had.

TVNZ argued that it was not possible to cover the background to the dispute without

showing something of the acts which were at the centre of the controversy.

Having examined the item, it noted that the bulk of it was made up of interviews, and

that the examples of various acts were kept short and appropriately restrained. In the

act which involved explicit exposure, a "censored" banner was placed over it to reduce

offence, it noted.

TVNZ continued:

Looking at G2 we feel that in the context of a show which is perhaps by

definition short on taste, the item did not stray beyond public expectations.

The visuals from the show were appropriately brief, and well spaced, and the

question line within the interviews provided pointers to the illustrations which

were to come.

TVNZ added that it could understand Canon Hadlow's dismay at the presenter

repeating the phrase about going to church, but did not consider that it would be seen

as disparaging worship. In its view, it was a light hearted remark which would not

have caused widespread offence.

Turning to standard G12, TVNZ noted the efforts which the production team had

made to conceal explicit material. It accepted that some parents may not wish their

children to view the material, but argued that there was ample time for parents to

remove children or switch off the television, should they so desire. TVNZ added:

We also note, from our own observations, that children have a wonderful and

developed sense of humour. They do not view nudity and references to sexual

parts with the same horror as some of their elders. Innocent playground

banter often revolves around such references.

TVNZ did not believe standard G12 was infringed by the broadcast. It added that it

understood the offence Canon Hadlow had taken by the item and apologised for

causing him offence. It noted that it did cater for a wide variety of tastes and opinions

and pointed out that the Jim Rose Circus was immensely popular and played to sell-

out audiences. It considered the people who went to those shows deserved to see

their interests reflected in news and current affairs programmes as much as anyone

else. It concluded that such an item could not be assembled without indicating what

was so controversial. It declined to uphold the complaints.

Canon Hadlow's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 19 May

1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Canon Hadlow referred the complaint to the

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

investigation and review.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 28 May 1998

TVNZ advised that since Canon Hadlow had given no reason for his dissatisfaction

with its decision, it had no further comment to make.

Canon Hadlow's Final Comment – 6 June 1998

Canon Hadlow responded that he was puzzled by TVNZ's somewhat terse response

and that its decision had failed to address his concerns. He wrote:

I suspect [TVNZ] was not too pleased by my letter...which indicated that I

considered [its] response as the cleverest justification for the corruption of

children I had ever read.