BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An item about the upcoming Hero Parade in Auckland, which included brief excerpts

from the previous year's parade, was screened on Holmes on 19 February 1998

between 7.00 and 7:30pm.

Mr Harang and Mr and Mrs Turner complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that

the subject matter of the item, and the film excerpts which featured two women and

their float in the 1997 Hero Parade, breached the good taste and decency standard of

the Television Code. One of the women was seen holding a whip, and the other

suspended in a type of harness with her breasts exposed. The Turners also

complained that TVNZ had given insufficient consideration to the fact that children

could be watching the programme at that time.

TVNZ responded by explaining that the item screened only days before the 1998

Hero parade and featured two women who were on the float which had created so

much controversy the previous year. It noted that before the brief item, the presenter

went to some lengths to warn viewers that it contained pictures which could be

considered explicit in nature and that some viewers might be offended. The presenter

had also advised viewers of the item's duration should they choose not to watch that

segment of the programme.

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's decision, the complainants referred the complaints

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

1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaints that the item breached

standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

An item on Holmes on 19 February referred to the upcoming Hero Parade and

featured a discussion with two women described as "bisexual fetishists" whose float

had caused controversy the previous year. Film excerpts from the previous year

showed one of the women waving a whip at the other, who was suspended in a type

of harness with her breasts exposed.

Mr Harang and Mr and Mrs Turner complained to TVNZ that the item breached the

good taste and decency standard of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Mr

Harang contended that the item would have offended many people, and would have

also sent teenagers the message that the sexual activity portrayed was normal. In their

letter of complaint, Mr and Mrs Turner stated that they could not object more

strongly to "this kind of debased spectacle" screening on television, especially during

family viewing time.

TVNZ advised that both complaints had been assessed under standard G2 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, and, Mr and Mrs Turner's complaint, under

standard G12. The 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 might have on children during

their normally accepted viewing times.

TVNZ explained that the item had focussed on a discussion with the two bisexual

women whose float in the Hero Parade the previous year had caused so much

controversy. As the presenter had stated in his introduction to the item, this was the

float that had triggered the backlash against the parade and the Auckland City

Council's decision not to fund it in 1998, and was an issue of much public debate at

the time of screening. Given this context, TVNZ maintained that the broadcast of the

story about the women and their float was fully justified as an item in a current affairs

programme. It also maintained that the story could not have been told without some

pictures of the float. The footage, it added, had been relatively brief, with the focus of

the item being the discussion with the women about their bondage fetish. TVNZ

stated that the most enlightening point to emerge from this discussion was that the

float had caused a good deal of controversy within the gay community itself, and as a

result there was to be no repeat performance by the two women this year.

With regard to the alleged offensiveness of the item, the broadcaster noted that when

the item was introduced, the presenter had gone to some lengths to warn viewers that

the material they were about to see was somewhat explicit in nature and, in addition,

he had advised the item's duration. This, the broadcaster said, had given those

viewers who were likely to be offended by the item the opportunity to decide not to

watch. TVNZ disagreed with Mr Harang's claim that the programme would have sent

teenagers the message that the sexual activity portrayed was normal, and asserted that

if this was the case, the float would not have created such controversy both within the

gay community, and among opponents of the parade. Furthermore, TVNZ believed

that the manner in which the item was presented emphasised that the behaviour

portrayed was not normal.

Given that the context of the item was the controversy surrounding the imminent

staging of the 1998 Hero Parade, and that the item had been preceded by a detailed

warning, TVNZ argued that its broadcast had not breached standard G2.

Turning to the alleged breach of standard G12, TVNZ pointed out to Mr and Mrs

Turner that news and current affairs frequently dealt with unpleasant events and the

seamier side of life. It stated that broadcasters operated on the premise that children

watching news programmes were guided by parents and/or caregivers. It referred again

to the presenter's detailed warning, and in view of this, considered that the broadcast

had not breached standard G12.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, the complainants referred their complaints to the

Authority. They maintained that the story had no justification as a current affairs

item, and that the warning given at the introduction to the item by the presenter was

totally inadequate, and would not have prevented younger children and teenagers from

watching it. Mr and Mrs Turner highlighted the point, which emerged during the

discussion with the women, that there was to be no repeat performance in this year's

parade because of opposition within the gay community itself. This, they suggested,

appeared to support their view that the scenes portrayed had breached standard G2.

The complainants also disputed the broadcaster's claim that there was a clear

implication throughout the item that the sexual activity was not normal. Mr Harang

observed that if the women had behaved in such an "exhibitionist" manner in public,

they would have been arrested on charges of indecency.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ responded to Mr Harang's claim that the

women could have been arrested for indecency if they had performed in public, by

pointing out that, in fact, they had been performing in public, which was why their

float had become the focus of the controversy. TVNZ also submitted that Mr and

Mrs Turner had overlooked the news context of the item, which was the dispute over

the Council's decision not to give financial assistance to the parade. It reminded the

Authority that the item was preceded by a very specific warning.

The Authority considers that there is an over-riding obligation on broadcasters,

pursuant to standards G2 and G12, to consider the content of any broadcast prior to

the 8.30pm watershed, in relation to standards of good taste and to its possible effect

on children. It believes that where programme content in family viewing time differs

markedly from normal audience expectations, the broadcast of a warning does not in

itself exempt a broadcaster from taking further action to comply fully with the

requirements in the codes. Although the Authority commends the broadcaster for its

efforts to warn the viewing audience of the item's potentially offensive content, it

considers it was not sufficient to comply with its obligations in relation to the

standards on this occasion.

The Authority is of the view that the film excerpts depicting semi-nudity in the

context of eroticised fetishistic behaviour were overly explicit, given the item's early

evening timeslot. The Authority points to its recently released research Community

Attitudes to Adult Material on Pay Television – 1997, in which 71% of respondents

expressed major to extreme concern about depictions of bondage on television.

The Authority considers that the footage of the previous year's parade appeared to

have been selected for its provocative and sensational nature. Given the age of the

footage used, it believes that the broadcaster had had the opportunity to select and

edit the material with due regard to the requirements in the codes. By selecting and

screening the excerpts in question, and by electing to screen some possibly

objectionable material more than once, the Authority believes that the broadcaster did

not meet its obligation to observe standards of good taste and decency or demonstrate

that it was mindful of the effect the programme might have on children.

Turning to the interview with the women, the Authority observes that it focussed on

details of their declared bondage fetish, and included a demonstration of, and

discussion about, whipping techniques. Much of this material, the Authority

believes, touched on the salacious and prurient.

Given the above, and particularly taking into account the results of the Authority's

public opinion research, the Authority concludes that the item was inappropriate for

screening before the 8.30pm watershed, and thus breached standards G2 and G12.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast

of an item on Holmes by Television New Zealand Limited between 7.00 and

7.30pm on 19 February 1998, breached standards G2 and G12 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under ss 13 and 16 of

the Broadcasting Act. Given the actions of the broadcaster, as noted above, it does

not intend to do so on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 June 1998

Appendix I

Mr Harang's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 19 February 1998

Mr Harang complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on

Holmes on 19 February 1998 between 7.00 and 7.30pm. The item looked at issues

surrounding the upcoming 1998 Hero Parade and featured film excerpts from the

previous year's parade.

Mr Harang maintained that by showing a film excerpt of a semi-naked woman with

her breasts clearly visible, the broadcaster had breached the good taste and decency

standard. He also maintained that, by screening the item, TVNZ would have offended

many viewers and had sent teenagers the message that such sexual activity was

normal, when, in Mr Harang's opinion, it was not.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 March 1998

In assessing the complaint under standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TVNZ explained that the item complained about concerned two women

whose controversial float in the 1997 Hero Parade in Auckland had, as the city

prepared for the 1998 event, brought into focus propriety issues involved in staging

the parade.

TVNZ noted that the item comprised, in the main, discussion with the two women

about their float and the controversy it had created at the time both within and outside

the gay movement. The brief shots of the float which accompanied the discussion had

shown the women performing in a very theatrical manner with one of the women

waving a whip and the other suspended in a type of harness with her breasts showing.

Given this context, TVNZ advised that the item was justified, pointing out that the

presenter, in his introduction, had said:

...this was the float that really triggered the backlash ... Mayor Les Mills went

on about the whips for months – we had accusations of pornography, the sexual

violence and so on for months.

It was a natural development, TVNZ maintained, for it to find out who the two

women were and if they had anything planned for the parade this year. It contended

that showing some footage of the float concerned was necessary to the telling of the

story, but claimed the shots were relatively brief with the main focus being the

discussion with the women and their descriptions of their particular fetish. The most

interesting point to emerge from this discussion, TVNZ observed, was that the float

had caused controversy in the gay community itself and because of this, there was to

be no repeat performance by the women in this year's parade.

TVNZ advised that the presenter had stated at the outset, that the item was going to

deal with the most controversial float in the previous year's parade, and had suggested

that some viewers might "want to use their remotes". TVNZ believed that adequate

warning had been given to those viewers who were likely to be offended by explicit

material while others were able to see an item which could shed light on an unusual

aspect of sexuality and reactions to it.

It disagreed with the assertion that the item would have suggested to teenagers that the

activity portrayed was quite normal. On the contrary, it stated, the fact that the float

had created such controversy within the gay community combined with the manner in

which the item was presented, indicated that the behaviour was not normal.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Harang's Referral of the Complaint to the Authority – 5 March 1998

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's decision, Mr Harang referred the complaint to the

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

He stated that he objected to the screening, in family viewing time, of a half naked

woman. The item's screening was totally inappropriate, he believed, and had shown a

bad example of sexual behaviour to teenagers and young people who already lived in a

society where promiscuity was regarded as acceptable. The excerpts were sensational

and had not shown anything of educational or news value.

With regard to the warning given by the presenter at the start of the item, Mr Harang

observed that a warning in itself could not prevent all teenagers and younger family

members from watching the show. He concluded:

It goes against currently accepted tastes of decency and if that lady was

performing such exhibitionism in public, she would have been arrested by the

police for indecency in public for disobeying the criminal laws in this country.

TVNZ's Response to the Referral – 17 March 1998

TVNZ responded to the Authority with an observation about Mr Harang's final

comment relating to the women performing in public. It stated:

The fact is that the "lady" was performing in public as part of the Hero Parade

and in front of a crowd which numbered tens of thousands. It was precisely

because the two women performed in public that they became both

controversial and the focus for protest among those people who opposed

council funding for the 1998 parade.

Mr Harang's Final Comment to the Authority – 23 March 1998

Mr Harang responded to the Authority stating that he had no further comment to

make.

Appendix II

Kate and David Turner's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – 19

February 1998

Kate and David Turner of Upper Hutt complained to Television New Zealand

Limited about the same Holmes item broadcast on 19 February between 7.00 and

7.30pm.

The complainants stated that they could not object more strongly to the item's

content, and that they believed that the screening of such "debased" scenes from the

previous year's Hero Parade at a time when children were undoubtedly watching, had

amounted to a very deliberate breach of the Television Programme Code. They

maintained that the screening of such material during family viewing time was

indefensible, and urged the broadcaster to take action to prevent the screening of

similar material in the future. The broadcaster, they continued, had a responsibility to

families in New Zealand, who were outraged at the manner in which some issues were

presented on the Holmes programme.

The complainants concluded:

... we would like some action taken – preferably the sacking of Paul Holmes and

the others responsible (presumably the producer and anyone else involved in

the section which gave publicity to the women peddling bondage items and quite

blatantly demonstrating how some of those items were used). We definitely do

not wish to have this sort of stuff screened at all.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 March 1998

Having established through earlier correspondence that the complainants wished to

have the complaint considered under standard G2 and standard G12 of the Television

Code, TVNZ advised them that it had declined to uphold the complaint.

In declining to uphold the standard G2 complaint, the broadcaster reiterated the

reasons contained in its letter of response to Mr Harang (see Appendix I).

With regard to the standard G12 aspect of the complaint, the broadcaster pointed out

that news and current affairs programmes frequently dealt with unpleasant events and

the seamier side of life. It referred to the very detailed warning given by the presenter

in the introduction to the item, and claimed that there was a clear implication

throughout the item that the sexual behaviour shown in the programme was not

normal. It concluded:

In order to uphold under G12 we must identify how a child would be harmed

through seeing this material. We are unable to do so.

Kate and David Turner's Referral of the Complaint to the Authority – 27

March 1998

After advising TVNZ that they were disappointed with its decision, Kate and David

Turner referred the complaint to the Authority for review.

The complainants totally refuted the broadcaster's statement that "from a current

affairs point of view", the item had justification. They considered, they wrote, that

the excerpts had been chosen to be provocative and sensational. Further, the

interview with the two women concerned had been carried out in a provocative and

suggestive manner. Pointing out that the broadcaster had advised that the "float had

caused a good deal of controversy within the gay community itself", and as a

consequence there was to be no repeat performance, the complainants suggested that

an obvious interpretation of those comments was that the gay community itself

considered that the float and the "performance" had breached standards of good taste

and would offend onlookers at this year's parade. They stated:

That would certainly support our view that the scenes we witnessed on the

Paul Holmes show breached standard G2 of the Codes of Broadcasting

Practice and that those scenes and the interview with the two women are not

acceptable "norms of decency and taste in behaviour".

With regard to G12, the complainants maintained that the fact that the item was

shown during children's "normally accepted viewing times" was almost certainly a

guarantee that some children would have seen it and added that the warning given by

the presenter could not be regarded as a justifiable defence for showing depictions of

bondage at a time when children might be watching.

The complainants maintained that there was no clear implication throughout the item

that the sexual behaviour shown was not normal.

In conclusion, the complainants stated that their complaint was not about an "unusual

sexual activity" (see Appendix I) as described by the broadcaster. It was, they wrote:

... about a particular item on a particular show and we still maintain that it

breached Standards G2 and G12. We maintain that TVNZ personnel's flaunting

of standards set down by the Broadcasting Standards Authority is arrogant and

unacceptable. We would like to appeal strongly against the finding of TV1's

internal inquiry and ask that you uphold our complaint and take appropriate

action.

TVNZ's Response to the Referral – 6 April 1998

TVNZ stated in its report to the Authority that it had a little to add.

It was TVNZ's view, it wrote, that the complainants had overlooked the news context

in which the item was shown. It reiterated its point that the item was broadcast just

days before the 1998 Hero Parade, and at a time when there was much controversy

about the Auckland City Council's decision not to give financial assistance. It stated:

Civic leaders on the Council who opposed council funding had focussed their

objection to the event on such matters as whips and bondage, and it was clear

that one float in the previous year's parade had given rise to these objections.

The item on Holmes looked at that float, at the women who presented it, and

discovered that not only would the performance not be repeated but that it

appeared not to have the support of the gay community which the parade

celebrates.

Finally, it reminded the Authority:

...that the item was preceded by a specific warning – which even provided

viewers with an exact duration should they wish to switch off for that time.

Kate and David Turner's Final Comment – 19 April 1998

In their final comment to the Authority, the complainants referred to the broadcaster's

insistence that the story was broadcast in the context of it being a "news" item. They

expressed their view that as the float in question was not taking part in this year's

parade there was nothing newsworthy about it. They had no doubt that the manner in

which the item was presented had led to a breach of G2 and G12 of the Television

Code.

The complainants also stressed that a warning could never be a full protection against

children being exposed to unsuitable material, giving as an example the fact that a

parent might not always be in the room when such a warning is given, as was the case

in their home on the night of the broadcast.

They concluded that there was no excuse whatsoever for the broadcast of such scenes

at a time when children could be viewing.