BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A visiting American stripper named Lulu Devine was featured on Holmes on TV1 on 7

October 1993 between 6.30–7.00pm.

Mr Harper complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item was a flagrant breach

of its responsibility to maintain standards consistent with good taste and decency,

inappropriate for screening at an hour when children would be watching and denigratory

to women.

Explaining that the item intended to investigate the concern felt by some that strip

routines incite violence against women, TVNZ argued that it was appropriate to include

some shots of the stripper's routine to illustrate the story. However, it accepted that the

item went beyond the bounds of decency and good taste and accordingly was in breach of

standard G2. TVNZ also acknowledged that the item was in breach of standard G12

because despite the verbal warnings, it was not suitable for child viewers and would have

been better screened at a later time. It rejected the complaint that the item denigrated

women. TVNZ noted that as a result of this complaint, a guideline would be developed

about what is acceptable in items of this nature. Dissatisfied both that the complaint

about denigration had not been upheld and with the action taken by TVNZ on the aspects

upheld, Mr Harper 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 declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

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

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item on Holmes broadcast on 7 October 1993 at about 6.55pm featured an interview

with a stripper named Lulu Devine who had huge breasts, described by Ms Devine herself

as the eighth and ninth wonders of the world. It included extracts from her strip show

routine where the focus was on her abnormally large breasts and contained comments

about the effects of such shows on domestic violence.

Mr Harper complained that the broadcast of the item was a flagrant breach of the

broadcaster's responsibility to maintain standards consistent with good taste and decency.

Further, he claimed that it was irresponsible to screen the item during children's viewing

hours and that the item was embarrassing and denigratory to women. Acknowledging

that the item was preceded by a verbal warning advising that it was not intended for

children, Mr Harper argued that the code of practice requires that Adults Only material be

screened after 8.30pm and parents would not have expected this item to be sandwiched in

between two items of particular interest to children (an item about magpies at a school

and Wheel of Fortune).

TVNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint against standards G2, G12 and G13 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which 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.

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which is likely to encourage

denigration of or discrimination against any section of the community on

account of sex, race, age, disability, occupation status, sexual orientation or

the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is

not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current

affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

 

It explained that the item attempted to investigate the validity of claims made by some that

strip shows incite violence against women. It was legitimate, in its view, to illustrate the

story by including some shots of the stripper's routine. However, TVNZ acknowledged that

the pictures of Ms Devine were used to excess and to the point where they became

gratuitous. Accordingly, it found that the item breached standard G2.

TVNZ also conceded that despite the verbal warnings advising viewer discretion, the

manner in which the item was presented was not suitable for child viewers and might

better have been placed in a late evening news programme. It found that standard G12

had been breached.

Responding to the complaint that the item denigrated women, TVNZ referred to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority's previous interpretations of the standard which have

stated that for denigration to occur, the group concerned must have had their reputation

seriously blackened. It did not believe that had occurred in this item.

In summary, TVNZ acknowledged that standards G2 and G12 were breached by the item

and explained that as a consequence there was now a guideline as to what was acceptable

in general viewing time and that the matter would be discussed with editors and producers

associated with the Holmes programme. It maintained that the fault was an error of

judgment and not a deliberate attempt to bend the rules.

The Authority expressed its serious concern at the fact that this type of material was

screened in an early evening programme, noting its inexcusable juxtaposition between a

Holmes item about magpies at a school, of obvious interest to younger viewers, and Wheel

of Fortune, a programme intended for family viewing. Accepting that the topic of

domestic violence and its causes was in itself worthy of investigation, nevertheless the

Authority was sceptical about TVNZ's assurance that this was the rationale for the item

when it appeared that the focus was mostly on the stripper, her very large breasts and her

performance.

The Authority regarded the breach of the standard requiring good taste and decency as a

particularly blatant one because of the early hour at which the programme was screened.

That view was reinforced by the research commissioned by the Authority in 1993 which

revealed that 64% of respondents were offended by the broadcast of items about strip

shows shown in the early evening news hour. The Authority acknowledged that TVNZ

had upheld the complaint that the item was in breach of both standard G2 and G12, but

it believed that it would have been appropriate for TVNZ publicly to acknowledge its error

of judgment to viewers of the Holmes programme.

TVNZ, the Authority considered, was taking its responsibilities seriously by upholding the

complaint and using it to establish a guideline which had been discussed with staff. In the

circumstances this action was accepted as sufficient but the Authority was surprised that

guidelines already established by previous complaints about earlier Holmes programmes

had not prevented the screening of the item in the first place (for example, Decision Nos:

46/92, 7/93 and 129/93).

The Authority now makes it clear that similar footage should be avoided in future and

expresses the view that if such a serious breach of the good taste and decency standard

occurs again it would order TVNZ to broadcast a statement informing viewers of the

breach and apologising for its occurrence. It declined to uphold the complaint that the

action taken was not sufficient in this instance.

With respect to the standard G13 aspect of the complaint, the Authority referred to its

earlier decisions (Nos: 86/92 and 75/93) in which it interpreted the standard. In No:

75/93 it wrote:

The Authority noted that in previous decisions it has interpreted denigration

to mean that the activities portrayed were responsible for blackening the

reputation of women as a class. Discrimination, the alternative limb of

standard G13, is, in the Authority's view, a lower threshold test which it

would interpret to mean that the activities portrayed encouraged different

treatment of women as a class.

In this instance the Authority did not believe that the portrayal of Ms Devine was in

breach of standard G13 because, while somewhat contrived, the angle of the item

produced comments from the interviewees supportive of the right of women not to be

physically abused. The commentary thus offset the visuals of Ms Devine which, alone or

in another context, may well have been in breach of standard G13.

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

complaint that the action taken by TVNZ, having upheld the complaint that

the item breached standards G2 and G12, was not sufficient. It declines to

uphold the standard G13 complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
5 April 1994

Appendix

Mr Harper's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited

In a letter dated 8 October 1993, Mr Charles Harper complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd about an item on Holmes broadcast on 7 October 1993 at about 6.55pm.

The item concerned the appearance of a stripper named Lulu Devine and included scenes

from her show. Mr Harper complained that the item was a flagrant breach of TVNZ's

responsibility to maintain standards consistent with the observance of good taste and

decency. He regarded it as totally irresponsible to programme an adult entertainment item

during family viewing hours. He wrote:

Apart from its unwholesome effect on children, I believe many viewers would agree

that the programme was embarrassing and denigratory to women.

He pointed out that although the item was introduced with a warning that it might not be

suitable for children, the Broadcasting Code of Practice assures parents that Adults Only

material screens after 8.30pm. Mr Harper was infuriated that this item was sandwiched

between two programmes of particular interest to children.

One cannot escape the conclusion that TV One news producers are deliberately

setting out to undermine family and community standards of decency, and give

unwarranted publicity to the sex industry. Competition has brought a nose dive

into the gutter. "Lulu Devine" was one of the most objectionable in a recent spate

of news items on prostitution, massage parlours etc.

This trend reinforces the view that TV One news policy is close to moral and

intellectual bankruptcy. In its drive for ratings at any price, TVNZ is pushing the

limits too far. Kiwi families, and women too, deserve a better deal!

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint

TVNZ advised Mr Harper of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter dated 10

November 1993 and reported that the complaint had been assessed under standards G2,

G12 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Explaining that the background to the item was the concern held by some that strip

routines such as those by Lulu Devine incite violence against women, TVNZ argued that

the subject was one worthy of investigation. It maintained that it was appropriate that

shots of the stripper's routine were included to illustrate the story. However, it conceded

that the pictures of the stripper were used to excess and were beyond the standards of

decency and good taste and accordingly in breach of standard G2.

TVNZ also considered that despite the verbal warnings that the subject matter might not

be suitable for children, the manner in which the item was presented was not suitable for

child viewers. It found that the item breached standard G12.

With reference to the denigration aspect of the complaint, TVNZ noted that the

Broadcasting Standards Authority has stated in previous decisions that for denigration to

have occurred, the group concerned must have had their reputation seriously blackened.

It did not agree that the community felt any less about women in general as a result of the

broadcast of this item.

Further, it did not agree that the item was a deliberate attempt to undermine family and

community standards of decency. It maintained that it was a legitimate attempt to

investigate whether there was any validity in the view that strip performances incite

domestic violence.

TVNZ noted that as a result of the item, it now had a guideline about what was acceptable

in items of this nature shown during Holmes, and that the matter would be discussed with

the show's producers and editors. It apologised for the offence caused.

Mr Harper's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

As he was dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, in a letter dated 29 November 1993, Mr

Harper referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Although he gave full marks to TVNZ for promptly considering his complaint and ruling

that it was in breach of standards G2 and G12 and for agreeing to discuss the matter with

producers and editors of the Holmes programme, Mr Harper was not entirely satisfied with

the decision and the limited action taken. He regarded the breach as a serious and

irresponsible one and asked for an independent review of the complete item, in context

with the items surrounding it.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint. Its

letter is dated 1 December 1993, and TVNZ's reply, 17 December.

TVNZ repeated that the item dealt with the concern being expressed by some that

performances of female strippers may contribute to an increase in domestic violence. The

issue had been revived by the visit of Lulu Devine. TVNZ acknowledged that the stripping

sequences were used to excess and that consequently the complaint had been upheld. It

reported that the decision had been discussed with the staff of Holmes and provided a

benchmark for future editorial decisions.

TVNZ expressed its belief that the action taken was sufficient, noting that the fault was an

error of judgment and not a deliberate attempt to bend the rules. It believed that the most

productive outcome of the complaint was that it was to become a guideline for future

reference.

Mr Harper's Final Comment

When asked to make a brief final comment, in a letter dated 30 December 1993 Mr

Harper acknowledged that TVNZ had largely upheld the claim that the item had breached

broadcasting standards.

In his view, it detracted from the enhanced image of the role of women and secondly,

appeared to be pushing the limits in TVNZ's developing news focus on the sex industry.

With reference to the action taken by TVNZ, Mr Harper claimed that it seemed more

concerned with internal procedures than the best interests of the viewing public. He

argued that children and parents should also have been considered, as well as producers of

other programmes that were pushing at the limits and competing networks which may

follow the lead of this item.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 21 February 1994 TVNZ responded to a request from the Authority

(dated 3 February 1994) for clarification on the meaning and effect of the action taken by

TVNZ including how it intended to use this decision as a benchmark and what assurances

it could give that this type of programme would not be screened during general viewing

time.

TVNZ explained that it considered the breach of programme standards was the result of an

error in judgment. It maintained that there was nothing wrong with the story (whether

such performances contributed to domestic violence) but judgment was lacking in that

pictures of Ms Devine were used to excess.

It advised that senior editorial executives had been made aware of the Complaints

Committee's decision and had discussed the implications in a formal editorial meeting. It

noted that this was standard procedure in the case of a decision by the Authority involving

news or current affairs output of either TVNZ or other television broadcasters.

TVNZ was unable to offer an assurance that this type of programme would not be

screened again during general viewing time, explaining that editors, producers and

directors were given independence in which to operate and that it was inevitable that on

occasion there would be lapses in judgment. In this instance, there had been an error in

judgment in the use of the visuals for a perfectly legitimate story. TVNZ considered that

the problem was not with the subject matter but in the way in which the item was

assembled.

As a final point, TVNZ submitted that considering the volume of material produced there

had been very few lapses.