BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A promo for the Billy T Awards was shown during This is Your Life which featured Michael Jones on 29 October 1997 beginning at 8.30pm. The promo referred to masturbation.

Mr Hay of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was inappropriate to include the promo during the broadcast of a programme about a well known sportsman which would be watched by a large number of young people. He said he found it offensive and crude.

TVNZ responded that it unhesitatingly agreed with Mr Hay that the promo was inappropriately placed. It explained that it was an error of judgement which had been acknowledged by the department responsible for making and scheduling of programme trailers. It apologised for causing offence.

Dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ, My Hay 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 that the action taken was insufficient

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the promo complained about, and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

This is Your Life, broadcast on TV One on 29 October 1997 beginning at 8.30pm, featured Michael Jones, a well known rugby player. During one of the advertising breaks, a promo for an upcoming comedy programme was shown in which one of the performers made reference to masturbation.

Mr Hay complained that the content of the promo was offensive rubbish and objectionable. In particular, he objected to its placement during a programme about Michael Jones, who he described as an important role model for the young people of New Zealand. He believed a considerable number of them would have watched the programme.

TVNZ advised that it had assessed the promo in the context of standard 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.

Having viewed the promo, TVNZ conceded that it was inappropriately placed. It explained that an error of judgement had occurred, which had been acknowledged by the department responsible for the making and scheduling of promos. It apologised to Mr Hay for causing offence.

TVNZ submitted that although the complaint had been upheld, it had been difficult to conclude that the broadcast of the promo directly breached either standard G2 or G12. Nevertheless, it conceded, its placement was wrong.

Mr Hay said that he remained unconvinced that adequate procedures were in place to avoid this type of problem in the future, and expressed concern that although the complaint had been upheld, there was no finding of a breach of standards G2 or G12. He wondered what standard TVNZ was measuring the complaint against.

The Authority acknowledges that there is some ambiguity in TVNZ's decision to uphold the complaint but to argue that the promo did not breach the nominated standards. The Authority's view is that standard G12, the standard relating to protection of children was transgressed. The programme was one which had obvious appeal to a younger audience, and, regardless of its 8.30pm time slot, the promos should have been appropriate for a family audience.

The Authority notes that the complaint could also have been considered under standard G23, which relates to the placement of promos in programmes suited for family viewing. This seems to have been overlooked by TVNZ. In the event, the complaint was upheld, and the complaint to the Authority was primarily related to dissatisfaction with the action taken by TVNZ. In particular, Mr Hay expressed scepticism about TVNZ's assurance that it had instigated procedures to ensure that the problem would reoccur. The Authority accepts that TVNZ does have in place systems to ensure that standards are maintained. TVNZ’s performance is under constant scrutiny from viewers, and a process is available for viewers to lodge complaints should the standards be transgressed. On this occasion, it considers the action taken by TVNZ was sufficient.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the action taken was insufficient.

Signed for an on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairman
26 February 1998

Appendix I

David Hay's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 4 November 1997

Mr Hay of Auckland complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd about the broadcast of a promo for the Billy T Awards during the screening of the episode of This is Your Life featuring Michael Jones on 29 October 1997 beginning at 8.30pm.

Mr Hay pointed out that the episode of This is Your Life would have particularly appealed to a younger audience since Michael Jones was such a fantastic role model for young people.

The promo referred to masturbation which, Mr Hay wrote, was offensive rubbish. He asked why TVNZ accepted such crude advertising.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 November 1997

TVNZ advised that having viewed the trailer it unhesitatingly agreed that it was inappropriately placed in the context of This is Your Life. It added:

Although it was difficult to conclude that the broadcast of the trailer directly breached either G2 or G12 we certainly concede that the placement was wrong and on that basis your complaint has been upheld.

TVNZ explained that what had occurred was an error of judgment, and that it had been acknowledged by the department responsible for the making and scheduling of programme trailers. It apologised for causing offence.

Mr Hay's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 16 December 1997

My Hay expressed concern that TVNZ did not consider the promo breached either standard G2 or G12, yet it was happy to concede that the placement was wrong.

He explained that the driving force behind his complaint was to raise the standard of television advertising. He pointed out that TVNZ could be receiving numerous complaints for which they simply acknowledged a mistake, but the end result was that there was no long-term improvement. He asked how the Authority monitored TVNZ's compliance with the codes of practice and whether it believed standards were declining.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 5 January 1998

TVNZ confirmed that it had upheld the complaint, that the broadcast of the promo was an error, and that it regretted the placement of it and the offence caused.

Referring to Mr Hay's observation that it could be receiving numerous complaints, it advised that it received only one complaint other than that from Mr Hay about the programme which had attracted one of the biggest television audience of 1997.

TVNZ believed that the fact that it had acknowledged fault indicated that it had systems in place to ensure that standards are maintained. It reminded the Authority that scores of promos were broadcast each week which were properly placed and contained material appropriate for the programme content.

Mr Hay's Final Comment – 14 January 1998

Mr Hay considered that TVNZ had misunderstood the point he made. In his view, the Authority was responsible for maintaining a particular standard, not simply responding to individual complaints.

He wrote:

TVNZ could be receiving numerous complaints on a whole range of advertisements or programmes, and if they simply agree with the complainant, as they have done in my case, those matters would no doubt finish there, and may not result in any overall lifting of standards or the gradual decline in standards.

He asked whether the Authority monitored the procedures TVNZ had in place to deal with complaints.