BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A dramatised story called "World City" was read by the breakfast programme host on Newstalk ZB on 3 December at about 7.40am. It purported to portray two lovers, named Monica and Bill, and the script contained a number of implied sexual references.

Mr Jones of Auckland complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme content breached the good taste standard, and was unsuitable for broadcast at a time when children could be listening to the radio. In his view, the script was close to being pornographic in its details.

TRN responded that the segment complained about was not aimed at children, but was intended to be humorous and satirical. It noted that the station as a whole was aimed at an adult market. In its view, the sexual references were not offensive and would not have breached the standard. It pointed out that it was deliberately over dramatic and exaggerated for comic effect. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TRN’s decision, Mr Jones 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.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

During the breakfast programme on Newstalk ZB on 3 December, the presenter read a story called "World City" at about 7.40am. It purported to tell of the relationship between two lovers named Bill and Monica.

Mr Jones complained to TRN that the broadcast breached the requirement for broadcasters to observe standards of good taste and decency. Furthermore, he argued, the content was inappropriate for broadcast when children were likely to be listening. He contended that what he called the explicit language was quite clearly intended to portray intimate sexual contact. In his view, the script was close to pornographic.

In its response, TRN pointed out that "World City" was not a segment aimed at children. It pointed out that it was intended to be humorous and satirical. The station, it noted, was an adult radio station with primary appeal to people over the age of 30.

Having listened to the tape, TRN concluded that listeners would not have taken this segment seriously. It noted that it was deliberately over-dramatic and exaggerated, and that while it contained sexual references, they were not offensive.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Jones emphasised that his objection related to the inappropriateness of the material when children were likely to be in the listening audience. He rejected TRN’s argument that the programme was not aimed at children, pointing out that even if the programme had a primary appeal to an over 30 age group, it was precisely that group of people who had children and adolescents, and they would be among the listening audience. Mr Jones also challenged TRN’s assertion that the content of the item was not offensive.

He complained that standards R2, R25, R31 and R32 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice were breached. Standard R2 requires broadcasters:

R2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and good taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs.

The other standards read:

R25  Dramatic truth may occasionally require the portrayal of a sadistic character, but there can be no defence of violence, included solely for its own sake, or the gratuitous exploitation of sadistic or other perverted practices.

R31  Where programme content is likely to disturb or encourage deviant behaviour by people under the age of 15 years, broadcasters should use reasonable endeavours to schedule the programme content outside of normal listening hours for children.

R32  When programme content may contain material which may be sensitive to children it shall be handled positively and responsibly by broadcasters. Examples of such content include programmes relating to anger, sexuality, violence, relationships, family conflicts and alcohol and drug abuse to which children may be sensitive.

In its response to the Authority, TRN emphasised that the piece was satirical. It "hotly contested" the allegation that the programme would be likely to disturb or incur deviant behaviour by people under the age of 15. As for the complaint under standard R32, TRN responded that the material was not such that it would be sensitive to children and thus did not breach the standard.

Mr Jones, in his final comment, advised that he was still of the very strong opinion that the programme as broadcast breached broadcasting standards. His principal concern, he reiterated, was that children could have been listening to the broadcast. In his view, the broadcaster had a responsibility to refrain from making explicit sexual references at times when children were listening to the radio, he said and deemed 7.40am on a weekday to be such a time.

The Authority has listened to a tape of the item. It understands it to be part of a long-running series which incorporates topical events. It notes that the style of writing and presentation was a parody of the light romance genre, that its humour relied on ambiguity and innuendo, and that some of the content had sexual connotations.

When it assesses complaints alleging a breach of the good taste standard, the Authority considers the context in which the alleged breach occurred. The relevant contextual factors on this occasion are the time of day, the type of programme and the type of station. As the station’s focus is on news and the programme was part of the morning news programme, the Authority concludes it is not one to which unattended children would normally be attracted. It also notes TRN’s point that the station is particularly targeted to people over the age of 30 and that the programme "World City" was not intended for an audience of children. In addition, the Authority considers that the sexual references were somewhat ambiguous, leaving much to the listener’s imagination. In its view, the sexual innuendo would not have been likely to be understood by young children. Given these factors, the Authority concludes that the broadcast did not breach standard R2.

With respect to the complaints under standards R31 and 32 which relate to protection of children, the Authority concludes that these standards were not threatened by the broadcast. As it has noted above, the programme was not one to which children would naturally be attracted but even if they were, it considers the content was not offensive given its ambiguities.

Turning to the complaint under standard R25 the Authority concludes this standard was not relevant on the facts.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
19 March 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined the complaint:

M L Jones’ Complaint to The Radio Network Ltd – 8 December 1998

TRN’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 23 December 1998

Mr Jones’ Referral of the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 12 February 1999

TRN’s Response to the Authority – 17 February 1999

Mr Jones’ Final Comment – 28 February 1999