BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld complaints concerning a promo for the programme MILF Manor, broadcast during episodes of Ice Vikings and Border Patrol. The complainants considered the use of the term ‘MILF’ offensive, even if the word was not spelled out. The Authority found the promo complied with the PG classification of its host programmes and that use of the term ‘MILF’ was not likely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience. It also did not consider the promo was likely to adversely affect children. The promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour

The broadcast

[1]  A promo for the programme MILF Manor aired at 1.32pm on 4 April 2023, during an episode of Ice Vikings (rated PG), and at 9.20pm on 10 April 2023, during an episode of Border Patrol (rated PG-LC) on the channel eden. MILF Manor is a reality dating series involving single women between 40 and 60 years and single men in their 20s.

[2]  The promo featured comments from some of the women on why they signed up to the show. In transitioning between clips, the following phrases appeared on screen:

In the search for love

Eight hot mums

Eight younger men

One shocking twist

[3]  The promo concluded with one male contestant stating ‘mom?’ followed by an announcement:

MILF Manor: stream free now on ThreeNow

The complaints

[4]  Leo Leitch and Ricque Shadbolt complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards (with Shadbolt adding the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand as:

• The term MILF is disrespectful to women and ‘egregiously offensive’. (Leitch and Shadbolt)
• It is no defence that the term was not spelled out in the programme’s title. ‘It is pure weasel words to acknowledge that the meaning contains “coarse language”’ but also note they are not ‘presenting that language to viewers.’ (Leitch)
• People who know the meaning of the term will be ‘grossly offended’ and those that do not (particularly younger persons) would certainly inquire and will be offended upon finding out. (Leitch)
• ‘Parents/guardians will be quite aggrieved at having to answer such an inquiry’. (Leitch)
• The term is ‘way out of line for daytime TV or anytime for that matter’. (Shadbolt)
• Leitch requested a direction WBD ‘remove this programme, or to change its title.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) did not uphold the complaints, noting:

• Many of eden’s programmes have an adult target audience and many of the promos are for programmes with a similar target audience.
• The host programmes had PG-LC (Border Patrol) and PG (Ice Vikings) ratings. The PG classification means the programmes contain ‘material more suited for mature audiences but not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or an adult.’
• ‘The promo featured the programme title which includes the word “milf”. Milf is a colloquial term used so as not to spell out the whole phrase the acronym represents which does contain coarse language. We do not agree the word milf itself is coarse or offensive. We note that the word does not feature as an offensive word listed in the Broadcasting Standard Authority's 2022 research "Language that may offend in broadcasting" which considers words that are considered unacceptable for broadcast.’
• ‘The promo did not contain any coarse language or other material that exceeded the boundaries of a PG viewing environment. Care was taken with the material to ensure the content was not so graphic so as to exceed the boundaries of the host programme's classification and in consideration of children's interests, care was taken to schedule promo in a PG-rated host programme.’
• Concerning the 9.20pm promo, WBD noted the time was not within children’s normally accepted viewing time.

The standards

[6]  The offensive and disturbing content standard¹ states broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:

• the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast; and
• the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

[7]  The children’s interests standard² requires broadcasters to ensure children are protected from broadcasts which might adversely affect them. Material likely to be considered under this standard includes violent or sexual content or themes, offensive language, social or domestic friction and dangerous, antisocial or illegal behaviour where such material is outside the expectations of the programme’s classification.³

[8]  The purpose of the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard⁴ is to prevent broadcasts that encourage audiences to break the law, or are otherwise likely to promote criminal or serious antisocial activity.⁵ Shadbolt, who nominated this standard, did not allege the broadcast was likely to encourage any illegal or antisocial behaviour. We consider the standard is not applicable to Shadbolt’s concerns, which are best addressed under the offensive and disturbing content and children’s interests standards, and so do not address this standard in our decision.

Our analysis

[9]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[10]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁶

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[11]  Attitudes towards taste and decency differ widely and continue to evolve in a diverse society such as ours.⁷ The feelings of the particularly sensitive cannot dictate what can be broadcast. However, broadcasts must not seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience.

[12]  The complaints concern a promo for the programme MILF Manor. Guideline 1.6 of the Codebook states promos for television programmes should comply with the classification of the programme during which they screen. In this case, the promo needed to meet the PG classification of its host programmes, Ice Vikings and Border Patrol.

[13]  As WBD notes, the PG rating is for programmes containing material more suited for mature audiences but not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or an adult.⁸

[14]  The context in which the content occurred and the wider context of the broadcast are relevant to assessing whether a programme has breached the offensive and disturbing content standard.⁹ In this case we considered the following contextual factors as relevant to our decision:

• MILF Manor is a dating show involving eight single mums in their 40s and 50s and eight younger men in their 20s and 30s, who are the women’s sons.
• The promos aired outside of children’s normally accepted viewing times (as the 4 April broadcast aired during school time).¹⁰
• The promo did not spell out the meaning of the term ‘MILF’.
• The promo did not contain any explicit sexual content.
• While the term was not tested, nor suggested as an additional term, in our ‘Language that May Offend in Broadcasting’ research,¹¹ the term rated as ‘moderately’ offensive in Ofcom’s research on the issue.¹²

[15]  In light of the above factors, we consider the promo (and specifically the use of the word ‘MILF’) complied with its PG classification. The word was not spelled out in this instance (and our jurisdiction is limited to the particular broadcast complained about), and the classification reflected the inclusion of ‘material more suited for mature audiences’. Further, as we have previously found, while the term may have originated as an acronym for the phrase “Mother I’d Like to Fuck”, it is our view it has become a word in its own right which has been distanced from the phrase from which it was derived.¹³ We therefore do not consider it likely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience.

Children’s interests

[16]  This standard is related to the offensive and disturbing content standard (taking into account the same contextual focus) but differs in focus, directed towards harm that may be unique to children (rather than the audience in general).¹⁴

[17]  Applying those same factors and for the same reasons outlined above, we found the broadcaster in this case adequately considered children’s interests.

[18]  The PG classifications of the host programmes meant broadcasters could expect caregivers or whānau to be supervising children viewing such content. Further, the term MILF was unlikely to be understood by child viewers, and no further explanation was given in the promo.

[19]  Accordingly, we are satisfied the broadcast was unlikely to adversely affect children or cause harm at a level requiring regulatory intervention.

[20]  For completeness, we briefly address Leitch’s request for a direction to remove the programme or change its title. We consider these are issues of editorial discretion and personal preference (which generally cannot be resolved by a complaints procedure).¹⁵ In any event, the Authority does not have jurisdiction to order the removal of a programme or amendment to a title.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaints.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
9 August 2023    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

Leitch

1  Leo Leitch’s formal complaint to WBD – 10 April 2023

2  WBD’s decision on Leitch’s complaint – 3 May 2023

3  Leitch’s referral to Authority – 8 May 2023

4  WBD confirming no further comment – 10 May 2023

Shadbolt

5  Ricque Shadbolt’s formal complaint to WBD – 4 April 2023

6  WBD’s decision on Shadbolt’s complaint – 3 May 2023

7  Shadbolt’s referral to Authority – 9 May 2023

8  WBD confirming no further comment – 10 May 2023

¹ Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Guideline 2.2
⁴ Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 3, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 11
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 4
⁷ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 8
⁸ Guideline 1.4
⁹ Guideline 1.1
¹⁰ Guideline 2.1
¹¹ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language that may offend in broadcasting (17 February 2022)
¹² Ipsos Mori Public attitudes towards offensive language on TV and radio: summary report (September 2021, Ofcom) at 19
¹³ Field and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2011-027 at [12]
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 10
¹⁵ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 5(c) and O’Neill and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-085 at [9]