BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The alarm shown by two young boys in a bath when dirty water suddenly bubbled up through the plug hole was featured in an item on The Great Kiwi Video Show shown on TV2 at 6.30pm on 21 March 1999. When one of the boys stood up, a colourful programme logo was superimposed over his genital area.

Mr Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the practice of masking innocent nudity. Such masking, he continued, suggested that genitalia were unacceptable and dirty. Further, he wrote, research indicated that men who were not socially comfortable with their bodies could lack self-esteem, and that could lead to anti-social behaviour. He listed a number of broadcasting standards which he considered the broadcast had contravened.

Pointing out that the masking was done "for a bit of fun" and that it did not detract from the natural innocence shown, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. Its task, it wrote, was to represent community attitudes generally, rather than extreme positions.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Lowe referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. Given the matters raised on this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item on The Great Kiwi Video Show, broadcast on TV2 at 6.30pm on 21 March, showed two boys in a bath who became alarmed when a large quantity of dirty water suddenly bubbled up through the plug hole. One of the boys stood up and a colourful programme logo was superimposed over his genital area.

Mr Lowe complained to TVNZ about the decision to mask the young boy’s penis. Pointing to a distinction between "sleaze" and "innocent nudity", Mr Lowe maintained that the nakedness in this instance fell into the latter category. He wrote:

"The evidence is solid and growing, that depriving society - especially the children in that society; of natural awareness of the human form causes difficulties and distortions in the individual’s development. (An obvious effect is already widespread in the community: nudity is equated to ‘sex’.) A society with any untrue assumption at its core, is a society under unnecessary stress. Encouragement and perpetuation of that untruth is clearly contrary to ‘the public good’."

Mr Lowe cited evidence which, he argued, revealed that males who were comfortable with their nakedness were less aggressive. He provided a list of positive attributes which, he contended, were displayed by men who were "socially comfortable naked". In conclusion, he complained that the broadcast breached standards G1, G2, G3, G4, G6 and G12 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

When TVNZ advised him that the masking of the boy’s penis was done "for a bit of fun", Mr Lowe replied that harm occurred regardless of the motivation. The action, he said, was avoidable.

TVNZ assessed the complaint against the nominated standards. They require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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.

G3  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

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 represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational 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.

TVNZ began its response to the complaint in the following way:

"We have viewed the item to which you refer and frankly believe you are attaching far too great a consequence to the matter than it deserves. This was not a serious effort to mask a penis for censorship reasons. Indeed the choice of the colourful logo rather than the usual pixillation process suggests to us that the producer was poking fun at the convention of electronically concealing pubic areas.

Had the childhood innocence of the scene been materially affected by the superimposition of the logo you might have cause to argue; as it was, the logo in no way detracted from the natural innocence shown by the two boys."

Accepting that there would be research available which supported Mr Lowe’s claims, TVNZ stated that its task nevertheless was to represent community attitudes generally. As it did not accept that the "harmless colourful logo" superimposed over an innocent childhood scene contravened the standards, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Lowe attached 11 pages of research results which he said had examined the connections between body image and self-esteem. He disputed TVNZ’s claim that his position was an extreme one.

TVNZ advised the Authority that it did not wish to comment further on the referral.

Mr Lowe has raised the issue of "innocent nudity", and its masking, in a number of complaints which he has referred to the Authority in recent years. Decisions 51/94 and 1996-033 are examples.

The Authority is no more persuaded that this complaint has any more validity than the earlier ones did. Accordingly, in these circumstances, it has decided not to determine the current complaint.

For the reasons given above, pursuant to its powers under s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority declines to determine the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority.

Sam Maling
Chairperson
24 June 1999

Appendix

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

1. John Lowe’s Formal Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 22 March 1999

2. Mr Lowe’s second letter to TVNZ – 29 March 1990

3. TVNZ’s Response to Mr Lowe’s Complaint – 20 April 1999

4. Mr Lowe’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (plus attachments) – 7 May 1999

5. TVNZ’s Report to the Authority – 12 May 1999