BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A segment on consumer rights relating to boundary fences was included in Target broadcast on TV3 on 29 August 1999 beginning at 7.00pm. A brief shot of a man’s buttocks was seen in a skit performed by two actors.

Dawn Shelford, on behalf of Preserving Communication Standards Trust Inc, complained that she and the members of her group found this segment objectionable. She said they did not consider it appropriate for this segment to have been included in a consumer rights programme as it was "a kind of titillation based on public indecency".

TV3 responded that the 7-second view of the actor’s bare bottom was in its view acceptable in the context. It did not agree that the scene was objectionable and exceeded community standards of decency. It declined to uphold the complaint.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion it makes its decision on the complaint without a formal hearing.

A skit on Target broadcast by TV3 on 29 August 1999 beginning at 7.00pm included a brief shot of an actor’s bare bottom. It was shown in the context of a light-hearted piece about a woman having a dispute with her neighbour about their boundary fence. As it transpired, her neighbour was a nudist, and she ended up deciding that the fence height was therefore appropriate.

Dawn Shelford, on behalf of Preserving Communication Standards Inc, complained to TV3 that the shot of the actor’s bare bottom was objectionable to her and the members of her group. She said it was not appropriate to include such a shot in a consumer rights programme screening at 7.00pm because it was "a kind of titillation based on public indecency for viewers".

TV3 assessed the complaint under standard G2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires 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.

It noted first that Target was an investigative programme which mixed serious and informative segments with more light-hearted pieces, usually to do with consumer rights. In this case, the segment dealt with a dispute over a boundary fence. TV3 also noted that the programme was rated PGR. In the context it found no breach of the good taste standard and said it believed the majority of viewers would have found the vision inoffensive. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Ms Shelford, on the group’s behalf, referred the complaint to the Authority. She advised that the group found the image "blatantly indecent" and considered that it overstepped the normally acceptable decency threshold, bearing in mind that it was broadcast during family viewing time and was shown during a consumer rights programme. She concluded:

At issue is a prolonged close-up "vision" that most viewers would find grossly objectionable and unsuitable for younger viewers in this timeband.

TV3 advised that it had no further comment to make.

The Authority records that, in the past 4 years, it has received a number of complaints from members of this group about a perceived breach of decency and good taste in footage revealing partial male nudity. On each occasion the Authority clearly articulated its reasons for not upholding the complaint. Those reasons apply to this complaint also.

The Authority warns that further complaints of this nature from the group could attract an order for costs under s.16(2) on the basis that the complaint is one that ought not to have been made.

The Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances pursuant to s.11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
9 December 1999

Appendix

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

1.    Preserving Communication Standards Inc’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd –
      22 September 1999

2.    TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 21 October 1999

3.    Preserving Communication Standards Inc’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards
      Authority – 12 November 1999

4.    TV3’s Response to the Authority – 23 November 1999