BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A promo for the Jo Brand programme included a "stand-up" comedy routine in which the comedian related how her mother warned her not to take sweets from old men. In relating the story, she used the expression "getting his knob out". The promo was broadcast on TV4 on 26 January 1999 at 7.40pm during a PGR-rated programme.

Mr Raffray complained to TV4 Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used resulted in the broadcast of AO content during a PGR time-slot, without any warning, and during a programme which appealed to younger viewers.

TV4 responded that the promo had a "hard PGR" rating which, it wrote, meant that it could not screen in programmes aimed at children. Because of the way the joke was told, the colloquial words were obscure enough not to be understood by younger viewers, it added. As the promo screened during an action-orientated programme which was rated PGR and aimed at an older audience, it assumed that parents would have been viewing the programme with children. The broadcaster declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TV4’s response, Mr Raffray referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the aspect of the complaint that the promo was in breach of standards G2 and G22 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The Authority orders TV4 Network Ltd to pay the sum of $250.00 by way of costs to the Crown.

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, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A promo for the Jo Brand programme was broadcast on TV4 at about 7.40pm on 26 January. In the promo the comedian referred to her mother warning her when she was a child against taking sweets from old men. In relating the story, she used the words "getting his knob out". The promo was broadcast during a programme which was rated PGR.

Mr Raffray complained to TV4 that the promo was shown during the programme Bugs which "has appeal to younger viewers and is very likely watched by children". Because the promo contained AO content, and was shown during a PGR time-slot, it was in breach of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice, he wrote. The promo had been shown without any viewer warning, he added.

TV4, in response, said that its Standards Committee had concurred with the promo’s "hard PGR" rating. It explained the meaning of PGR, and wrote that in the case of promos, the "hard" rating meant that the promo could not screen in programmes aimed at children. It continued:

This hard PGR rating has been given because of the way that joke is told (as part of a stand-up routine – not a skit which is acted out) and the fact that the colloquialism of "getting his knob out" is obscure enough that it would not be understood by younger viewers.

As the colloquialism was the only reference to sexual impropriety in the skit, the promo was acceptable as "hard PGR", the broadcaster said. It noted that it had to play the tape several times before it could clearly distinguish the words spoken.

The promo had been consistently screened in PGR or AO time, and during programmes which were not aimed at or watched by children, TV4 wrote. The broadcaster stressed that Bugs (the programme screening during the broadcast of the promo) had only a "2% projected child viewership". As Bugs was rated PGR and was an action orientated programme, it was reasonable to assume that parents would have been viewing the programme along with their children, it wrote.

TV4 considered the complaint in the context of standards G2, G8, G22 and V16 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which had been nominated by Mr Raffray. The first two 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.

G8  To abide by the classification codes and their appropriate time bands as outlined in the agreed criteria for programme classifications.

The two remaining standards provide:

G22  Promotions (promos) for AO programmes may be screened during PGR or G time bands provided the promo is made in such a way that it can be classified as PGR or G, as appropriate. Promotions which carry an AO classification may only be screened within AO time bands.

V16  Broadcasters must be mindful of the effect any programme, including trailers, may have on children during their generally accepted viewing periods, usually up to 8.30pm, and avoid screening material which could unnecessarily disturb or alarm children.

TV4 declined to uphold the complaint under standard G2, stating that given the context of the promo’s hard PGR rating, the fact that Bugs was an action orientated programme aimed at an older PGR audience, and that the promo only screened in PGR or AO time, the promo was acceptable to screen as "hard PGR".

In considering standard G8, it again noted that the promo screened according to its "hard PGR" rating in PGR and AO times in programmes that were not aimed at children. The broadcaster noted that its Promo Scheduler had voluntarily advised Mr Raffray, after he had telephoned to complain, that the promo would only screen after 8.00pm, as a gesture of good faith. That further restriction ensured that the promo would only screen well into "hard PGR" time, it wrote. It declined to uphold a breach of standard G8.

Turning to standard G22, TV4 reiterated that the promo carried a "hard PGR" rating and screened according to that rating in PGR or AO time in programmes which were not aimed at children. It declined to uphold a breach of the standard, noting that the material was not necessarily unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or adult.

In examining standard V16, the broadcaster noted that the skit was part of a stand-up routine which was spoken and not acted out, and used terms which were obscure enough that a child viewer might not have understood what was being said. It could be expected that parents would be watching Bugs along with their children, it wrote. Given that context, and that the promo only screened in programmes which were not aimed at children, it was unable to find that the promo would unnecessarily disturb or alarm children. TV4 declined to uphold the standard V16 complaint.

In referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Raffray noted that standard G22 required that any promo for an AO programme should be made in such a way as to permit classification as G or PGR if it were to be screened during these time bands. The words used by the comedian in the promo were explicit, he stressed, and an AO status was appropriate, as the programme being promoted was broadcast during an AO time slot. He referred to the difficulty of exercising effective parental guidance when such material was inserted into a promo shown in an early evening PGR time slot. When an AO-rated programme was broadcast, an evident and unambiguous warning often preceded the programme, he noted, but with promos no such warning was provided.

Mr Raffray rejected TV4’s distinction between a joke and a skit, and what he called its inference that solely verbal material enabled a "hard PGR" rating to be assigned to the promo.

Making a joke of men exposing themselves to girls, at a time when it was likely to have been viewed by children, implied that such behaviour was not serious or important, Mr Raffray contended. That sent a confused and mixed message, and could even endanger some children who might as a consequence fail to recognise the seriousness of a situation, he wrote.

He disagreed that young children would not understand the colloquialism used.

Mr Raffray then turned to TV4’s classification of the promo as "hard PGR". That rating appeared to have been made unilaterally by TV4, he noted. He understood there were three legitimate categories – G, PGR, and AO. The unilateral creation of sub-categories risked creating confusion, and unfair interpretation, he wrote.

The complainant disputed TV4’s assertion that the programme Bugs, during which the promo had been shown, had a small projected child viewership. His own informal survey, Mr Raffray wrote, affirmed that:

…in real home life …young family members would still be watching TV at this time and …parental guidance might not [be as] complete as they might wish. …Bugs is an action orientated programme [which] makes it more likely to attract children…

In disagreeing with the broadcaster’s findings on standard G2, Mr Raffray reiterated his comments, made in earlier correspondence.

In referring to standard G8 and to TV4’s response to his telephoned complaint that the promo would in future only screen after 8.00pm, Mr Raffray wrote that the response established an admission of an error of judgment, or an acknowledgment of a standards breach. He noted that he had seen the promo "in its original form" shown subsequent to his complaint at 7.44pm.

TV4, in response, again emphasised the distinction between visual and visual/verbal portrayal, noting that words reinforced by a visual depiction are more readily understood than a verbal reference alone.

The broadcaster explained that "hard PGR" was an internal rating used by its appraisers and promotions staff. It agreed with Mr Raffray’s comment that a "hard PGR" rating indicated that the material contained adult themes, or those more suited to an adult audience.

In reference to Mr Raffray’s informal survey, TV4 wrote that the complainant seemed to believe "that broadcasters must also take on responsibility for the quality of parental guidance provided in the home".

The broadcaster included a table recording the play-outs of the promo following receipt of Mr Raffray’s complaint. The table disclosed that the promo had been broadcast no earlier than 8.45pm on the 11 occasions it had been broadcast from 7 February until its last broadcast on 16 February.

In a final comment to the Authority, Mr Raffray said that the heart of the complaint was whether the material broadcast was AO. He was critical of the broadcaster’s late explanation that the "hard PGR" rating was an internal rating only. Its earlier unexplained use by TV4 was confusing, he wrote.

Referring to TV4’s comment that the material was not unsuitable for children watching with the guidance of a caregiver, Mr Raffray reiterated his concern that:

…material broadcast in promos is practically more difficult to anticipate and therefore difficult to exercise suitable guidance. Consequently broadcasters have … a particular obligation with regard to the content and broadcast of promo material…

He concluded by noting he was pleased that the promo had been placed in AO time slots after his complaint had been received, and he acknowledged the broadcaster’s action.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority observes that the essence of Mr Raffray’s complaint is that the promo for the Jo Brand programme which was broadcast on 26 January 1999 contained material inappropriate for its broadcast time-slot of 7.40pm, during a PGR-rated programme and at a time when children are likely to be still watching television.

Standard G2 requires the Authority to determine whether currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour were breached by the broadcast of the promo. As required by the standard, the Authority looks first to the relevant contextual factors. The Authority considers that programming at 7.40pm should provide a relatively safe haven for children watching under the guidance of a caregiver. In this instance, it considers that the promo contained material with adult themes, and which, moreover, could be said to trivialise the sexual abuse of children. Its screening in that time-slot, the Authority believes, was inappropriate. This was compounded by its placement during a PGR-rated action programme which inevitably would appeal to children. The Authority therefore finds that the broadcast of the promo breached the standard.

Next, the Authority turns to standard G8. On this occasion, it believes that – because the issues overlap – the factors relevant to its consideration are more appropriately dealt with under standard G22, and it thereforefore subsumes this standard under standard G22. Standard G22 enables promos for AO-rated programmes to be broadcast during PGR or G time-bands, provided the promo is made in such a way that it can be classified PGR or G, as appropriate. Here, the promo was broadcast during PGR time when the broadcaster was screening a PGR-rated programme, Bugs. That PGR programme was action-orientated, and the Authority is in no doubt that at its time of broadcast it would have had appeal to children.

The Authority considers that the promo’s trivialisation of a serious social issue affecting children, and the ribald nature of its content, required an AO-classification. It appreciates that the promo was brief, and perhaps inexplicit to some child viewers. However the Authority takes seriously its responsibility under the Broadcasting Act in relation to the protection of children. Its own research has convinced the Authority that a majority of parents do not wish their children, particularly those under 12 years of age, to be exposed to adult themes at 7.40pm. Furthermore, the Authority notes TV4’s disclosure that the promo was shown only after 8.30pm following Mr Raffray’s initial complaint. It therefore finds that the broadcast of the promo was in breach of standard G22.

Finally, the Authority turns to standard V16 which was cited by the complainant. It notes that this standard deals with the portrayal of violence, and is not applicable to the issues raised by this complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast of the promo by TV4 Network Ltd at 7.40pm on 26 January 1999 breached standards G2 and G22 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13 and s.16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It invited the parties to make submissions as to the imposition of a penalty. Mr Raffray did not feel able to comment. TV4 advised that the decision of its Standards Committee on the appropriateness of the "hard PGR" rating was a split one. It was not its intention to offend viewers, it wrote, and it would not ever wish to be perceived as trivialising the sexual abuse of children.

Having considered the submissions, the Authority accepts that TV4 approached the classification and placement of the promo in a responsible manner but it considers the broadcaster displayed a lack of judgment in its decision. In view of the matters outlined earlier in its decision, the Authority considers that the following order is appropriate:

Order

Pursuant to s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Broadcasting Standards Authority orders TV4 Network Ltd to pay, within one month of the date of this decision, the sum of $250.00 by way of costs to the Crown. This order shall be enforceable in the Auckland District Court.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
15 July 1999

Appendix

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

1. Paul Raffray’s Complaint to TV4 Network Services Ltd – 2 February 1999

2. Mr Raffray’s Letter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 5 March 1999

3. TV4’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 3 March 1999

4. Mr Raffray’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 26 March 1999

5. TV4’s Response to the Authority – 3 May 1999

6. Mr Raffray’s Final Comment – 11 May 1999

7. Mr Raffray’s Letter to the Authority – 18 June 1999

8. TV3’s Letter to the Authority – 1 July 1999