BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a promo for Love Triangle that aired during an episode of Treasure Island: Fans v Faves at around 8pm breached the offensive and disturbing content, and children’s interests standards. The Authority found that while the programme Love Triangle was rated 16-L, and Treasure Island: Fans v Faves was rated PG-L, the editing of the promo meant it was appropriate for the rating of the host programme and the timeslot. On this basis the promo would not have caused widespread undue offence, or harm to children in the audience justifying regulatory intervention.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests

The broadcast

[1]  During an episode of Treasure Island: Fans v Faves (classified PG-L) on 1 March 2023, a promo aired for reality dating show Love Triangle just after 8 pm. The promo transitioned through various clips from the programme, including brief clips (each lasting less than a second) of:

• Couples leaning in to kiss each other (but transitioning to the next shot before this occurred)
• A man taking off a woman’s robe
• A woman with her head near a man’s clothed leg / crotch area.

[2]  The promo included the following comments:

Voiceover:            This ground breaking relationship experiment is too hot to handle. 

Contestant 1:       We shared a bed. 

Contestant 2:       It was great. That tantric stuff. Woo! 

Voiceover:            But while the self-described walking Tinder… 

Contestant 3:       I thought that we could sleep in the same bed. 

Contestant 4:       Let’s put the brakes on that. 

Voiceover:            Flames out. 

Contestant 3:       I chose Erica. 

Contestant 4:       You’re so self-centred. 

Contestant 3:       But, I might have made the wrong choice.

Contestant 4:       Shut the f*** up!  [bleeped]

Voiceover:            The twist will have everyone playing with fire. 

The complaint

[3]  Brad Ryan complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, and children’s interests standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following key reasons:

• Children would be watching Treasure Island: Fans v Faves and should not be exposed to promos such as this.
• The content in the promo was ‘not suitable as [it] shows people performing suggestive acts, swearing that is bleeped out but [it is] obvious what is said.’
• ‘The content on the promo was very sexually suggestive,’ even if the participants were clothed.
• ‘The swearing was badly bleeped out’ and out of place for an ad (as the complainant considered swearing / censoring of swears rare for promos).
• ‘All this ad does is raise a [whole] lot of questionable issues for kids about behaviour and relationships.’
• Scenes being less than a second does not mean the audience did not see them.
• Love Triangle’s classification on TVNZ+ is 16L; this ‘discounts any grounds’ for TVNZ’s argument concerning a PG classification.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ did not uphold Ryan’s complaint for the following key reasons:

Offensive and disturbing content

• The standard requires promos to comply with the classification of the programme during which they screen.
• Treasure Island: Fans v Faves ‘was certified PG and is aimed at older children and their families. It contains low-level coarse language.’
• ‘There is an expectation under the standards that parents monitor their children’s viewing of PG material.’
• ‘No sexual material was depicted in the promo in question. The reference to tantric stuff may be understood by mature viewers to have sexual connotations, however the reference was not accompanied by further detail or imagery and was unlikely to have been understood by younger viewers. A veiled reference to sexual activity of this nature, made without accompanying imagery, is not inappropriate during a PG-certified programme.’
• ‘A woman is depicted with her head near a man’s crotch, however they are both clothed, and the shot is too brief to draw a meaningful conclusion about what is happening in the shot.’
• ‘The BSA has previously noted, in decision 2014-161: [Bleeping] or other disguises or masking of the actual words is a common practice in broadcasting and in print media. These practices are widespread and are seen to be a satisfactory response to dampen down the offensiveness of language which would likely be unacceptable if spoken or written literally. We well understand that arguments can be made against this practice but it is, as we say, widespread and accepted in the industry.’ ¹
• ‘The content of the promo is acceptable within the context of the PG certificate and viewer expectations of Treasure Island: Fans vs Faves’ and it would not ‘offend or disturb a significant number of viewers in the context of screening.’

Children’s interests

• The same factors as outlined above applied.
• ‘The scheduling of the promo in question, in a PG-certified programme at a time during which M-certified programming is allowed to play, enabled parents to protect their child from any potentially adverse material and sufficiently observed the interests of children.’

The standards

[5]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard² is to protect audiences from viewing broadcasts likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.³ The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing.

[6]  The children’s interests standard⁴ requires broadcasters to ensure children are protected from broadcasts which might adversely affect them. Relevant material likely to be considered under this standard includes violent or sexual content or themes, offensive language, and social or domestic friction where such material is outside the expectations of the programme’s classification.⁵

Our analysis

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

[8]  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

[9]  The context in which the broadcast occurred, and the wider context, are importance considerations when assessing whether the broadcast has breached either standard.⁷

Offensive and disturbing content

[10]  This complaint concerns a promo for Love Triangle. Love Triangle episodes are generally classified as 16-L (with the series premiere being rated M).⁸ 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-L classification of the host programme Treasure Island: Fans v Faves.⁹

[11]  The offensive and disturbing content standard requires broadcasters to consider children’s interests in scheduling promos for adult programmes (M, 16 or 18) during children’s normally accepted viewing times (up until 8.30pm) and during programmes specifically aimed at child viewers so that the promo’s themes and content are not inappropriate for the programme classification.¹⁰

[12]  Treasure Island: Fans v Faves was rated PG-L. PG-L is a rating 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.¹¹ The L advisory is used to advise audiences of language that may offend.¹²

[13]  The key question for the Authority is whether the promo for Love Triangle was consistent with the PG-L classification of Treasure Island: Fans v Faves. We found it was, taking into account the following factors:

• As the broadcaster notes, Treasure Island: Fans v Faves is rated PG-L and is aimed at older children and their families. It contains low-level coarse language.
• The promo was 30 seconds long.
• It did not contain any nudity or explicit sexual content.
• While the promo may have contained sexual innuendo (regarding ‘tantric stuff’, and brief shots of contestants in suggestive positions) this was unlikely to be understood by children in the audience. In any case, children should be subject to the guidance of a parent or an adult considering the PG-L classification.
• To the extent any suggestive act was offensive, they were each displayed for less than one second.
• We have previously found mild and inexplicit sexual references, and revealing clothing will not unduly disturb child viewers and are consistent with a G classification¹³ (noting that PG-L classification is at issue in this instance). We do not consider the content in this promo exceeded these findings.
• One instance of the word ‘fuck’ was included in the promo, but bleeped out. The removal of offensive words by deletion or bleeping rarely results in the message of the word being completely obliterated. Here, there were some aural remnants of the word (meaning viewers familiar with the word would have realised what was said), but it was otherwise adequately censored so that others, including young children, would not have. Further, the host programme had an L advisory for language that may offend. In all the circumstances, the remnants of the word were insufficient for us to uphold a breach of standards.¹⁴ We would also note our research into offensive language suggests the level of acceptability of the word bleeped out is increasing.¹⁵

[14]  In light of the above factors, we did not consider the broadcast was likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.

Children’s interests

[15]  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).¹⁶

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

[17]  The PG-L classification means broadcasters can expect caregivers or whānau to be supervising children viewing such content. The promo for Love Triangle was brief and would not unduly disturb supervised child viewers.

[18]  We are satisfied the broadcast was unlikely to cause harm at a level requiring regulatory intervention.

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

Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i
Member
14 June 2023    

Appendix

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

1  Brad Ryan's formal complaint to TVNZ – 1 March 2023

2  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint – 27 March 2023

3  Ryan’s referral to the Authority – 27 March 2023

4  TVNZ confirming no further comments – 15 May 2023

¹ Citing Moffat and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-161 at [10]
² Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 8
⁴ Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Guideline 2.2
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁷ Guidelines 1.1 and 2.3
⁸ See TVNZ+ Love Triangle <tvnz.co.nz>
⁹ See Episode 15 TVNZ+ Treasure Island: Fans v Faves <tvnz.co.nz>
¹⁰ Guidelines 1.16 and 2.1
¹¹ Guideline 1.4
¹² Guideline 1.8
¹³ See Sta. Lucia and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-048 at [33]; Quirke and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-094 at [14]
¹⁴ See Sandbrook and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2017-096 at [11]; Moffat and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-161 at [10]
¹⁵ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Language that may offend in broadcasting (17 February 2022) where the word is ranked 26th out of 31 words tested
¹⁶ Commentary, Standard 2, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 10