BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An advertisement for a light truck contained language which had been the subject of complaints to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB). The Board’s decision on those complaints was reported in a news item on TV3’s 3 News on 23 March between 6.00–7.00pm. Extracts from the advertisement, including the offending language, was included in the item.

Mr Shierlaw complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that by screening the advertisement before 8.30pm, as required by the ASCB, TV3 had failed to comply with standard G5 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters to observe the principles of the law.

As TV3 did not respond within the statutory 20 working day period, Mr Shierlaw referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

The Authority sought TV3’s comments on the complaint, and at the same time TV3 provided its response to Mr Shierlaw. Mr Shierlaw then advised the Authority that he was dissatisfied with TV3’s decision and asked it to review the matter in accordance with s.8(1)(a) of the Act.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold 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. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A news item broadcast on 3 News on 23 March 1999 reported that the ASCB had made a decision on complaints made to it about the language in an advertisement for a light truck. An extract from the advertisement, which included the word objected to, was included in the item.

Mr Shierlaw complained to TV3 that as the advertisement had been restricted by the ASCB to being broadcast after 8.30pm, it should not have been broadcast during the 6.00pm news. He contended that by replaying the advertisement at that hour, TV3 had breached the restrictions set by the ASCB and was therefore in breach of standard G5 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters to observe the principles of the law.

As Mr Shierlaw received no response from TV3 within the 20 working day time period set down in the Act, he referred the complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(b). He asked the Authority to advise what action it would take against TV3 for failing to respond to his complaint within the statutory time frame.

The Authority sought TV3’s comments on the complaints, and at the same time, belatedly, TV3 responded to Mr Shierlaw. When he received TV3’s comments, Mr Shierlaw referred the complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(a), stating that he was dissatisfied with its response.

TV3 advised that it had considered the complaint under standard G5, as requested by Mr Shierlaw. That standard requires broadcasters:

G5  To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

It began with the observation that the advertisement had generated a great deal of public interest, having been commented on in the media for some weeks. A number of complaints had been referred to the ASCB regarding the use of the word "bugger" in the advertisement, it noted, and the ASCB had ruled that it was acceptable for broadcast after 8.30pm.

The ASCB’s ruling, TV3 pointed out, related to its broadcast as an advertisement. It had no jurisdiction regarding the content of television programmes which were dealt with by broadcasters and the Broadcasting Standards Authority administering the Broadcasting Act and the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TV3 contended that the ASCB’s ruling was clearly a matter of considerable public interest and "newsworthy" and was therefore an appropriate subject for a news story. It concluded that in the context of a news item which informed the public of the ASCB’s ruling, it was acceptable to include the footage from the advertisement, and the time of its broadcast was not in breach of standard G5.

TV3 advised the Authority that it had been one day late in responding to Mr Shierlaw’s complaint. It added that its responsibilities with regard to meeting its statutory obligations were taken seriously and it assured the Authority that its aim and preference was to respond to complaints prior to the required 20 working day period.

When Mr Shierlaw referred the matter to the Authority he repeated the points made in his original letter of complaint. TV3 advised that it had no further comments to make.

The Authority notes that the complaint is confined to the application of standard G5, as the complainant has contended that the broadcast breached the principles of law. He has argued that because the advertisement was not played before 8.30pm, then it should not have been included in a news item before that hour. He reasoned that TV3’s violation of this restriction has breached the standard.

By way of clarification, the Authority first notes that the 8.30pm restriction was imposed not by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board but by the Television Commercials Approvals Bureau (TVCAB) and that compliance with its recommendations is voluntary. Secondly, the Authority observes that the news item dealt with the ASCB’s decision not to uphold the complaints about the language contained in the advertisement. It did not relate to the 8.30pm restriction on the screening of the advertisement except insofar as that was one of the contextual matters which the ASCB considered when it questioned whether the language was appropriate in the circumstances. Finally the Authority points out that the decisions of the ASCB are not binding on it. For these reasons it concludes that standard G5 is not applicable to a review of the ASCB’s decisions. Accordingly the Authority declines to uphold the complaint under this standard.

Next the Authority deals with the matter of TV3’s failure to respond to the complaint within the statutory time period. It reminds the broadcaster that the Act requires it to respond within 20 working days of receipt of a complaint.

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

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:

Max Shierlaw’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 26 March 1999

Mr Shierlaw’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 29 April 1999

TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 28 April 1999

Mr Shierlaw’s Referral to the Authority – 6 May 1999

TV3’s Response to the Authority – 8 June 1999