BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An episode of Shortland Street, broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited, between 7.00 and 7.30pm on 15 May 1998, included a scene which depicted a male and a female character in bed together after sexual activity.

Mr Stanton complained that as the scene portrayed an extra-marital sexual relationship, it should not have screened in peak family viewing time where it would have been watched by many younger viewers. He also claimed that Shortland Street in general contained too many storylines which involved extra-marital sexual relationships.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint that the broadcast was offensive, unbalanced or inappropriate for its PGR timeslot.

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, Mr Stanton referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons 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 (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An episode of Shortland Street, broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited between 7.00 and 7.30pm on 5 May 1998, included a brief scene which depicted a male and a female character in bed together after sexual activity.

Mr Stanton complained to TVNZ that as the scene portrayed an extra-marital sexual liaison, it had not been appropriate to screen the programme in peak family viewing time where it would undoubtedly be watched by many younger viewers. He also maintained that Shortland Street contained too many storylines featuring extramarital sexual relationships. He acknowledged that the sexual activity in the scene objected to was implicit rather than explicit but alleged, nonetheless, that TVNZ had failed to maintain standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency, the principle of balance, and the protection of children.

TVNZ advised the complainant that it had assessed his complaint under standards G2, G6, G8 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. These 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.

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

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

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during their normally accepted viewing time.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint under any standard. It explained that Shortland Street was a drama about a small group of characters and, as such, the topical social issues it reflected were necessarily exaggerated. It commented that it would be difficult to make entertaining drama if the characters lived in orthodox relationships and that it did not believe that the amount of sexual activity implied in Shortland Street was excessive. TVNZ considered that standard G2 had not been contravened because the specific scene objected to had not been explicit or offensive. It contended that standard G6 had not been breached as there was no opportunity in the storyline to promote or indicate sex within marriage. Finally, with regard to standards G8 and G12, it considered that the programme’s PGR classification and timeslot were appropriate.

In his referral of the complaint to the Authority, Mr Stanton reiterated his assertion that the programme should not have been shown in peak family viewing time. He also believed that TVNZ, in arguing that there had been no breach of the standards, had depended too heavily on the programme’s PGR classification. He maintained that there was more implied sexual activity in Shortland Street than in many other similar dramas, and argued that the programme treated sexual relationships in a gratuitous and unbalanced manner.

The Authority first considers whether the brief depiction of an unmarried couple talking in bed together after sexual intimacy, was acceptable in a drama programme which carried a PGR classification and screened after 7.00pm. As the scene objected to did not portray any detail of the sexual liaison but rather implied only that it had occurred, and as it appeared in the context of a PGR classified programme, the Authority considers that it could not be regarded as offensive. Accordingly, it finds that standard G2 was not contravened on this occasion.

The Authority notes the complainant’s argument that the programme lacked balance by not including storylines which portrayed fidelity within marriage, and also that the broadcaster chose to assess this aspect of the complaint under standard G6. The Authority, however, does not propose to review this aspect of the complaint. It considers that standard G6 is applicable only to factual programmes dealing with controversial issues, and is not designed to apply to programmes with fictional themes.

With regard to standard G8, the Authority takes into account the inexplicit nature of the scene objected to, the programme’s classification, and its associated timeslot. It considers that the scene was suitable for inclusion in a programme with a PGR classification broadcast at 7.00pm.

As the Authority believes the programme had carried the appropriate classification, it necessarily concludes that the broadcaster had met its obligation under standard G12 to be mindful of the effect of the programme on children.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
27 August 1998

Appendix

Mr Stanton’s Formal Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – 19 May 1998

Ivan Stanton of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Limited about an episode of Shortland Street which screened between 7.00 and 7.30pm on 5 May 1998.

He was concerned, he wrote, about a scene which depicted a male and a female character in bed together after sexual activity. The characters, he continued, were work colleagues who had indulged in a sexual liaison while attending a professional conference, despite the fact that the male character was [supposedly] married with a family. Mr Stanton noted that the relationship of the two characters had become one of the themes carried into subsequent episodes, and asserted that the scriptwriter appeared to have an obsession with dysfunctional sexual relationships between people who were not formally married.

While he accepted that the sexual activity portrayed in the scene had been implied rather than explicit, he believed that Shortland Street was preoccupied with themes of a sexual nature and that it featured too many depictions of sexual encounters. Accordingly, Mr Stanton maintained that it was inappropriate to screen Shortland Street in family viewing time when many young impressionable children were watching. He stated:

If the content of the Shortland Street series is to continue with such an unrealistic balance in the way of personal relationships, sexual activity and sexual innuendos, then it should be moved away from peak family viewing hours to 8.30pm or perhaps even later.

Mr Stanton contended that the programme failed to maintain standards consistent with the observance of good taste and decency, the principle of balance, and the protection of children.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 5 June 1998

TVNZ advised the complainant that it had assessed his complaint under standards G2, G6, G8, and G12 of the Television Code, and that it had not been upheld.

TVNZ explained that Shortland Street was a long-running drama series which was designed to reflect current social issues as they arose in New Zealand society. Because Shortland Street was a drama which examined these social issues through a small group of fictional characters, the situations the characters found themselves in, and their consequent behaviour, were necessarily exaggerated. While accepting that the sexual issues reflected in the programme invariably involved sex outside marriage, TVNZ maintained that it would be difficult to make an entertaining social drama if the characters were in orthodox relationships leading normal untroubled lives. It did not accept, it wrote, that the amount of implied sexual activity in the programme was excessive.

Turning to the specific incident complained about, TVNZ stated that instead of being seen as an example of arbitrary promiscuity, it needed to be seen in the wider context of an ongoing storyline about a disintegrating marriage and its effect on younger family members. Citing statistics on the rate of marriage dissolutions, TVNZ asserted that the dramatic depiction of a deteriorating relationship, and its consequences, was topical and relevant for all ages.

In examining whether there had been a contravention of standard G2, TVNZ observed that the depiction was discreet and had only shown the head and shoulders of each character. There was no movement to suggest sexual activity and, it wrote, the liaison was portrayed as mutually satisfying.

With reference to standard G6, TVNZ stated that Shortland Street was not "prescriptive" by which it meant that the programme was not presenting social behaviour as the makers thought it ought to be rather than presenting it the way it believed social behaviour was in reality. Within this storyline, it added, there had not been the opportunity to discuss sex within marriage.

In relation to standard G8, TVNZ noted that the programme was rated PGR. Stating that there was a huge variation in what responsible parents allow their children to view, TVNZ said that Shortland Street was a well established series and, as such, parents would have had ample opportunity to decide whether it was suitable for their children to watch.

Given that TVNZ did not believe the programme was unsuitable for children watching with the consent and guidance of adults, it followed, it said, that it did not consider standard G12 had been breached in this instance either.

Mr Stanton’s Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 29 June 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Stanton referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. He wrote that he was pleased to receive such a detailed response to his complaint but advised that he did not accept that the material he objected to in the specific episode (and, also, he said, in many other episodes) was appropriate for a family viewing timeslot which he believed would attract an audience comprising many young people between the ages of five and fifteen years.

The complainant stated that he did not consider that any PGR programme was appropriate for broadcast at 7.30pm and suggested that 90% of adult viewers would not know Shortland Street’s classification.

With regard to his complaint that the programme lacked balance, Mr Stanton maintained that 98% of the implied sexual activity in Shortland Street occurred in extra-marital relationships when, according to the 1997 NZ Year Book, 60% of adult New Zealanders were married. He also commented that the series did not show senior medical staff in a particularly good light as far as extra-marital sexual activity was concerned.

Referring to the broadcaster’s comparison of Shortland Street with Blue Heelers in a recent interview on National Radio, he said he suspected that, on average, there would be more examples of implied sexual activity in a half hour of Shortland Street than in four hours of the latter programme.

In conclusion, Mr Stanton referred to a cover story in a recent Time Magazine which had highlighted the amount of sex related information that children and teenagers obtained from television, and which had said "for better or worse, sex-filled television helps shape young opinion". The complainant stated:

This I can well believe but the totally gratuitous and unbalanced way that Shortland Street treats sex is far from appropriate especially as far as the aforementioned episode is concerned.

TVNZ’s Report to the Authority – 21 July 1998

In a letter dated 21 July, TVNZ advised the Authority that it had no further comment to make.