BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

"Six Days in a Leaky Boat" was the name of the documentary broadcast on Inside New Zealand on TV3 at 8.30pm on 24 March 1999. It featured six people in their twenties who were sailing a yacht in the Bay of Islands, and who had never met before. They were required to perform a number of objectives in difficult circumstances.

Mr Stewart complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used and behaviour shown in a programme about boating was unacceptable and in breach of the standards. Furthermore, he wrote, the "foul" language used was advanced as acceptable, which amounted to a deceptive programme practice.

Explaining that the programme was about the relationships between six people in their twenties who were required to perform difficult tasks, TV3 said that the unscripted programme captured their reactions. It added that the programme was classified AO by the broadcaster and preceded by a written and verbal warning. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, Mr Stewart referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, a majority of 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. Given the matters raised on this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Inside New Zealand documentary, "Six Days in a Leaky Boat", filmed six people in their twenties, who had never met before, carrying out a number of tasks on a yacht while sailing in the Bay of Islands. It was broadcast by TV3 beginning at 8.30pm.

Mr Stewart complained to TV3 about the language used which, he considered, breached standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Acknowledging that standards of acceptable language have changed over time, and that similar language was contained in films broadcast later at night, Mr Stewart focused on the context of "Six Days". It was about boating, he observed, which he described as a middle-of-the-road leisure activity in New Zealand, enjoyed by people of all ages. Accordingly, he had expected the language to reflect the norms of people who enjoyed that sport. However, he wrote, the language used in the item did not meet those norms. He did not regard the warning given at the beginning of the item as relevant as the subject would have been likely to attract many younger viewers. He wrote:

So the substance of my complaint is that the foul language used in the documentary was completely gratuitous and without any redeeming feature and in breach of programme standards.

After giving some examples from the programme of what he considered was unacceptable language, Mr Stewart questioned whether the broadcast had breached standard G7 as well. He raised the point on the basis that the programme maker, by including the offensive language, was trying to suggest to viewers that such language was now acceptable without question.

In responding to Mr Stewart’s complaint, TV3 pointed out that the broadcast had been preceded with a written and verbal warning which advised that the programme was rated "Adults Only", and that the language used could offend. It elaborated:

As "Six Days in a Leaky Boat" dealt with young people and their perspectives, it is natural that the documentary contained some coarse language. Such language is part of the general lifestyle of that age group. These words were not scripted or rehearsed but were the genuine expressions of the people on the yacht. The drinking behaviour was not initiated by the programme but what was recorded accurately reflected how those twenty-somethings actually behaved.

As the premise of the documentary was to capture how these people would truly react under such circumstances, it would be irrational to then remove the behaviour which characterised the group.

TV3 then dealt with each of the nominated standards. They 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.

G7  To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the presentation of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence viewers have in the integrity of broadcasting.

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

In assessing standard G2, TV3 noted that the Broadcasting Standards Authority had previously ruled that the use of coarse language, "such as the f-word", was acceptable in context. In this case, TV3 referred again to the warning and the rating and stated that the programme recorded the group’s reactions to the challenges it had been set. In regard to the exchange to which Mr Stewart had referred, TV3 observed that while the language might be considered unattractive, it was an accurate reflection of the person who used it.

Dealing with Mr Stewart’s comments about viewers who might be attracted to the broadcast, TV3 pointed out that it was not promoted as a sports item. Rather, it wrote, it focused on relationships, and as the item introduced people who were in their twenties, course language would not have been unexpected. Further, unlike films broadcast later in the evening where such language was used, this programme was not scripted.

Turning to standard G7, TV3 emphasised that the item was a "true record of how these individuals reacted to situations they encountered". It denied the complainant’s contention that it had been social engineering.

As for standard G12, TV3 reiterated that the item was not about boating, and had not been advertised as such. By classifying the programme as AO, and preceding its broadcast with an explicit warning, TV3 said it had exercised its responsibilities.

It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Stewart considered that TV3 had argued that the rating and warning were sufficient in themselves to counter any possible breach of standards. He did not accept that. In rebuttal, Mr Stewart stated that context was central. He noted that TV3 had maintained that the lifestyle and behaviour of the group were the central contexts. When TV3 defined the context, he argued, that amounted to "self-serving sophistry".

In Mr Stewart’s view, context would be inferred from the "TV Guide" for that day where the programme promoted as a "six day boating challenge", could have been reasonably expected to deal with boating. In support of this position, Mr Stewart enclosed a published letter from "TV Guide" of 2 April in which another viewer shared his concerns.

In these circumstances, Mr Stewart argued that the nominated standards had been infringed.

In its report to the Authority, TV3 enclosed the programme information sent out by its publicity branch. It recorded:

This documentary takes six twenty-somethings and sets them adrift on the Pacific Ocean for a week of adventure. It sounds like bliss, but of course there are catches:–

They’ve never met each other before
They have six big challenges to meet
They’re not all experienced, and
It’s not all plain sailing.

TV3 also enclosed the relevant listings for "TV Guide" and "NZ Listener", and a feature story from "TV Guide", all of which had used that wording.

In his final comment, Mr Stewart expressed the view that TV3’s response in fact confirmed his complaint. In his opinion TV3 initially had virtually denied that the broadcast had anything to do with boating. However, given its publicity material and the material in "TV Guide" and the "Listener", it was apparent to potential viewers that "boating skills" were the issue to be addressed, he wrote. Mr Stewart remarked:

The fact that not much serious attention was given to boating skills and what [there was] was mainly negative only reinforces the G7 aspect of my complaint, but the predominant context was still boating, even if it was a frivolous approach.

Mr Stewart said TV3’s approach suggested that its responsibilities finished with the AO rating and the warning. Describing that as cynical, Mr Stewart observed that people made their viewing choices more on the basis of subject matter than "on some obscure rating". In conclusion, Mr Stewart noted some overseas research and suggested that television broadcasters used ratings and warnings as a licence to include "anything" in a broadcast.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority’s task in assessing this complaint under standard G2 is to determine whether the language used during the broadcast breached currently accepted norms. The programme was broadcast during the AO time band, was classified AO, and was preceded by a written and verbal warning.

The subject of a programme is a contextual element which the Authority is required to take into consideration when determining standard G2 complaints. The Authority does not consider the debate about the nature of the programme’s promotional material which has arisen is directly relevant, as its deliberations are confined to broadcast programmes, not their publicity. It acknowledges that viewers might have started viewing the programme in the expectation of seeing a programme about yachting. However, it would have been apparent before the first commercial break that "relationships", rather than yachting, was the theme, it considers. Thus, the Authority accepts that relationships within the group were the focus of the programme, with the boating challenges secondary. The Authority also notes that the language to which exception was taken was not broadcast before the first commercial break.

The Authority is divided in its opinion whether the language used contravened standard G2.

The majority acknowledges that the language used was at times challenging. However it notes the warning, the classification, and the focus of the programme. It also considers that the language was not used gratuitously and notes that it was used only after the programme’s focus became evident. It concludes that the standard was not breached.

The minority disagrees. It refers in particular to one exchange where, it considers, the language used involved sexual aggression as well as coarse language. The minority concludes that such regardless of whether the programme involved "a slice of life", such language was unacceptable. It notes that the programme’s parameters were inexplicit, and that viewers would not have been prepared for the extent of the coarse language used repeatedly as the programme progressed. In the minority’s view, its use was gratuitous and offended against standards of good taste and decency.

The Authority unanimously agrees that the broadcast breached neither standard G7 nor G12. The Authority applies standard G7 to deceptive programming which occurs as a result of the use of some technological practice. It is inapplicable to the current situation. Given the time of broadcast of the programme complained about, and taking into account the point that the language complained about was not broadcast in the early segments of the programme, the Authority does not accept that the broadcast occurred during the normally accepted viewing times of children.

For the reasons above, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold the alleged breach of standard G2. The Authority unanimously declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
12 August 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority in determining this complaint.

1. J F Stewart’s Formal Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 6 April 1999

2. TV3’s Response to the Complaint – 3 May 1999

3. Mr Stewart’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 10 May 1999

4. TV3’s Report to the Authority – 31 May 1999

5. Mr Stewart’s Final Comment – 8 June 1999