15 most recent decisions

Rutland and TVWorks Ltd - 2012-009

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 +1200

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
Inside New Zealand: Inside Child Poverty – documentary investigated child poverty in New Zealand – documentary-maker gave his perspective on the role of government policy in contributing to the current situation – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards

Findings
Standard 6 (fairness) – investigation into child poverty engaged high value speech – proposals for policy reform were not specific to any one political party – generic and non-partisan approach – not unfair to National Party – not upheld

Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld

This headnote does not form part of the decision.

Introduction

[1] An episode of the documentary series Inside New Zealand, entitled Inside Child Poverty, was broadcast on TV3 on 22 November 2011. The documentary-maker, Bryan Bruce, investigated the current state of child health among the poorest sections of New Zealand society and gave his perspective on the role of successive government policy, in particular the shift from a socialist state toward a free-market economy, in contributing to the current situation.

[2] Michael Rutland made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the documentary, made by a non-political party, dealt with “significant electoral issues” immediately before an election, in contravention of electoral law. He also considered that the content of the documentary was biased towards former Labour governments, and an attempt to unfairly influence the election outcome.

[3] The issue is whether the documentary breached Standards 2 (law and order) and 6 (fairness) of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

[4] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Nature of the programme and freedom of expression

[5] At the outset, we recognise the right to freedom of expression which is guaranteed by section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and acknowledge the importance of the values underlying that right. The right to free expression includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society (section 5).

[6] The documentary Inside Child Poverty was a serious investigative report into a pressing social issue – child poverty – in a manner that aimed to enhance knowledge and understanding of the causes, responsibilities and potential solutions to the problem. In particular, the documentary-maker, Mr Bruce advocated an alternative ideological framework to that promoted by past governments.

[7] We consider that the type of speech engaged here was of high value. It brought the issue of child poverty to the forefront at a critical time for political discussion, facilitating debate about policy reform in the days immediately preceding the general election. The programme aimed to detail, and draw public attention to, the scale of child poverty in New Zealand. There was a high level of public interest in the item, which the courts have suggested is an indicator that the speech is socially important.¹

[8] Given the nature of the documentary and the high value of the speech engaged, we consider that a very strong justification is required to restrict the speech. The documentary would have to have contained serious flaws, inaccuracies or misrepresentations to justify restricting the broadcaster’s right to impart such information and the audience’s right to receive it.

Was the documentary unfair to the National party?

[9] Standard 6 states that broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in a programme.

[10] One of the purposes of the fairness standard is to protect individuals and organisations from broadcasts which provide an unfairly negative representation of their character or conduct. Programme participants and people referred to in broadcasts have the right to expect that broadcasters will deal with them justly and fairly, so that unwarranted harm is not caused to their reputation and dignity.²

[11] Mr Rutland argued that the documentary was biased towards former Labour governments. In particular, he considered that it used “social welfare images” that were positive in relation to former Labour governments, and attributed “negative images” to former National governments. In addition, he argued that the programme’s comparison of the New Zealand and Swedish systems created an unfair impression that New Zealand could have a Swedish system under a Labour government.

[12] TVWorks argued that Inside Child Poverty was explicitly framed as an authorial documentary, noting that, at the beginning of the programme, Mr Bruce stated, “I’m Bryan Bruce and this is my report.” It said that his proposals for significant changes to health, housing and welfare policy were aimed at all parties and governments, regardless of their position on the political spectrum. It stated:

We are satisfied that [Mr] Bruce’s intention in making the documentary was to identify significant areas of concern relating to child health in New Zealand and to offer a method of addressing these, not to advance the interests of a particular political party.

[13] While we accept that the topic under discussion, child poverty (and indirectly welfare policy), was an election issue, it does not necessarily follow that the documentary amounted to election advertising or an attempt to improperly influence voters. While the item could be said to be political in the sense that it discussed policy issues, we consider it was generic in its approach. The documentary provided a prime example of democracy at work, disseminating the type of information, and prompting the types of discussions, that should be welcomed during election periods.

[14] Mr Bruce expressed his opinions on the underlying causes of child poverty in a manner that was non-partisan and did not advocate for or against any particular party. In particular, the problems highlighted by the documentary were attributed to the effects of decisions made by politicians over the last 30 years, and in particular the shift from a socialist-like country to a free-market economy.

[15] Mr Bruce linked the rise in the free-market economy to policies implemented by both National governments (for example, Robert Muldoon’s “Think Big” policies and Finance Minister Ruth Richardson’s slashing of benefits), and Labour governments (e.g. Finance Minister Roger Douglas’ sale of state assets and the introduction of the Working for Families tax credit). In this sense, he was critical of aspects of both National and Labour government policies.

[16] By way of example, Mr Bruce made the following comments in the documentary:

“Since the introduction of the free-market economy, all the diseases of poverty that affect poor children most, have all gone up. In trying to generate wealth we are bankrupting our children’s health.”
“Whatever the intention, the trickle-down theory just hasn’t worked. In our switch to the free-market economy we’ve created such a wide gap between the rich and the poor that it’s now estimated that one in five children live in a house where a major caregiver is on some sort of benefit. That’s 230,000 children...”
“What happened, I think, is that we applied the trickle-down theory to the care of our kids. We give the welfare money to the parents in the hope that it’s going to filter down to the children, but it isn’t working.”
“Let’s face it – we know what you have to do. Fix the houses, make them warm and dry. Give the kids one free meal a day and free medical care whenever they need it. All we need is for our politicians to show courage and wisdom and foresight. We have to give them the mandate to put our children first before everything else.”
“We need to sit down and talk to each other, have a cross-party conference and come up with a long-term plan for our children... because no child should go hungry in this country. No child should have a preventative disease. We are good people. We can do this, if we want to.”

[17] We do not consider that the omission of certain information relating to the differences between the New Zealand and Swedish systems resulted in the programme being unfair to the National Party.

[18] For these reasons, and taking into account the principles expressed above at paragraphs [5] to [8], we find that the National Party was treated fairly and we decline to uphold the Standard 6 complaint.

Did the broadcast of the documentary encourage viewers to break the law or condone
criminal activity?

[19] The intent behind the law and order standard is to prevent broadcasts that encourage listeners to break the law, or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity.³ The standard exists to ensure that broadcasters refrain from broadcasting material which does not respect the laws which sustain our society.⁴

[20] Mr Rutland’s concerns under this standard related to the timing of the documentary, which screened four days before the general election. In his view, the broadcasting of a documentary by a “non-political party” and dealing with “significant election issues” during an election period amounted to “third party” advertising in breach of electoral law.

[21] TVWorks provided an opinion from the Electoral Commission which concluded that the documentary did not breach the Electoral Act 1993 or Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1993.

[22] For the reasons expressed in relation to fairness, and having regard to the findings of the Commission, we are satisfied that nothing in the broadcast promoted disrespect for electoral law.

[23] Accordingly, we find that the documentary did not encourage viewers to break the law, or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone illegal behaviour. We therefore decline to uphold the complaint under Standard 2.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Peter Radich
Chair
1 May 2012

Appendix

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

1 Michael Rutland’s formal complaint – 22 November 2011

2 TVWorks’ response to the formal complaint – 20 December 2011

3 Mr Rutland’s referral to the Authority – 31 January 2012

4 TVWorks’ response to the Authority (including letter from Electoral Commission) – 10 February 2012

5 Mr Rutland’s final comment – 24 February 2012

¹See, for example, Tipping J in Hosking v Runting [2003] 3 NZLR 385 (CA).

²Commerce Commission and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2008-014

³See, for example, Keane and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2010-082.

⁴Hunt and Māori Television, Decision No. 2009-010

Brownlee and Radkhou and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2011-147

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 +1200

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
Coronation Street – scene contained two female characters kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and controversial issues standards

Findings
Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – kissing scene was brief and innocuous – not made less acceptable by the fact the kiss was between two women – content was consistent with the programme’s G rating and not unsuitable for children – contextual factors – not upheld

Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme was correctly rated G and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheld

Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld

Standard 4 (controversial issues) – standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes – Coronation Street was a fictional drama – not upheld

This headnote does not form part of the decision.

Introduction

[1] An episode of Coronation Street, broadcast on TV One at 5.30pm on 18 October 2011 and classified G (General), contained a scene in which two female characters kissed while sitting on a couch.

[2] Mark Brownlee and Babak Radkhou made formal complaints to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the scene breached broadcasting standards. Mr Brownlee considered that showing two women kissing was “immoral” and “offensive” and that “children may be led to think that behaviour is okay”. Babak Radkhou argued that “a lesbian kiss at 5.25pm” would have disturbed child viewers.

[3] The issue is whether the episode, and specifically the kissing scene, breached Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 8 (responsible programming), 9 (children’s interests) and 4 (controversial issues) of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

[4] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Did the broadcast, specifically the kissing scene, threaten current norms of good taste and decency?

[5] Standard 1 states that broadcasters should observe standards of good taste and decency. The standard is primarily concerned with the broadcast of sexual material, nudity, coarse language or violence.¹ The Authority will also consider the standard in relation to any broadcast that portrays or discusses material in a way that is likely to cause offence or distress.²

[6] When we consider an alleged breach of good taste and decency, we take into account the context of the broadcast, which here includes:

Coronation Street screened at 5.30pm during children’s viewing times
the episode was rated G and screened during the G time-band
the kissing scene occurred at approximately 5.55pm
Coronation Street’s adult target audience
expectations of regular viewers
the episode was not preceded by a warning
Coronation Street had previously been broadcast at 7.30pm during the PGR time-band.

[7] TVNZ argued that Coronation Street was a serial drama aimed at adults, and that the depiction of a couple kissing is acceptable during a G programme. The fact that the kiss was between two women, rather than a man and a woman, did not affect its level of acceptability, it said. TVNZ noted that other G-rated serial dramas, including Neighbours and Home and Away had previously contained scenes in which two girls kissed. Further, this particular episode screened in the United Kingdom prior to its adult watershed, it said.

[8] The scene subject to complaint consisted of a brief, relatively innocuous kiss between two young women, who were sitting on a couch and fully clothed. The Authority has previously declined to uphold complaints about characters kissing during G programmes.³ We also agree with TVNZ that the mere fact that the kiss was between two women does not make it less acceptable. We now live in an age where same-sex relationships are accepted, as demonstrated by, among other things, the introduction of civil unions in New Zealand. Upholding the complaints – especially in the face of previous decisions declining to uphold complaints about heterosexual kisses – would in our view be discriminatory and undermine human rights.

[9] We do not consider that most viewers would have been offended by the scene, or that it threatened current norms of good taste and decency. Upholding the complaints in these circumstances would unreasonably and unjustifiably restrict the right to freedom of expression.

[10] We therefore decline to uphold the complaints under Standard 1.

Was the programme correctly classified and screened in an appropriate timeslot?

[11] Standard 8 (responsible programming) requires broadcasters to ensure that programmes are correctly classified and adhere to the time-bands set out in the Appendix to the Code. TVNZ maintained that the episode was correctly rated G and that none of the material in the episode would have caused panic, alarm or distress. The G classification is defined as follows:

G – General

Programmes which exclude material likely to be unsuitable for children. Programmes may not necessarily be designed for child viewers but should not contain material likely to alarm or distress them.

[12] Coronation Street, while rated G, was targeted at an adult audience, and unlikely to appeal to child viewers. In any case, we are satisfied that the kissing scene was not unsuitable for any unsupervised child viewers who were watching, and did not warrant a higher classification of PGR or a later time of broadcast, for the reasons discussed in relation to Standard 1.

[13] We therefore decline to uphold Mr Brownlee’s complaint that this episode of Coronation Street breached Standard 8.

Did the broadcaster adequately consider children’s interests?

[14] Standard 9 requires broadcasters to consider the interests of child viewers during their normally accepted viewing times – usually up to 8.30pm. Guideline 9a states that broadcasters should be mindful of the effect any programme or promo may have on children during these times, and avoid screening material that would disturb or alarm them.

[15] TVNZ reiterated its arguments in relation to the other standards raised, and concluded that the programme would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers.

[16] As discussed above under Standards 1 and 8, we are satisfied that the kissing scene was not unsuitable for child viewers, and not likely to disturb or alarm them. We agree that the scene was consistent with the programme’s G rating, and in any case we do not consider that children were likely to be watching, given the programme’s adult target audience.

[17] Accordingly, we find that the broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests when screening this episode of Coronation Street at 5.30pm, and we decline to uphold the complaints under Standard 9.

Did the programme breach standards related to the discussion of controversial issues?

[18] Mr Brownlee nominated Standard 4 (controversial issues) in his complaint.

[19] Standard 4 states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs and factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

[20] As Coronation Street was a fictional drama/soap opera, we find that Standard 4 does not apply in the circumstances.

For the above reasons the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Peter Radich
Chair
1 May 2012

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined these complaints:

Mark Brownlee’s complaint

1          Mark Brownlee’s formal complaint – 18 October 2011

2          TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 17 November 2011

3          Mr Brownlee’s referral to the Authority – 17 November 2011

4          TVNZ’s response to the Authority – 27 February 2012

Babak Radkhou’s complaint

1          Babak Radkhou’s formal complaint – 20 October 2011

2          TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 17 November 2011

3          Babak Radkhou’s referral to the Authority – 30 November 2011

4          TVNZ’s response to the Authority – 27 February 2012

¹Turner and TVNZ, Decision No. 2008-112

²Practice Note: Good Taste and Decency (Broadcasting Standards Authority, November, 2006)

³For example, Ibousi and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2010-091

O’Neill and TVWorks Ltd - 2011-127

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 +1200

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
LMFAO Video Hits – LMFAO song “Shots” broadcast at 7.15pm allegedly contained coarse and sexually explicit language and liquor promotion – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests and liquor standards

Findings
Standard 11 (liquor) – music video contained liquor promotion that was not socially responsible – upheld

Standard 9 (children’s interests) – given the dominance of liquor promotion in the video and the messages conveyed, broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers in screening the video during children’s viewing times – upheld

Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – while song did refer to women it did not carry the invective necessary to encourage denigration of women as a section of the community – not upheld

Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – subsumed into consideration of liquor and children’s interests

No Order

This headnote does not form part of the decision.

Introduction

[1] At 7pm on 22 September 2011, a programme called LMFAO Video Hits was broadcast on C4. Part of this broadcast was the music video for LMFAO’s song “Shots”. LMFAO is understood to mean “Laughing My Fucking Arse Off”.

[2] The video in its original form portrayed the musical band at a party where a large number of people were present and drinking alcohol. The essential messages conveyed were that parties of this kind and drinking large quantities of alcohol are very enjoyable, and that when women drink alcohol in these circumstances they become sexually promiscuous and available for sex. In the version of the video broadcast, the broadcaster made some effort to mute and disguise some of the more obviously offensive language.

[3] Sue O’Neill made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the broadcast of the song at 7.15pm, including “a very thinly disguised ‘sucking cocks’ and the repeated ‘panties coming down’ and ‘serving shots’, with visuals equally as offensive”, breached standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests, and liquor promotion. She considered that the person responsible for allowing the clip to go to air should resign.

[4] The issue is whether the broadcast of the music video in this timeslot breached Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 7 (discrimination and denigration), 8 (responsible programming), 9 (children’s interests) and 11 (liquor) of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Overview

[5] We are familiar with the music video genre. We well understand that across the internet and through conventional broadcasting channels these are aimed at young viewers. We recognise that for many young people, music videos are a staple in their entertainment diet. Themes which encourage and glamorise sex and sensual behaviour are common and so are themes which encourage partying and alcohol consumption. The content of internet music videos is unregulated in New Zealand but the content of music videos which come through mainstream broadcasting is subject to the Broadcasting Act 1989 as are all other such broadcasts.

[6] To young viewers, the distinction between what is seen on the internet and what is available on television broadcasting channels is probably not significant. Many viewers may think that something that is freely available on the internet and is commonly seen on the internet should be equally as available through the different medium of television broadcast. Moreover, the standards of the internet may be seen to become the standards of mainstream broadcasting and the influence of the internet may be seen to erode away the standards which the Broadcasting Act 1989 has required to be put in place.

[7] We acknowledge that the presence of what is available on the internet will inevitably have some impact on what happens in the area of traditional broadcasting. We do not however accept that the absence of standards and controls in the internet sector means that there should be an abandonment of decent standards in the area of broadcasting in which this Authority works.

[8] Put very broadly, and for reasons which we will express in more detail later, this broadcast went too far and became unacceptable. It is not acceptable at 7pm on a Thursday night for a broadcaster to be putting out the sorts of messages that this broadcast contained. Nor was it acceptable for thinly veiled and nevertheless discernible references to be made to “sucking cocks” and “panties coming down”. This broadcast was a glamorisation of drinking and partying and of alcohol-fuelled sexual behaviour. This broadcast sits very uncomfortably with society’s concerns that young people should not be encouraged to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, particularly spirits, and that young women should not be put in positions where their behaviour choices are modified by alcohol intoxication.

Bill of Rights

[9] We acknowledge that the broadcaster has the right to freedom of expression under section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. We acknowledge the importance of section 14 and the values underlying the right to freedom of expression. Any restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression must be prescribed by law, reasonable, and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society (section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990). Where the speech is particularly valuable, a correspondingly high level of protection will be afforded to those forms of expression.

[10] On this occasion, as described in paragraph [2], the expression took the form of a music video for a song titled “Shots”, in which the group LMFAO called on “alcoholics” to come and party and get drunk. Excessive consumption of alcohol was promoted, and the song lyrics suggested that women would be more likely to engage in sexual activity when intoxicated. The broadcaster argued that this was obviously intended as an over-the-top parody which carried “sophisticated connotations” that only adults would understand. In our view, while the drinking theme may have been deliberately exaggerated, it was not necessarily an unrealistic depiction of drinking and partying, so the alleged “parody” would have been lost on many viewers, and particularly younger viewers who were more likely to take the video at face value.

[11] In these circumstances, we consider that the music video – which was primarily for the purposes of entertainment and did not promote what would be considered to be positive values, or offer legitimate commentary – did not amount to high value speech deserving of a correspondingly high level of protection. We therefore consider that the threshold required to uphold the complaint, thereby restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression, is lower than the threshold necessary for restricting other more important forms of speech.

[12] With this in mind, we now turn to consider the standards raised by the complainant.

[13] Following from the views outlined in paragraphs [8] and [10], we believe that the standards relating to liquor promotion and children’s interests are the key standards in this case, with programme classification, good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration being secondary. We have therefore focused our determination on Standards 11 and 9, and addressed the other standards peripherally.

[14] We have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Did the song contain liquor promotion that was socially irresponsible?

[15] There is a two-stage test involved in determining whether there has been a breach of Standard 11 (liquor). We must first decide whether the broadcast constituted “liquor promotion” and, if it did, we must then consider whether the liquor promotion was socially responsible. Looking at the first limb of the test, we note that Standard 11 defines “liquor promotion” as:

promotion of a liquor product, brand or outlet (‘promotion’)
liquor sponsorship of a programme (‘sponsorship’)
advocacy of liquor consumption (‘advocacy’).

[16] In our view, the song clearly advocated liquor consumption. The entire premise of the song was encouraging people to get drunk and drink excessive amounts of alcohol. While the broadcaster considered that this premise would not have been taken seriously or interpreted as a realistic depiction or encouragement to drink, we reiterate our view that C4’s younger viewers were likely to overlook this and interpret it literally. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the song amounted to liquor promotion in the form of “advocacy”.

[17] In addition, part-way through the song, banners were displayed on-screen which contained liquor logos, and the artists referred to specific drinks and types of alcohol. The lyrics were as follows:

What you drinking on?

Jaeger bombs, lemon drops

Buttery nipples, Jello shots

Kamikaze, Three Wise Men

...Get me some gin.

[18] In this respect, the song also amounted to liquor promotion in the form of the “promotion” of liquor products and brands. We note that a broadcast does not have to promote one liquor brand exclusively in order to fall within this definition.

[19] Having found that the programme contained liquor promotion, we must now consider whether that promotion was socially responsible. Past decisions suggest that liquor promotion will be considered by the Authority to be socially irresponsible if:

the broadcast portrays excessive liquor consumption as positive and desirable, and fails to acknowledge the negative effects of liquor consumption
the broadcast involves excessive liquor consumption by young people.

[20] In our view, the song clearly portrayed excessive alcohol consumption as positive and desirable. From the beginning to the end of the song, everyone in the video was drinking excessively, including copious numbers of shots, and having liquor poured straight down their throats, accompanied by lyrics such as “bottles up”, “cups in the air” and “let’s take shots”, all the while appearing to be having an extremely enjoyable time. While no one appeared to be very intoxicated, the video did not contain any acknowledgement of the negative effects of drinking the significant quantities of alcohol being encouraged. The song also suggested that drinking was mandatory, for example saying:

If you ain’t getting drunk get the [fuck] out the club

If you ain’t taking shots get the [fuck] out the club

If you ain’t come to party get the [fuck] out the club

Now where my alcoholics let me see your hands up

[21] In addition, we agree with the complainant that the song suggested that it was beneficial to serve women shots so that they would get drunk and be more willing to engage in sexual activity. In particular, it contained the following lyrics:

The women come around every time I’m pouring shots

Their panties hit the ground every time I give them shots

[22] The song also contained a lyric, “The ladies love us when we pour shots, they need an excuse to suck our cocks.” While “suck our cocks” was sufficiently muted, we note that this lyric was accompanied by footage of women standing in front of two of the male artists and descending from view in front of them.

[23] Furthermore, in terms of the context in which the song was broadcast, we note that C4, which is predominantly a music channel, appeals to a younger audience including teenagers under the legal age for drinking, and that this video was broadcast at approximately 7.15pm, during children’s viewing times. As mentioned above, if any sophisticated “over-the-top” parody was intended by the artists, we consider that this would not have been grasped by viewers, and particularly younger viewers who were likely to be left only with the impression that drinking excessively was extremely desirable and pleasurable, compounded by the fact that LMFAO are likely to be popular with this age group. We are also acutely aware that binge drinking and New Zealand’s drinking culture are the cause of significant concern.

[24] Taking all of these factors together – the advocacy of excessive liquor consumption, combined with the message that if you get women drunk they will be more willing to have sex, the time of broadcast, C4’s target audience, and the significant concern about young people’s drinking culture – we are satisfied that the liquor promotion dominating the music video was not socially responsible. The Authority has previously described the objective of Standard 11 as follows:

Standard 11 exists to ensure that when a broadcast contains liquor promotion, the promotion is socially responsible. Liquor promotion in a broadcast must not, among other things, appear in programmes specifically directed at children, advocate excessive liquor consumption or dominate a programme.

[25] Given that the song, in our view, contained all of these elements, we have formed a clear view that on this occasion the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression did not outweigh the potential harm caused by a broadcast of this nature during children’s viewing times.

Did the broadcaster adequately consider children’s interests?

[26] Standard 9 requires broadcasters to consider the interests of child viewers during their normally accepted viewing times – usually up to 8.30pm.

[27] TVWorks argued that the song “did not play during children’s programming”. Given that the song was broadcast at 7.15pm, it clearly played during children’s viewing times before the Adults Only watershed at 8.30pm, and, as noted above, we consider that music videos do appeal to a younger audience, especially when they are songs by popular groups.

[28] In our view, the objective of Standard 9 is to protect children from content which is unsuitable for them, or which might adversely affect them. In the Authority’s 2006 publication Freedoms and Fetters, it was observed that:

...children are worthy of special protection. Whether about radio or television, the BSA’s decisions emphasise its strong expectation that material likely to be heard or seen by children should recognise their innocence and vulnerability. The television classification and watershed systems underpin this special protection.

[29] We agree with the sentiment expressed above, and are of the view that the objective which underpins the children’s interests standard is of high importance.

[30] On this occasion, while the programme was rated PGR, we note that TVWorks has confirmed that no warning was broadcast at the beginning of LMFAO Video Hits. It also accepted that the content of the music video subject to complaint was “toward the limit of what is acceptable for a PGR programme”. In our view, the themes depicted in the song were clearly adult themes suited to a mature audience, and were not suitable for child viewers. The absence of a warning gave no opportunity to parents to exercise discretion with regard to their children’s viewing.

[31] For these reasons, and given our findings under Standard 11, we are satisfied that the broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests, and that its right to freedom of expression did not outweigh the importance of protecting child viewers from this type of content.

Did the broadcast encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, women as a section of the community?

[32] Standard 7 protects against broadcasts which encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community. Ms O’Neill argued that the inference in the song that you could “get [a woman] drunk and she will do anything” denigrated women.

[33] The Authority has consistently defined “denigration” as blackening the reputation of a class of people (for example, Mental Health Commission and CanWest RadioWorks¹). It is also well-established that in light of the requirements of the Bill of Rights Act, a high level of invective is necessary for the Authority to conclude that a broadcast encourages denigration in contravention of the standard (for example, McCartain and Angus and The Radio Network²).

[34] While we agree that perhaps two lyrics in the song (one of which was censored) did infer that getting a woman drunk would make her more willing to engage in sexual activity, we consider that, in the context of a song which was predominantly about excessive alcohol consumption, these lyrics in themselves did not carry the level of invective necessary to blacken the reputation of women or encourage the denigration of women as a section of the community. While we have found that the broadcast of the song, including the references to women, was socially irresponsible and contrary to the objectives of the other standards, we find that the lyrics did not stray into the realm of hate speech or vitriol, or reach the high threshold necessary to uphold the complaint under Standard 7.

Did the song breach standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programming?

[35] In paragraph [13] above we expressed the view that standards relating to liquor and children’s interests were the most relevant in this instance. We consider that the complainant’s concerns under Standards 1 and 8 have been adequately and appropriately addressed under Standards 11 and 9. We therefore subsume our consideration of good taste and decency and responsible programming into our consideration of those standards.

Conclusion

[36] As outlined in paragraphs [10] to [11] above, we do not consider that a music video advocating excessive drinking and partying could be categorised as high value speech which should be protected strenuously under section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. We have found that the themes portrayed in the song had the potential to cause considerable harm, particularly, in our view, in relation to liquor promotion and children’s interests. We are satisfied that the importance of the objectives under Standards 11 and 9 outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion. We therefore find that upholding the complaint would promote the objectives of those standards, and would place a justifiable and proportionate limit on TVWorks’ right to freedom of expression.

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by TVWorks Ltd of LMFAO’s song “Shots” during LMFAO Video Hits on C4 on 22 September 2011 breached Standards 11 and 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

[37] Having upheld the complaint, we may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We invited submissions on orders from the parties.

[38] Ms O’Neill submitted that a statement summarising the upheld aspects of the decision and containing a direction to the full decision on the Authority’s website should be broadcast on C4 and published in “all major daily newspapers”. She said she would defer to the expertise of the Authority regarding an award of costs to the Crown.

[39] TVWorks said that the decision had drawn “a clear line in the sand” in relation to music videos with a drinking theme, and staff had been counselled to exercise greater caution in appraising them in future. The video had been reclassified Adults Only and therefore would not be screened in a PGR timeslot in future, it said. TVWorks considered that this action was sufficient and that therefore a broadcast statement was not warranted.

Authority’s Decision on Orders

[40] The Authority’s decisions are, in general, designed to give clear guidance to broadcasters about how best to adhere to the principles outlined in the broadcasting standards. Here, TVWorks has taken our decision on board and acknowledged its mistake, and given us assurance that steps have been taken to ensure that the mistake will not be repeated (namely, reclassifying the music video which would restrict it to a later time of broadcast). Our decision will also clarify for other broadcasters our expectations in relation to music videos containing liquor, such as the one subject to complaint.

[41] In these circumstances, we do not consider that any order or penalty is warranted on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Peter Radich
Chair
1 May 2012

Appendix

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

1 Sue O’Neill’s formal complaint – 22 September 2011

2 TVWorks’ response to the complaint – 26 September 2011

3 Ms O’Neill’s referral to the Authority – 3 October 2011

4 TVWorks’ response to the Authority – 4 November 2011

5 Ms O’Neill’s final comment – 14 November 2011

6 TVWorks’ response to Authority’s request for further information – 2 December 2011

7 Ms O’Neill’s submissions on orders – 11 March 2012

8 TVWorks’ submissions on orders – 23 March 2012

¹Decision No. 2006-030

²Decision No. 2002-152

15 most recent decisions

Rutland and TVWorks Ltd - 2012-009

Introduction

Nature of the programme and freedom of expression

Was the documentary unfair to the National party?

Did the broadcast of the documentary encourage viewers to break the law or condone criminal activity?

Appendix

Brownlee and Radkhou and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2011-147

Introduction

Did the broadcast, specifically the kissing scene, threaten current norms of good taste and decency?

Was the programme correctly classified and screened in an appropriate timeslot?

Did the broadcaster adequately consider children’s interests?

Did the programme breach standards related to the discussion of controversial issues?

Appendix

O’Neill and TVWorks Ltd - 2011-127

Introduction

Overview

Bill of Rights

Did the song contain liquor promotion that was socially irresponsible?

Did the broadcaster adequately consider children’s interests?

Did the broadcast encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, women as a section of the community?

Did the song breach standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programming?

Conclusion

Authority’s Decision on Orders

Appendix

Did the broadcast of the documentary encourage viewers to break the law or condone
criminal activity?