BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

"I would like to have sex with her dead skull" was a phrase used by American

broadcaster, Howard Stern. Mr Stern was the subject of an item on TV3's 20/20

broadcast between 7.30–8.30pm on 27 November 1996 and his use of the phrase was

reported both in a preview at the start of the broadcast and in the item itself.

Mr Dixon complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast of what he

described as a depraved phrase breached the standards relating to good taste and

decency, respect for the principles of law and the requirement for a broadcaster to be

mindful of the effect of a programme on children.

As the use of the phrase in the introduction had not been placed in context, TV3 upheld

that aspect of the complaint. However, because it was used in context in the item, TV3

declined to uphold the other aspect. With regard to the aspect upheld, it reported that

20/20's producer had been instructed to comply fully with the standards when preparing

the opening sequences for 20/20. Dissatisfied that the complaint had not been upheld in

full, Mr Dixon referred it 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 (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Controversial American radio broadcaster, Howard Stern, was profiled in an item

broadcast on 20/20 between 7.30–8.30pm on 27 November. His comment to the

interviewer, "I would like to have sex with her dead skull", was included in the preview

of the forthcoming items at the top of the show and, later, in the item itself. On neither

occasion were viewers advised to whom Mr Stern was referring.

Mr Dixon complained to TV3 that the broadcast of the comment on both occasions

breached the standards relating to decency, respect for law, and the requirement that

broadcasters be mindful of the effect of a programme on children. He maintained that

broadcasts up to 8.30pm were for family viewing and how, he asked, could the

depravity contained in the statement be explained to younger family members? Whereas

he regarded television as potentially a major force in shaping a society's culture, he

considered that the statement complained about contributed to diminishing social and

moral values.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which 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.

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during

their normally accepted viewing times.

Focussing on the context in which the phrase had been used on each occasion, TV3 said

that its use on the first occasion lacked "real context". It upheld that aspect of the

complaint under both standards. As the item dealt with a man who explicitly challenged

norms, TV3 maintained that the comment in the substance of the item, while shocking,

did not breach the standard given the context in which it was used.

As for the aspect of the complaint upheld, TV3 advised Mr Dixon that 20/20's

Executive Producer had been instructed to comply fully with the standards when

preparing the opening sequences of 20/20.

While gratified that part of his complaint had been upheld, Mr Dixon was dissatisfied

that the complaint had not been upheld in full. When he referred the aspect which was

not upheld to the Authority, he maintained that the remark was not a necessary example

of Mr Stern's comments and, if it had to be included, the programme should have been

screened at a much later hour.

The Authority considers the phrase to be highly offensive and begins by recording its

agreement with TV3 that the broadcast of the comment in the preview breached both

standards. Indeed, it trusts that 20/20's Executive Producer will follow the Complaints

Committee's instruction responsibly.

It is required by the referral to decide whether its use during the item itself also breached

the standards. Howard Stern was introduced as a highly controversial broadcaster who

pushed at, and sometimes exceeded, the boundaries of acceptable language and

behaviour for a broadcaster. It was an approach which the interviewer did not approve.

However, apart from the comment complained about, the item included little of the

language which justified Mr Stern's controversial label.

The item suggested that the coarseness, or crassness, of some of his on-air comments

was a reason for the opprobrium in which he was held by many. However, although

the item included one deliberately made outrageous comment, the viewer was not

subjected to a tirade of them. Its use nevertheless suggested that such offensive

comments were the basis of his appeal to many listeners. Accordingly, a majority of the

Authority comes to the conclusion that the use of the phrase in the broadcast – given the

specific context – did not breach standard G2 in view of the standard's acknowledgment

of context.

A minority of the Authority disagrees. It regards the phrase as unacceptable for

inclusion in a broadcast regardless of the context. In its opinion, the broadcast breached

standard G2 of the Code.

Next the Authority considers whether the broadcast contravened the requirement in

standard G12 that broadcasters be mindful of the effect of a programme on children

during their normally accepted viewing periods.

20/20 is broadcast during a time classified as PGR - Parental Guidance Recommended –

which sets the following rule:

Programmes containing material more suited to adult audiences but not necessarily

unsuitable for child viewers when subject to the guidance of a parent or adult.

The Authority also takes into account that younger viewers are unlikely, when watching

television alone, to choose to watch a current affairs programme. Younger viewers

who heard the phrase were thus likely to be in the company of a parent or other

caregiver. The Authority also takes into account that viewers were advised that the

broadcaster being profiled was controversial and the item disclosed the reporter's

obvious disapproval of Mr Stern's approach. As the phrase was one of the few

examples used as an example of Mr Stern's outrageous and crass approach, the

Authority is of the view that standard G12, because of the requirements for parental

guidance in the time slot when the item was screened, was not breached.

For the reasons above, a majority of the Authority declines to uphold the

complaint that the broadcast breached standard G2 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice and, unanimously, declines to uphold the

complaint that the broadcast breached standard G12.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
28 March 1996

Appendix

Archie Dixon's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 5 December

1995

Mr Dixon of Whangarei complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about a phrase used

during 20/20 broadcast at about 7.35pm on Monday 27 November 1995.

The 20/20 presenter said that an item that evening would demonstrate the extremes of

broadcasting practices used by Howard Stern in the United States. For example, the

presenter continued, Howard Stern had said "I would like to have sex with her dead

skull". Further, in the item itself, Mr Stern was seen to make that statement.

Mr Dixon considered that the comment breached the standards relating to decency,

respecting the principles of law and being mindful of the effect on children. On the

basis that family viewing time continued until 8.30pm, Mr Dixon considered that such a

depraved comment was inappropriate for younger family members. Not only should

the item about Howard Stern have not been screened at all, Mr Dixon concluded:

Apart from breaching standards, it is my belief that TV3 through the programming

of the Howard Stern programme, did nothing more or less than make a further

contribution to diminishing social and moral values.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 19 December 1995

Assessing the complaint under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TV3 began:

The [Complaints] Committee notes News and Current Affairs programmes do not

require a classification such as Adult, Parental Guidance Recommended or

General.

However, the Committee is equally aware this does not exonerate News and

Current Affairs programmes from meeting those requirements specified in the

Broadcasting Act and Broadcasting Codes of Practice.

As the phrase complained about was not placed in context when used in the

introduction, that aspect of the complaint was upheld. However, TV3 continued, the

full item showed that Howard Stern set out to challenge accepted norms and it was

reasonable to air some of his outrageous comments. Accordingly, the aspect of the

complaint which referred to the use of the phrase in the full item was not upheld.

In relation to the aspect upheld, TV3 advised that the Executive Producer of 20/20 had

been instructed to ensure the better observance of broadcasting standards in 20/20's

opening sequences.

Mr Dixon's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 16

January 1996

Expressing pleasure at the aspect upheld but dissatisfied that the matter was not upheld

in full, Mr Dixon referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Dixon repeated the points about the timing of the broadcast and maintained that it

should have been screened at a much later hour. He argued that the phrase complained

about was not necessary to show Mr Stern's ability to shock listeners. It involved the

ultimate degradation of woman and he wrote:

One can only ask "at what price ratings"?

TV3's Response to the Authority - 24 January 1996

TV3 advised the Authority that it did not wish to comment further.