BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A sequence devoted to nude self-portraits by a young British photographer was

included in a programme entitled Fashion Television which was broadcast on TV4 on

30 January 1998 at 8.30pm.

Mr Lowe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

photographs were desecrated by an overlay of green leaf-drawings, presumably

inserted to mask pubic hair. He considered the desecration was not only tasteless but

also indecent and was a breach of broadcasting standards.

In its response, TV3 advised that the programme, which was aimed at a family

audience, was altered by the appraiser to satisfy its prospective PGR rating. It

emphasised that its decision to mask the woman's genital area was to ensure that the

programme could be broadcast in a variety of timebands. It declined to uphold the

complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Lowe referred the complaint to the

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The work of a photographer, whose specialty was nude self-portraits, was featured

during Fashion Television, broadcast on TV4 on 30 January 1998 at 8.30pm.

Examples of her photography were shown, and she was interviewed about her work.

Superimposed on some of the photographs was a bright green maple leaf over the

woman's pubic area.

Mr Lowe complained to TV3, the broadcaster, that the addition of the maple leaf

amounted to desecration of the photographer's art. He described it as a gross

suppression of the reality of the human form. Further, he argued, the desecration of

accepted fine art was not only tasteless but indecent. He also complained that the use

of the masking device was a gross and deliberate distortion of the photographs. In his

argument, Mr Lowe maintained that the Broadcasting Act was clearly intended to

ensure that prior censorship was not applied. He considered that when it occurred,

there was a clear danger of social engineering, and the embedding of unnatural and

distorted values in a community.

When it responded to the complaint, TV3 advised that it had applied standards G1,

G2 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, as nominated by Mr

Lowe. The first two require broadcasters:

G1    To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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.

The other standard reads:

G19   Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure the

extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original

event or the overall views expressed.

TV3 explained that the programme Fashion Television was a series which focused on

models and designers and their work. As well as the series, there were a number of

"specials" which focused on different models and aspects of their work. The series

was scheduled for broadcast on Sundays during the afternoon and was rated G, while

the "specials" were scheduled in the evenings and were rated PGR. The programme

complained about had been cut by the Appraiser to suit the PGR rating, TV3 advised.

First it dealt with the complaint that the programme was untruthful or inaccurate.

TV3 maintained that the standard was not transgressed; the programme was merely

edited so that it could reach its intended audience. It argued that there was no

difference between the leaf graphic being superimposed on the model's pubic region,

and the model wearing a bikini bottom. It therefore declined to uphold this aspect.

Turning to the complaint that standard G2 was breached, TV3 responded that its

appraiser took account of the context in which the programme would be viewed when

introducing the masking device. The decision, it argued, reflected the programme's

PGR rating and the fact that it was intended for a family audience. In its view, scenes

of full frontal nudity would have necessitated a rating which would restrict the

screening times for the programme, and consequently, the shots were altered. It

declined to uphold this aspect.

With respect to the standard G19 aspect of the complaint, TV3 advised that the

appraiser had requested that the woman's pubic area be covered by a soft sepia

colour-wipe, which would have meant that the masking would not have been so

obvious. However, it reported, its programme editor had created the maple leaves

through a special graphics process as he considered they would look better. While it

acknowledged that the maple leaf was perhaps more jarring than the colour-wipe

suggested by the appraiser, TV3 maintained it did not distort the original event as Mr

Lowe claimed. It argued that the viewer would always be aware that the leaf was not

part of the woman's anatomy.

In concluding, TV3 advised that it accepted that a number of people sympathised

with Mr Lowe's view that the human form does not offend. However, it argued, such

a view was still not the accepted norm in a programme broadcast for a family

audience, and the appraiser was mindful of the programme's audience and timeslot

when the cuts were requested. It did not agree that the maple leaf distorted the

audience's understanding of the female form, and declined to uphold the standard G19

complaint.

The Authority first makes the point that the underlying philosophy of the

Broadcasting Act 1989 is to devolve responsibility to broadcasters for the content of

programmes broadcast. Under the Act, codes of practice which are developed in

conjunction with broadcasters reflect Parliament's intention that there are limitations

on the content of material which can be broadcast. Broadcasters are responsible for

complying with codes. How they achieve that is a matter of editorial discretion.

The Authority deals first with the complaint that the graphic masked the truth of the

human form and thus breached standard G1. While it understands the point Mr Lowe

making, the Authority sympathises with the broadcaster which is required to comply

with codes of practice, and has decided to use the masking device as a means to ensure

the programme can be broadcast to a wide audience. Its decision, and the method it

employed to effect that decision, is an editorial matter for TV3. The Authority

concludes that the use of the masking device did not transgress standard G1.

Turning to the complaint that the masking was "indecent", the Authority is inclined to

the view that the bright green maple leaf superimposed on the sepia tone photographs

was somewhat jarring. However, while it may not have been aesthetically pleasing,

the Authority does not find it amounts to a breach of standard G2.

With respect to Mr Lowe's complaint that the photographs were distorted by the use

of the masking technique, the Authority repeats that the broadcaster has a discretion

to use such a technique should it consider it necessary for its scheduling purposes.

No viewer would have been misled about what was being masked and, in the

Authority's view, there was no breach of standard G19.

In concluding, the Authority reiterates that TV3's decision first to mask the woman's

pubic area, and secondly to use a maple leaf graphic to do so, is an editorial matter for

it and its appraisers. Its decision is accordingly not one for the Authority to

challenge.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
9 July 1998

Appendix

John Lowe's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 2 February 1998

Mr Lowe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the programme Fashion

Television which was screened on TV4 at 8.30pm on 30 January 1998.

The programme included a sequence devoted to nude self-portraits by a young British

photographer. Mr Lowe complained that the photographs were completely

desecrated by garish leaf-drawings, which were presumably to mask pubic hair.

He maintained that the programme breached standards G1, G2 and G19 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. He wrote:

The post-production overlay of a jarring green drawing on the subtle sepia

forms is a gross suppression of the reality of the human form and the honest

attempt at expression of that truth.

The desecration of accepted fine art, is not only tasteless but indecent.

The gross and deliberate distortion of an elegant, articulate sequence is simply

unforgivable.

Mr Lowe provided a list of occasions he had recorded where genital exposure occurred

on television programmes.

He noted that the root of the word "decency" meant what was fitting. He argued that

the truth was "fitting" in actual, non-exploitative documentary footage. As far as

good taste was concerned, he asked, who could possibly see poor taste in the item.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 16 March 1998

TV3 explained that Fashion Television was a series focussing on models and designers

and their work. In addition, there were a number of "specials" which focussed on

particular models. The series which screened on Sundays was rated G and the

"specials" which were broadcast on other nights were generally rated PGR so that

they could reach their intended audience.

It advised that the programme complained about was rated PGR and was cut by the

appraiser to satisfy the PGR rating.

Turning to the alleged standards breaches, TV3 responded that there was nothing

untruthful or inaccurate in the programme. It advised that it could not see any

difference between either the "leaf" placed over the model's pubic region or the model

wearing a bikini bottom. With respect to the good taste standard, TV3 said that when

the appraiser asked for the woman's genital region to be masked, it considered the

context in which the programme would be shown. The decision reflected the

programme's prospective PGR rating. It wrote:

In this fashion programme, clearly aimed at a family audience, it was

considered full-frontal nudity would give the programme a censor rating that

did not suit it and which would restrict its screening times.

Turning to the complaint under standard G19, that the original photographs were

distorted, TV3 noted that the appraiser had asked for the woman's genitals to be

covered by a sepia colour-wipe, but that the programme editor chose to use the maple

leaves instead. It did not consider the masking "distorted the original event" any more

than if the model had been wearing underpants.

TV3 said that it accepted that a number of people sympathised with Mr Lowe's view

about nudity. However, it stated, that view was still not the accepted norm in a

programme broadcast for a family audience. It found that the maple leaf did not

distort the audience's understanding of the female form and declined to uphold the

complaint that standard G19 had been breached.

Further Correspondence

Mr Lowe elaborated on his complaint in a letter to TV3 dated 26 March. In his view,

the Broadcasting Act was clearly intended to ensure that there was no prior

censorship. He expressed concern about social engineering when censorship was used.

He outlined his views about the need for children to know what the human form

looked like in order to avoid potentially serious consequences in later life.

Dealing with the response under standard G1, Mr Lowe repeated that the leaf

suppressed the reality of the human form. It was, he claimed, a deliberate distortion

of the truth.

Under standard G2, he argued that the masking made the images more distasteful and

indecent. In his opinion, the appraiser's request for a "less obvious" masking process

was an effective admission of that breach of taste. Turning to standard G19, Mr

Lowe maintained that by the imposition of the leaf, the original item was distorted.

Mr Lowe suggested that by using the mask, an expectation arose that masks would be

used to cover nudity. He asked that TV3 reconsider its response.

In a letter dated 9 April, TV3 advised that it had no further comment to make.

Mr Lowe's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 16 April 1998

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Lowe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards

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

He pointed out that some of the Authority's research revealed that innocent nudity

rated a similar concern to that of the use of the word "bollocks".

TV3's Response to the Authority – 24 April 1998

TV3 advised that it had no further comment to make.