BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A Panorama documentary, screened on TV One at 7.30am on 10 April 1998,

examined a psychiatric therapy being trialled in Britain for the treatment of prisoners

guilty of violent crimes who had not shown any remorse.

Mr Lord of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that during an

interview in the programme, a prisoner had used the word "fuck" three times in quick

succession. He wrote that he objected to the broadcast of this language in such an

unsuitable time-band and alleged a breach of broadcasting standards.

In a lengthy response, TVNZ noted that the Panorama documentary had been

broadcast live from London during BBC World and, for this reason, TVNZ had had no

control over the programme's content. It advised that BBC World had broadcast a

warning at the beginning of the documentary, and argued that the language had served

to enlighten viewers about the nature of the men being treated. Because of its context

in a current affairs programme, TVNZ argued, it had not been gratuitous.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Lord 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.

A Panorama documentary screened on TV One at 7.30am on 10 April examined a

psychiatric therapy being trialled in Britain for the treatment of prisoners of violent

crimes who had refused to show any remorse, and who were described as

psychopaths.

Mr Lord complained to TVNZ that one of the prisoners had said "fuck" three times in

quick succession during an interview with the psychiatrist who had developed the

therapy, and therefore the broadcast had breached standards G2, G8 and G12 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The standards require the broadcaster:

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.

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 times.

TVNZ responded to the complainant citing a number of contextual issues in defence

of its decision to accept the direct-feed broadcast from the United Kingdom at that

time. It commented that because it was a live broadcast it did not have any control

over its content, but noted that there had been a warning at the beginning of the

programme which would have alerted viewers to its adult content. It argued that the

language had served to enlighten viewers about the character of the men being treated

and, because of its context in a current affairs programme, asserted that it had not been

gratuitous. It also maintained that material which might not be broadcast in general

viewing time entertainment programmes was not necessarily excluded from current

affairs or news broadcasts in the same time-band. TVNZ contended that such

programmes would be sanitised to an unacceptable degree if all distressing material

contained in them were to be excluded. Finally, TVNZ observed, the language

complained about had occurred 15 minutes into a programme which, in its view,

would not have retained the interest of young people who did not have the maturity

to cope with it.

The complainant, when he referred his complaint to the Authority for review, stated

that the broadcaster was obliged to ensure that every broadcast complied with the

Codes. He said that the broadcaster could have recorded the programme, edited it and

broadcast it at a slightly delayed time or it could have scheduled the broadcast, uncut,

at a more suitable time. He did not seek to abolish such programmes, he wrote, but to

ensure that they were presented at times which would not alienate, frustrate and anger

the public. Mr Lord also stated that the warning had offered limited protection to

children who might be viewing at that time of the morning.

With regard to Mr Lord's contention that the programme could have been edited or

censored, TVNZ submitted that it was a basic tenet of democracy that news and

current affairs material should not be censored. If 10 April had not been a statutory

holiday, TVNZ pointed out, it would have screened its regular news and current

affairs programme Breakfast, which is not subject to censorship.

Mr Lord re-emphasised his point that modern technology allowed TVNZ control over

what was broadcast. If TVNZ was not prepared to use that technology, it should, he

stated, forfeit the right to accept live broadcasts from overseas.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority first considers the alleged breach of good taste and decency and, as

standard G2 requires, examines the context in which the language objected to occurred.

The word "fuck" was used by a prisoner on two or more occasions during a

videotaped interview in a documentary which examined a psychiatric treatment for

unrepentant criminals guilty of extremely violent crimes. The documentary was

designed for adult viewers and, the Authority notes, was broadcast on TV One, a

channel which usually screens the news and current affairs programme Breakfast on

weekdays at that time. Given the serious subject examined by the documentary and

the nature of the recorded interviews in which prisoners expressed themselves in a

natural and unrestrained manner, the Authority considers that the use of the

unaccentuated words by one of the criminals could not be regarded as gratuitous. It

also observes that the language was barely discernible given that the interviewee spoke

relatively quickly and with a heavy regional accent. Another matter of context which

the Authority takes into account was the warning preceding the programme which

alerted viewers to the fact that graphic language would follow. These contextual

factors lead the Authority to conclude that standard G2 was not contravened in this

instance.

In relation to standard G8, the Authority notes that the documentary, a programme in

a direct-feed broadcast from the UK, had been broadcast during general viewing time.

Standard G8 requires broadcasters to abide by the classification codes and their

appropriate guidelines. The guidelines relating to programmes screened in a "G"

timeslot state that they should not contain material likely to be unsuitable for children

under 14 years of age, and that violent or abusive language may not be presented in a

manner which is likely to alarm or distress children. The Authority again refers to the

programme's context as an adult documentary screened on a channel which usually

carries a news and current affairs programme in that timeslot. It considers that most

children who watch early morning television would be aware, along with their parents

or caregivers, that TV One does not screen programmes for children at that time. The

Authority considers that younger viewers would be most unlikely to choose to watch,

and continue to watch, a serious documentary with limited visual appeal when

programmes designed to capture their interest were being broadcast on other channels

at that time. The Authority reiterates that the words complained about were not used

emphatically or abusively, were not easily heard, and were uttered 15 minutes after

the beginning of the programme. Thus, the Authority concludes that standard G8 was

not contravened.

The Authority next considers, with regard to standard G12, whether the broadcaster

had been mindful of children when it accepted the direct-feed broadcast. Although the

programme was screened in general viewing time, it was not a designated general

entertainment timeslot but, rather, one which TVNZ had reserved for a news and

current affairs programme which would not, in normal circumstances, attract child

viewers. Any younger viewer who may have tuned into the programme, the

Authority believes, would have been most unlikely to continue watching once the

serious adult nature of the programme became evident. Given these qualifying factors,

this aspect of the complaint is not upheld.

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

There is one further matter raised by the complaint which the Authority would like to

address. The broadcaster contended in its response to the complainant that as the

Panorama documentary had been broadcast live from London, it had had no control

over the programme's content. In its report to the Authority, TVNZ had also stated:

TVNZ recognises that this complaint ... does throw into relief the standards

implications arising from direct broadcasting of material originating overseas

and over which the New Zealand broadcaster has no control.

On this occasion, the Authority finds no breach of the Codes but, in light of the above

comments, reminds the broadcaster that in Decision No: 1997-148, which related to a

direct-feed broadcast on MTV, it stated:

The Authority reiterates that it is the broadcaster's responsibility, regardless

of the source of its broadcasts, to ensure that standards are complied with.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
30 July 1998

Appendix

Mr Peter Lord's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – 22 April 1998

Mr Peter Lord of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Limited that a

programme he had viewed at 7.45am on either the 7th, 8th or 9th of April had contained

the "f" word three times in quick succession. His over-riding concern, he stated, was

that the language was in a programme which was broadcast in an entirely unsuitable

timeband and, accordingly, he alleged a breach of standards G2, G8 and G12 of the

Television Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

The complainant, unable to be specific about the name of the programme, advised that

it was of BBC origin and had examined a type of therapy being used by a British

psychiatrist for the rehabilitation of hardened criminals. The words of concern, he

continued, were used by a criminal whom he believed was named Smitherson and who

was the subject of an interview conducted during the programme. The complainant

believed that this information would enable TVNZ to easily identify the programme

and the date of its broadcast. He requested from the broadcaster information on each

classification and its associated timeband.

TVNZ's Interim Response to Mr Lord's Complaint – 24 April 1998

TVNZ responded to Mr Lord's complaint in a letter dated 24 April advising that the

words complained about had not been used in any broadcast at 7.45am on the dates

referred to by the complainant. However, it advised that it had identified a

programme screened on Good Friday 10th April, on TV One, which, in all likelihood,

was the programme complained about. It stated:

... on 10th April (Good Friday) there was on BBC World – at that time being

shown on TV One – the current affairs programme Panorama which was

examining how society deals with prisoners convicted of violent crime who feel

no guilt. It seems possible the language was incorporated in that programme

which included interviews with some of the men.

TVNZ informed the complainant that it would proceed with an investigation of his

complaint on the basis that the Panorama documentary was the programme in which

the offending words were used. The broadcaster also explained that as BBC World

was transmitted live from London, there could be some delay in obtaining a copy of

the Panorama documentary and advising the complainant of its decision.

TVNZ's Response to Mr Lord's Complaint – 11 May 1998

TVNZ responded to Mr Lord on 11 May 1998 advising that it had considered his

complaint under the standards nominated.

Before it examined the language used in the programme, the broadcaster stated that it

was necessary to look at the context of the broadcast. Panorama, it said, rated among

the world's leading current affairs programmes and, as well as being shown in the UK,

was repeated a number of times on the BBC World satellite service which was the

vehicle by which TV One relayed Panorama to its New Zealand audience. TVNZ

noted that the programme had been aimed at a peak evening audience in Europe, not at

a New Zealand audience, and added that the "live" nature of the broadcast had not

allowed for any control over its content. The risk that objectionable material could

appear in such a programme, TVNZ claimed, had to be balanced against the interest its

viewers had in high-class documentaries of this type. A further contextual factor was

the warning about the programme's content which preceded the broadcast. The

warning had stated:

[The programme] includes recordings in which prisoners talk in graphic terms

about their crimes, using strong language and describing events which some

viewers may find disturbing.

TVNZ further commented that it was appropriate, in its view, to consider Panorama

in the same manner it would a news or current affairs programme, adding that,

although some news programmes were screened in "G" time, material of a distressing

nature was not necessarily excluded. A practice which prevented the screening of

such material, it continued, could result in the sanitising of news to an unacceptable

degree. The issue examined in the Panorama documentary was as relevant in New

Zealand as it was in Britain and, TVNZ maintained, public interest was served by the

documentary being shown.

Noting that the language objected to had not occurred until halfway through the 30

minute programme, the broadcaster contended that at that stage the adult nature of the

documentary would have been well established and would not have retained the

interest of young people who did not have the maturity to cope with the ensuing

language.

In summary and, first, with reference to standard G2, TVNZ asserted that the

language had been used to enlighten viewers as to the nature of the men being treated

and, because of the "current affairs" context of the programme, had not been

gratuitous. Secondly, with reference to G8, it pointed again to the current affairs

context and reiterated that material which might not be broadcast in "G" time

entertainment programmes was not necessarily excluded from "current affairs" or

"news" broadcasts in "G" time. Finally, in relation to G12, TVNZ again argued that

the programme would not have been of interest to any but the most mature of young

people.

It concluded by noting that it would be very disappointed if it were unable to

broadcast programmes in the Panorama series by way of the BBC World Service.

Mr Lord's Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –

Received 22 May 1998

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

on 31 May 1998 under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Lord stated, first, that the standing of the Panorama programme was totally

irrelevant to TVNZ's statutory obligations under the Codes. While he accepted, he

said, that TVNZ had no control over the content of a programme made and broadcast

live from overseas, he argued that it did have the ability to record the programme and

slightly delay its broadcast while the soundtrack was edited or "censored". An

alternative, Mr Lord submitted, was to have scheduled the broadcast for a more

suitable time.

The complainant also maintained that the warning which preceded the programme was

of no value and had not offered any protection to children who could have

haphazardly turned on the television at that time of the morning. TVNZ would not,

he asserted, have broadcast the same material at 6.30pm because the programme

would have attracted many protests from a much larger viewing audience.

With reference to standard G2, Mr Lord claimed that there was no justification for the

broadcast of indecent language and expressed dismay that TVNZ could suggest that to

eliminate such language in the programme concerned could amount to the sanitation of

news.

Mr Lord pointed out that standard G8 was intended to eliminate the broadcast of

obscene language in a programme in a "G" time-band and maintained that the language

in question would have had a disturbing effect on well-brought up children and, thus,

the broadcast had contravened standard G12.

In conclusion, Mr Lord stated:

Television New Zealand needs to be reminded that it is not the abolition of such

programmes people like myself seek but the presentation of them at times that

will not alienate, frustrate and anger the public who should be able to turn on the

television under the safety umbrella of the G time-band and not find themselves

insulted and assaulted.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 28 May 1998

TVNZ responded to the referral reiterating its view that the Panorama documentary

was not one which would have retained the interest of innocent children. With regard

to Mr Lord's contention that the programme could have been edited or "censored",

TVNZ submitted that it was a basic tenet of democracy that news and current affairs

material should not be censored. Furthermore, the broadcaster stated, it was a

principle which was recognised in the Codes and one which TVNZ would fervently

defend. It pointed out that if 10 April had not been a statutory holiday, viewers

would have been watching Breakfast, another news and current affairs programme

which was not subject to censorship.

Noting that the complaint, the first it had received concerning its relay of the BBC

World Service, had identified the standards implications arising from the direct

broadcast of material from an overseas source, TVNZ said that such transmissions

were soon to become commonplace. The issue of control over content in programmes

originating and transmitted live from overseas, it continued, was one that everybody

working in the standards area needed to resolve.

In conclusion, TVNZ stated:

... all that aside, we do not accept that the language to which Mr Lord objects

was a breach of standards in the context of a legitimate current affairs

documentary. For a viewer, the manner in which these men expressed

themselves was surely the least of the social concerns the programme raised.

Mr Lord's Final Comment to the Authority – 8 June 1998

In his final comment, Mr Lord re-emphasised his point that TVNZ did have control

over what it broadcast as modern technology allowed it the option of recording a

direct-feed programme and replaying it at a more suitable time. If it wasn't prepared

to do this, Mr Lord wrote, it should forfeit the right to accept live broadcasts from

overseas.

The complainant responded to the points made by TVNZ in its report to the

Authority. With regard to his "censorship" proposal, which he considered TVNZ had

referred to negatively, he repeated his earlier argument that time-bands, as set out in

the Codes, must be respected and adhered to by broadcasters. Mr Lord also stated

that he regarded as irrelevant the fact that the programme Breakfast would have

screened at the time if it had not been a statutory holiday. Referring to TVNZ's

contention that innocent children would not have been interested in the programme,

Mr Lord asked how TVNZ could be sure that the programme would not have held

children's interest, and questioned TVNZ's level of concern for its younger viewers.

He hoped that the broadcaster, when it had referred to new technology and had stated

"all of us working in the standards area must come to terms with it because such

transmissions soon will be commonplace", had not meant that viewers just had to

accept that live broadcasts could not be monitored. The broadcaster, he said, had the

responsibility to ensure that direct-feed broadcasts complied with the Codes. Mr

Lord rejected TVNZ's argument that there had not been a breach of standards because

of the programme's documentary context. In answering TVNZ's argument that

viewers were generally more concerned with the wider issues raised in programmes

than they were with language content, Mr Lord maintained that both were important

and, in his view, not mutually exclusive. In conclusion Mr Lord referred to a

guideline for AO programmes which states:

Expletives, when used in situations where there may be clear justification ...

may be sanctioned. However, usually they are capable of causing unnecessary

viewer upset and should be avoided.

As this was a guideline for AO classified programmes, not PGR or G, the complainant

maintained there was no excuse for broadcasting obscene language in a timeslot which

parents should confidently expect to be safe for child viewing.