Joanne Morris: Viewers rate trust top of values code

The Broadcasting Standards Authority recently asked more than 500 New Zealanders to tell us what annoyed them about broadcast content.

We weren't interested in the trivial - the hairstyles of television presenters, for example. We wanted to know what broadcasting standards issues were important to New Zealanders. How did people really feel about what they were seeing and hearing on their televisions and radios?

As the people charged with judging complaints about broadcasting standards, it's important for the BSA's four members to have a handle on community attitudes, particularly when it comes to the somewhat subjective standard of "good taste and decency".

We've been measuring public attitudes and their shifts since 1993, and built up a pretty clear picture of what New Zealanders are thinking. We know, for example, that many swear words (like "bugger") have become more acceptable over the years.

It's clear, too, from the intense public debate generated by the screening of the Bloody Mary episode of South Park in February that some broadcasts can stir strong emotions among many New Zealanders. (The BSA is in the midst of determining 35 complaints against this programme, so can't yet comment on this.)

Our latest work, which we're launching today, is called Freedoms and Fetters - the title reflecting the tightrope walked by broadcasters and programme-makers when creating and airing programmes. As with our previous research in 1993 and 2000, we see it as an important snapshot of public tolerance, of where the public might draw the line.

What then does our research tell us? Are New Zealanders more or less tolerant of what's being aired? Are people as worried about the amount of violence, sexual content and bad language as they're often made out to be? Do they regard broadcast news services as credible and trustworthy? How do they view the more robust environment of talkback radio? Do they feel that children are sufficiently protected? And how important to them is freedom of expression?

The answers make interesting reading.

Asked about what concerns them on television, two-thirds of those surveyed spontaneously cited the portrayal of violence, sex and nudity, and bad language. Compared with the results in 2000, there seems to be a higher level of concern about sexual content and bad language on television.

Just one-third had concerns about what they heard on radio, the most common being bad language.

But while "good taste and decency" concerns for TV got the most unprompted mentions, a different picture emerged when we drilled further and asked people to consider the relative importance of the existing standards in the codes that broadcasters must abide by.

Accuracy, especially in TV news, topped the list, followed closely by the standard which requires broadcasters to consider the interests of children. After that came balance and fairness. Interestingly, the "good taste and decency" standard, which attracts so much media attention, was rated as less important than those which demand high journalistic standards and the protection of children.

No doubt there'll be attention given to our ranking of swear words. Our research shows a slight softening of attitudes towards some words since 2000 (and, yes, the c-word still tops the list of unacceptability for 70 per cent).

But the slightly higher tolerance of swearing in content aimed at adults is only true for TV (and isn't reflected among women, Maori and Pacific people).

Most people still feel strongly that bad language is unwelcome in radio broadcasts, particularly at breakfast, because it jars much more in a purely audio environment.

Similarly, while many people may be becoming a little more relaxed about depictions of sex, nudity and the like, most still agree it's only okay in the Adults Only zone, after 8.30pm.

Indeed, concern for children was a major feature of this research. But while 82 per cent of those surveyed believe that broadcasting standards must focus strongly on the protection of children, 90 per cent think that most of the responsibility for children's viewing and listening should lie with parents and caregivers, not broadcasters.

The message from New Zealanders to broadcasters is clear and simple: keep adult material away from children, and warn us about potentially offensive content so we can make an informed decision about whether or not we want to watch.

Clearly, high standards of journalism are also important to New Zealanders. People want to trust that the information they take from broadcasts is correct - all the time.

They also expect those who come under the media spotlight to be given a fair go.

When news content in particular is plainly wrong, or unfairly misrepresents a person or situation, people expect this to be put right.

Where does this place the oft-maligned and highly opinionated arena of talkback radio? We were fascinated to find that talkback listeners - who were articulate and passionate about their medium of choice - rated balance and fairness as much more important requirements for their favourite talkback programmes than the population at large. Women in particular were turned off by rude and abusive behaviour by talkback hosts, despite the commonly held view that talkback is the equivalent of a boxing ring with no rules.

We all have opinions about broadcast content, and the most widely publicised ones are usually the most critical. But our research shows that New Zealanders love their broadcast media.

It's when broadcasters fail to warn audiences about offensive content, or report the news carelessly, or neglect the needs of children, that people feel let down. And they care enough to protest about it.

* Joanne Morris is the chair of the Broadcasting Standards Authority.