Investigation Report No. 2442
File No. / 2010/1415Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABC TV Melbourne
Type of Service / National Broadcaster
Name of Program / Unfed
Date of Broadcast / 13 June 2010
Relevant Code / Clause 2.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2007
Date Finalised / 7 October 2010
Decision / No breach of clause 2.7 (discrimination and stereotyping)
The complaint
On 25 June 2010, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint concerning the program Unfed broadcast on 13 June 2010 by ABC TV Melbourne (the broadcaster).
The complainant alleged that the program was ‘offensive’ and objectified women.
The complainant was not satisfied with the response of the ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs and referred the matter to the ACMA for investigation.[1]
The complaint has been investigated under to clause 2.7 [discrimination and stereotypes] of the ABC Code of Practice 2007 (the Code).
The program
Unfed is a six-minute, contemporary dance piece featuring two female dancers and one male dancer. It was broadcast by the ABC at 10pm on 27 March 2010 and rebroadcast by the broadcaster at 4:20pm on 13 June 2010.
Unfed was broadcast as part of Dance on Screen: a Two-Part Film on the Vibrant World of Dance. The broadcaster described Unfed as, ‘Inspired by a line from writer George Eliot – ‘the painful eagerness of unfed hope’.[2]
The dance piece featured scenes of each dancer dancing alone in various rooms of a house while a voiceover recited poetry. The female dancers were fully clothed for the first half of the dance piece and were in their underwear for the second half. The male dancer was fully clothed for the duration of the dance piece.
Assessment
The assessment is based on:
a DVD recording of the broadcast provided by the broadcaster;
the complaint received by the ACMA on 25 June 2010;
a response from the ABC’s Audience and Consumer and Affairs to the complainant dated 25 June 2010; and
other sources, as relevantly identified in the report.
Issue1: discrimination and stereotyping
Relevant Code
2.1 The guiding principle in the application of the following general content codes is context. What is unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another. However, the use of language, sound or images for no other purpose but to offend is not acceptable.
2.7 Discrimination and Stereotypes. To avoid discrimination and stereotyping, content should not use language or images which:
disparage or discriminate against any person or group on grounds such as race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, disability or sexual preference; marital, parental, social or occupational status; religious, cultural or political belief or activity
are not representative and reinforce stereotypes, or convey stereotypic assumptions
convey prejudice
make demeaning or gratuitous references; for example to, people’s physical characteristics, cultural practices or religious beliefs.
The above requirements are not intended to prevent content which is factual or the expression of genuinely-held opinion, or content presented in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted that:
the program objectified women by showing the female dancers in their underwear;
the decision to have the female dancers in their underwear and the male dancer fully clothed was based on gender; and
the program reinforced stereotypes about women.
ABC’s submissions
The ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs submitted that that dance piece ‘featured three performers, two female and one male, exhibiting frustration and alienation as they struggled with being alone on their bedrooms despite living together. It is not the case that all of the women wore underwear only throughout the film. In several instances in the first half of the film, both female characters were shown fully clothed, as was the male character. In other scenes, when the characters were shown alone in their bedrooms, one of the female characters wore underwear only, while the other female character wore underwear and a long-sleeved t-shirt’.
The ABC also submitted that ‘the program was presented within the legitimate context of a creative performance piece’.[3]
Finding
The delegate considers that the program Unfed did not disparage or discriminate against women on the grounds of sex or reinforce stereotypes of women. The delegate also considers that the program was presented in the legitimate context of a dramatic work.
Accordingly, the delegate finds that the broadcaster did not breach clause 2.7 of the Code.
Reasons
Clause 2.1 of the Code
In assessing whether the broadcaster breached clause 2.7 of the Code, the delegate has had regard to clause 2.1 of the Code.
Clause 2.1 of the Code sets out that the guiding principle in relation to the application of the General Codes is context. An important first step is to determine the context in which the material was presented.
The second stage is to determine whether, in light of that context, the material was ‘acceptable’. In assessing the second limb, consideration must be given to whether or not the purpose behind presenting the material was for no other purpose but to offend. If so then, notwithstanding its context, the material cannot be considered ‘acceptable’.
The broadcaster describes the program as ‘an experimental dance performance piece’, which features three dancers ‘exhibiting frustration and alienation as they struggle with being alone in their bedrooms despite living together’.[4] The program was broadcast as part of Dance on Screen: a Two-Part Film on the Vibrant World of Dance, which aimed to ‘celebrate the wonderful world of dance’ through five dance pieces.[5]
In this context, the delegate is satisfied that the program did not broadcast offensive material within the meaning of clause 2.1 (that is, material used for not other purpose but to offend).
Clause 2.7 of the Code
Clause 2.7 of the Code refers to a number of different kinds of treatment. The complainant’s concerns raised matters in respect of discrimination and stereotypes. Accordingly the delegate has considered whether the program:
disparaged or discriminated against women on the grounds of sex; or
reinforced stereotypes of women.
Clause 2.7 of the Code is considered as a two-stage test. The first test is to determine whether the material broadcast disparaged or discriminated against women on ground of sex or reinforced stereotypes of women. If the answer is ‘yes’, then it is necessary to consider whether the material broadcast was presented in a legitimate context.
In assessing whether the Code has been breached, consideration has been given to what an ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ would have understood the material broadcast to have conveyed. Courts have considered an ordinary, reasonable viewer to be:
A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.[6]
Disparage or Discriminate
The word ‘disparage’ may mean ‘bring reproach or discredit upon’.[7] The word ‘discriminate’ may mean ‘the making of a difference in particular cases, as in favour of or against a person or thing, especially when arising from prejudice [...]’. In order for Unfed to have disparaged or discriminated against women on the grounds of sex, it would have to be established that the program:
1. brought reproach or discredit upon the female dancers; or
2. was unfavourable towards the female dancers;
on the grounds of their sex.
It is noted that clause 2.7 of the Code does not require that there be an ‘intention’ to disparage or discriminate against women. It is sufficient that a group of women is disparaged or discriminated against.
The delegate acknowledges the complainant’s concern that the decision to show the female dancers in their underwear appeared to be based on the dancer’s sex. However, the delegate is not satisfied that this resulted in the program disparaging or discriminating against women on the grounds of sex.
The delegate notes that the broadcast contained no references (visual or oral) that:
presented the female dancers in a negative or contemptuous manner;
criticised the female dancers for their sex, or celebrated the male dancer for his sex; or
showed evidence that the female dancers were being discredited due to their sex.
Having regard to the context of the program, it is considered that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood the program as disparaging or discriminating against women on the grounds of sex.
Reinforce Stereotypes
The word ‘reinforce’ may mean ‘to strengthen’.[8] The word ‘stereotype’ may mean ‘a standardised idea or concept’.[9] In order for Unfed to have reinforced stereotypes about women, it would have to be established that the program strengthened a standardised idea or concept of women.
It is considered that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood the program as reinforcing stereotypes of women. The program represents an artistic decision that depicts female dancers in their underwear dancing alone in various rooms of a house. The male dancer in the program was featured fully clothed, also dancing alone in a room in the house. The delegate does not consider that any of these elements depicted in the broadcast represents a standardised view of women. Further, the program’s references to the female dancers in their underwear were not given the prominence required to strengthen any stereotype that may be associated with women.
Legitimate context
The delegate has found that broadcast concerned did not disparage or discriminate against women on the grounds of sex or reinforce stereotypes of women. Nonetheless, clause 2.7 of the Code explains that the requirement to avoid discrimination and stereotyping is not intended to prevent content presented in the legitimate context of a dramatic work.
Aside from its presentation as an artistic piece, the delegate is satisfied that the program was presented in the legitimate context of a dramatic work.
The delegate’s independent research about the broadcast shows: [10]
Unfed was broadcast as part of Dance on Screen: a Two-Part Film on the Vibrant World of Dance;
the broadcast featured five unique dance pieces and was hosted by former Bangarra dancer and choreographer, Frances Rings;
Unfed has screened in festivals and galleries nationally and internationally, including Interfilm Berlin, the Zebra Poetry Film Award, Berlin and The Antipodean Festival, St Tropez;
Unfed was directed by Jason Lam who has performed with Sydney Dance Company, Tasdance, Opera Australia, One Extra and Bondi Ballet as well as having worked with choreographers such as Jason Pitt, Fiona Maloney, Graeme Murphy, Shaun Parker, Byron Perry, Tanja Liedtke and Sue Healey; and
Jason Lam is a visual artist and filmmaker who has collaborated with Sydney Dance Company. He has also created visuals for artists and companies such as Bayerisches Staatsballet, Munich, Sydney Theatre Company, Dance North, Fiona Malone, Sue Healey/Tasdance and Jason Pitt.
Accordingly, the ABC did not breach clause 2.7 of the Code.
ACMA Investigation Report – Unfed broadcast by ABC TV Melbourne on 13 June 2010 2
[1] Section 151(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 refers to the ACMA’s role in investigating complaints under codes of practice.
[2] The ABC’s letter to the complainant dated 25 June 2010.
[3] ABC’s response to the complainant dated 25 June 2010.
[4] ABC’s response to the complainant dated 25 June 2010.
[5] Producers promotional site for Dance on Screen: www.blupblup.com/misc/danceOnScreen.pdf, accessed on 23July 2010.
[6] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at p.164-167.
[7] Macquarie Dictionary – online edition, accessed by the ACMA on 28 July 2010.
[8] Macquarie Dictionary – online edition, accessed by the ACMA on 28 July 2010.
[9] Macquarie Dictionary – online edition, accessed by the ACMA on 28 July 2010.
[10] Producers promotional site for Dance on Screen: www.blupblup.com/misc/danceOnScreen.pdf, accessed on 23July 2010.