BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Murder in the Heartland, a two-part mini-series dramatisation of the story of a mass

murderer in Nebraska, was broadcast on TV2 at 8.30pm on 30 and 31 January.

Mr England complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

violence shown in part one breached the broadcasting standards.

Acknowledging the atmosphere of terror throughout the programme, TVNZ stated

that only sufficient violence was explicitly shown to establish the credibility of the

true story. Otherwise the horror was implied and pointing to the verbal and visual

warning which preceded the broadcasts, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

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

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

For the reasons below, the Authority upheld the complaint as breach of standard V10.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed both programmes in the mini-series

complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix).

As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal

hearing.

The mini-series Murder in the Heartland was screened by TVNZ at 8.30pm on 30 and

31 January. Mr England complained to TVNZ that the first episode was excessively

violent and TVNZ, by broadcasting it at 8.30pm, showed its disdain for both the

community's and the Authority's concern about violence screened on television.

Taking into account the points raised by Mr England, TVNZ assessed the complaint

under standards V1 and V10 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. They

read:

V1  Broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that any violence shown is

justifiable, ie is essential in the context of the programme.

V10 The cumulative or overall effect of violent incidents and themes in a single

programme, a programme series or a line-up of programmes back to back,

must avoid giving an impression of excessive violence.

In explaining the programme and the reasons for the broadcast, TVNZ wrote:

"Murder in the Heartland" was a two-part mini-series and was a dramatisation

of a true story – the murderous rampage of American Charles Starkweather. He

killed eleven people in Nebraska, most of the murders occurring while he was in

the company of his girlfriend Caril Anne Fugate. The victims included Caril's

mother, stepfather and baby sister and to this day there remains controversy

over whether Caril was (as she claimed) kidnapped by Starkweather and forced

to accompany him, or whether (like Myra Hindley in the British "Moors

Murders" case) she was besotted by the killer and willingly went along with him.

It is TVNZ's view that television does have a role in recounting true stories, and

that includes crime stories especially those in which some intriguing and

disturbing questions remain even after the judicial process is complete and the

sentences enacted.

As well as emphasising the context, TVNZ added:

In this case, while we do not pretend that that programme was not a gripping,

edge-of-the-seat drama, we do argue that it falls into the category of programmes

which provide a salutary reminder about the depravity which human nature can

reveal from time to time.

TVNZ continued by explaining that the killings had been re-enacted:

... for the purposes of credibility and for emphasising the moral corruptness of

the man [and] that the programme should reflect the horror and brutality of the

killings.

It also referred to the introduction of the violence standards in the Television Code

where it was recognised that some violent behaviour on screen reflected real life and

was necessary on some occasions for good story telling.

Nevertheless, TVNZ added, the impression of brutality had been conveyed with

subtlety. Much of the killing, for example, was off-screen and the horror was

reflected in the faces of the victims, the killer or his girlfriend. However, TVNZ

maintained, to present Starkweather's rampage as anything less than horrifying would

have been to trivialise the whole event.

TVNZ also noted that the programme had been broadcast in AO time and had been

preceded by specific written and verbal warnings.

With regard to the alleged breach of standard V1, TVNZ stated:

... there is evidence in the techniques used that the producer had gone to

considerable lengths to minimise physical violence while quite properly

maintaining the air of menace. Obviously one or two of the murders had to be

shown in dramatic form for the programme to retain credibility, but in the main

the killings were revealed after the event. The committee believed that what

physical violence was shown was essential in the context of the programme and

therefore not in breach of the standard.

As for the alleged breach of standard V10, TVNZ expressed the opinion that it was

not intended to require the sanitisation of real stories. If that were so, it added,

... Hitler and Mussolini would become banned topics on television because their

lives were inextricably bound up with excessive violence. Such was the case

(though on a smaller scale) with Charles Starkweather.

TVNZ did not uphold the complaint under that standard.

Mr England referred to the Authority his complaint about this programme along with

his complaints about the X-Files broadcast on 22 February and the film The Accused,

screened on 28 January. They were each examples, he wrote, of TVNZ's "constant

depiction of gross violence" in programmes beginning at 8.30pm.

As different considerations apply to each of the programmes referred by Mr England

to the Authority, separate decisions have been issued for each one. The other

decisions are X-Files, No: 40/95, and The Accused, No: 41/95.

Referring specifically to TVNZ's comments on this complaint, Mr England said it

was "pretty ludicrous" and "stretching credibility to the limit" to place Charles

Starkweather in the same league as leaders of totalitarian states.

In its response to the Authority on the referral of the complaint about the first

episode of Murder in the Heartland, TVNZ raised the possibility that Mr England

was airing a matter of viewer preference to which the complaints process did not

apply. If the Authority agreed, TVNZ suggested that the Authority decline to

determine the decision.

As for the programme itself, TVNZ wrote:

We submit that Murder in the Heartland is a programme of legitimate interest to

an adult audience, dealing as it does with a true story which, to this day,

contains an element of genuine mystery. That element has to do with the role

that Caril Ann Fugate played in a murderous rampage in Nebraska by her

boyfriend Charles Starkweather – who died in the electric chair for his crimes.

It also commented that the broadcast:

...was intended for adult audiences, and played with a warning and an "AO"

classification. The programme has to be judged in the context of the definition

of "AO" material which is:

Programmes containing adult themes or those which, because of the way

the material is handled, would be unsuitable for persons under 18 years of

age.

In his final comment, Mr England repeated his concern that the programme had not

been broadcast in a late time slot but at 8.30pm. AO programmes can be broadcast

between 8.30pm–5.00am and from 12 noon–3.00pm on weekdays (other than

school or public holidays). Mr England's complaint could be taken as arguing that the

watershed (8.30pm) is too early and should be 9.00 or 9.30pm. Because of its

decisions on this and Mr England's other two complaints, the Authority considered

that the question of an appropriate hour for the watershed should be deferred pending

a decision expected in a few weeks on a complaint which raised the same issue in

relation to a series of films broadcast at 8.30pm on TV2 in mid February 1995.

Having read the correspondence relating to the three programmes about which Mr

England complained, the Authority from the outset was in no doubt as to Mr

England's reasons for them. Although he did not refer to specific details of each

programme in any length, his complaints focussed on the violence shown in each one

as an alleged breach of the standards. They were not matters solely involving viewer

preference and, accordingly, the Authority refused to entertain TVNZ's suggestion

that it decline to determine the complaint.

In its consideration of the complaint, the Authority did not accept TVNZ's argument

that the violence was acceptable merely because it was a dramatisation of a true story.

Neither did it consider that it was acceptable merely because one of the convicted

participants continued to maintain her innocence. These aspects may be applicable

and justify the portrayal of violence when the true story is of more direct relevance

than one which, at most, is of questionable relevance dramatising as it does a rampage

by an obviously disturbed young man in distant Lincoln, Nebraska some 38 years ago.

In addition, the Authority agreed with Mr England when he observed that the

parallel's drawn between Charles Starkweather and Hitler and Mussolini were totally

inappropriate and irrelevant.

Despite this specific conclusion, the Authority concurred with TVNZ when it

referred to the comment in the introduction to the violence standards. There it is

noted that conflict is part of life and literature. As the introduction records:

Conflict appropriately handled can be constructive and television entirely

without conflict would be bland. Furthermore, some of the violent behaviour is

in essence the reflection of real life and good story telling.

Murder in the Heartland, however, was a reflection of a real life with minimal (if any)

relevance to New Zealand and thus did not amount to good and relevant story telling.

In assessing the programme under standard V1 the Authority was of the opinion that,

should it have been appropriate to tell the story of Charles Starkweather to New

Zealand viewers, then it might also have been appropriate to include the violence

shown.

Charles Starkweather was a frightening and sinister young man who indulged in

extreme violence without apparent reason, regret or remorse. The tale of Charles

Starkweather, if it was considered worthy of dramatising, required a film with a

frightening atmosphere and regular references to violence. As such a story was

recorded and screened, the Authority decided that it had complied with the specific

requirements in standard V1.

Standard V10, unlike standard V1, does not advance a situation when the portrayal of

violence on television might be justified. Standard V10 prohibits the screening of a

programme (or programmes) which give the impression of excessive violence. Because

of the repeated instances of violence shown on Murder in the Heartland, the

Authority concluded that each episode – individually and the mini-series in full –

breached that standard. Moreover, the Authority was of the opinion that the

broadcast of explicit verbal and written warnings did little to reduce the broadcaster's

responsibility in complying with standard V10.

In conclusion, while accepting that the violence shown might be justifiable in the

specific context of the life and death of Charles Starkweather, the Authority

considered that the screening of his story as Murder in the Heartland was gratuitous.

It was also of the opinion that its broadcast breached the spirit of the standards

dealing with the portrayal of violence.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast

by Television New Zealand Ltd at 8.30pm on 30 January of part one of the mini-

series Murder in the Heartland breached standard V10 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold the complaint that the same programme breached

standard V1.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority is aware of the complainant's view that

TVNZ treats the violence standards with disdain. The Authority understands the

reasons for Mr England's perspective but it is not convinced at this stage that he is

correct. However, should films of this quality, genre and merit continue to be shown,

then the Authority would have no hesitation in imposing a significant penalty. At

this stage, the Authority has decided not to impose a penalty but issues a warning

that it expects TVNZ to comply fully both in spirit and deed with the violence code.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
29 May 1995

Appendix

Mr England's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 14 February 1995

Mr Richard England of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about

the broadcast of The Accused on 28 January and Murder in the Heartland on 30

January.

Both films, he wrote, were excessively violent for broadcast at 8.30pm. Screening

such films at that hour indicated, Mr England continued, TVNZ's real attitude

towards violence in the media. Despite claims that it was aware of the issue and

despite having complaints upheld, he said that TVNZ persisted in broadcasting

violent films. Mr England concluded:

It is as if TVNZ is raising a finger at the authority.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 20 March 1995

TVNZ advised Mr England that his complaint about the first part of the two part

mini-series Murder in the Heartland had been assessed under standards V1 and V10 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ said that the series was the dramatisation of a true story - the murderous

rampage of American Charles Starkweather who killed 11 people in Nebraska. He

was usually in the company of his girlfriend Caril Anne Fugate and the victims

included members of her family. Controversy continued, TVNZ noted, as to whether

she accompanied him willingly or under duress and, it added:

It is TVNZ's view that television does have a role in recounting true stories, and

that includes crime stories especially those in which some intriguing and

disturbing questions remain even after the judicial process is complete and the

sentences enacted.

In this case, while we do not pretend that that programme was not a gripping,

edge-of-the seat drama, we do argue that it falls into the category of programmes

which provide a salutary reminder about the depravity which human nature can

reveal from time to time.

Arguing that it was important to the credibility of the show to reflect the horror and

brutality of the killings, TVNZ noted that it would be inappropriate taking into

account the introduction included in the violence standards in the Television Code, to

suggest that the circumstances were any less repulsive than they were.

Nevertheless, TVNZ added, the impression of brutality had been subtly conveyed.

Much of the killing was off-screen and the horror was apparent from the looks on the

killer's face and the faces of others. TVNZ also pointed out that the programme was

broadcast in AO time and had been preceded by a specific verbal and visual warning.

Turning to the standards allegedly contravened, TVNZ said considerable efforts had

been expended to minimise the physical violence and it claimed that what was shown

was essential to the context of the film.

As for standard V10, TVNZ said that the atmosphere of menace had been retained

throughout the film which was appropriate given the excessive violence committed by

Charles Starkweather.

The complaint was not upheld.

Mr England's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 22 March

1995

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

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

Expressing his deep concern at TVNZ's "constant depiction of gross violence" in

programmes beginning at 8.30pm, Mr England argued that TVNZ showed disdain

towards viewers.

The three programmes shown by TVNZ referred to the Authority, Mr England

maintained, should not be broadcast at 8.30pm.

Mr England objected in particular to TVNZ's comparison of Charles Starkweather

with Hitler or Mussolini. The broadcast, he said was "a totally sensationalised

programme about a lunatic murderer - not a documentary".

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 28 March 1995

Noting that Mr England's referral of this complaint to the Authority contained little

new material, TVNZ pointed to the subjective nature of his comments and as the

complaint seemed to amount to an expression of the viewer's preference, suggested

that it was not capable of resolution through the complaints procedure.

In addition, TVNZ argued:

We submit that "Murder in the Heartland" is a programme of legitimate interest

to an adult audience, dealing as it does with a true story which, to this day,

contains an element of genuine mystery. That element has to do with the role

that Caril Ann Fugate played in a murderous rampage in Nebraska by her

boyfriend Charles Starkweather - who died in the electric chair for his crimes.

TVNZ repeated that the programme was classified AO, and had not been broadcast in

children's viewing time.

Mr England's Final Comment - Received 3 April 1995

Mr England repeated his concern that the programme was not a documentary but a

"hyped up" made-for-TV film which was unsuitable for broadcast at 8.30pm. He

argued that there were many programmes - especially from the BBC - which could

have been screened at that time to replace the "superficial American violent" ones

generally broadcast at that time.