BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP90-SW02 PDF980.81 KB

---

Complaint
Scream – movie – breach of good taste – glamorised criminal activity – inappropriately classified AO – broadcaster not mindful of effect on child viewers – broadcaster did not exercise care and discretion regarding violence

Findings
(1) Standard 9, Guideline 9b – gruesome and horrific violence – scene at 8.45pm – uphold
     Standard 9, Guidelines 9a, 9c, 9e and 9f – subsumed

(2) Standard 1 – no uphold

(3) Standard 2 – no uphold

(4) Standard 7, Guideline 7a – no uphold

(5) Standard 10, Guidelines 10a, 10b and 10f – horror film – included elements of parody – violence
     highly unrealistic – no uphold

No Order

This headnote does not form part of the decision.

Summary

[1] Scream is a teen horror movie which parodies the horror movie genre. The movie was broadcast on TV3 at 8.30pm on 18 January 2002.

[2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached standards relating to good taste and decency, the maintenance of law and order, appropriate classification, the protection of children and violence.

[3] TV3 declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint. It noted that the movie was a well-known horror movie which carried with it an in-built expectation about over-the-top and unrealistic depictions of violence, and that the movie had been rated AO, preceded by a warning and edited for television.

[4] Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr Hooker referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaint relating to Standard 9 of the TelevisionCode. It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Decision

[5] The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the programme complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. The Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Programme

[6] The movie Scream was broadcast on TV3 at 8.30pm on 18 January 2002. According to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster:

Scream is well known as a horror movie which satirises and subverts the horror genre. Usually the point of the plot and the special effects in a horror movie is to create feelings of fear and horror in the viewer. This fear reaction is the reason that fans of horror movies watch them. Scream is interesting in this context as it is a more cynical take on the usual horror movie. Scream acknowledges the unwritten rules of horror - for example if you go out of the house you will be killed, and virgins cannot be killed - and the movie subverts or makes fun of them. Because of this Scream is viewed cynically, not as reality but as a satire of the horror genre as a whole.

Scream however also manages to contain the crucial elements of a traditional horror movie, which are the gruesome special effects/murders and the anticipation of "horrific" violence that leads to the required and anticipated feelings of fear for the viewer.

The Complaint

[7] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 that the movie breached Standards 1 (Guideline 1a), 2 (Guideline 2e), 7 (Guideline 7a), 9 (Guidelines 9a, 9b and 9c) and 10 (Guidelines 10a, 10b and 10f) of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

[8] With regard to the good taste and decency standard, Mr Hooker complained about two separate scenes. First, he argued:

the scene which depicted a woman who had clearly suffered horrific injuries including a slit throat being dragged along [was] outside the currently accepted norms of decency and taste, particularly when shown less that fifteen minutes after the watershed on a non-school night.

[9] Mr Hooker also considered:

the bloodbath that occurred towards the end of the programme to be realistic, horrific, brutal, prolonged, gratuitous and a breach of [Standard 1, Guideline] 1a for those reasons.

[10] Mr Hooker considered that Standard 2, Guideline 2e had been breached by a scene which he said "depicted two people taking turns to stab each other and laughing about it". In his view, this glamorised the realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour – specifically violent, serious crime.

[11] Turning to the classification of the movie, Mr Hooker maintained that TV3 did not observe the appropriate classification codes and therefore breached standard 7, Guideline 7a. He referred to the Special Note to Standard 7, Guideline 7a contained in Appendix 1 to the Television Code, which provides:

There will be programmes containing stronger material or special elements which fall outside the AO guidelines. These programmes may contain a greater degree of sexual activity, potentially offensive language, realistic violence, sexual violence, or horrific encounters. In such circumstances, time designations such as "AO 9.30pm or later" may be appropriate.

[12] Mr Hooker considered that TV3 had not been mindful of the effect of the broadcast on children during their normally accepted viewing time, as he considered:

"8.45 on a non-school night" to be a child’s normally accepted viewing time and the murder depicted in the movies opening sequence should not have been broadcast as it was material which would have disturbed or alarmed children (Guideline 9a);

TV3 did not exercise discretion to ensure that the content which led to the movie’s AO rating was not shown soon after the watershed, as required by Guideline 9b;

TV3 did not have regard to the fact that children tend to stay up later than usual on Friday nights as required by Guideline 9c;

TV3 did not handle with care and sensitivity sequences in which people were badly treated - in Mr Hooker’s view, the material was "gratuitous and did not pass the test of relevancy within the context of the programme" (Guideline 9e); and

TV3 did not take care to ensure that realistically menacing or horrifying imagery was not included in the movie.

[13] As to the violence standard, Mr Hooker maintained:

Standard 10, Guideline 10a had been breached because TV3 did not ensure that the violence which was shown was not gratuitous and justified by context;

Standard 10, Guideline 10b was breached because the cumulative effect of violent incidents gave the impression that violence dominated the programme; and

Standard 10, Guideline 10f was breached because, in Mr Hooker’s view, the fictitious killings which were depicted were explicit and prolonged.

The Standards

[14] TV3 assessed the complaint against the standards in the Television Code nominated by Mr Hooker. The standards and relevant guidelines read:

Standard 1 Good Taste and Decency

In the preparation and presentation of programmes, broadcasters are responsible for maintaining standards which are consistent with the observance of good taste and decency.

Guideline

1a  Broadcasters must take into consideration current norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs. Examples of context are the time of the broadcast, the type of programme, the target audience, the use of warnings and the programme’s classification (see Appendix 1). The examples are not exhaustive.

Standard 2 Law and Order

In the preparation and presentation of programmes, broadcasters are responsible for maintaining standards which are consistent with the maintenance of law and order.

Guideline

2e  The realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour, including violent and serious crime and the abuse of liquor and drugs, should not be shown in a way that glamorises these activities.

Standard 7 Programme Classification

Broadcasters are responsible for ensuring that programmes are appropriately classified and adequately display programme classification information, and that time-bands are adhered to.

Guideline

7a  Broadcasters should ensure that appropriate classification codes are established and observed (Appendix 1). Classification symbols should be displayed at the beginning of each programme and after each advertising break

Standard 9 Children’s Interests

During children’s normally accepted viewing times (see Appendix 1), broadcasters are required, in the preparation and presentation of programmes, to consider the interests of child viewers.

Guidelines

9a  Broadcasters should be mindful of the effect any programme or promo may have on children during their normally accepted viewing times – usually up to 8.30pm – and avoid screening material which would disturb or alarm them.

9b  When scheduling AO material to commence at 8.30pm, broadcasters should exercise discretion to ensure that the content which led to the AO rating is not shown soon after the watershed.

9c  Broadcasters should have regard to the fact that children tend to stay up later than usual on Friday and Saturday nights and during school and public holidays and, accordingly, special attention should be given to providing appropriate warnings during these periods.

9e  Scenes and themes dealing with disturbing social and domestic friction or sequences in which people – especially children – or animals may be humiliated or badly treated, should be handled with care and sensitivity. All gratuitous material of this nature must be avoided and any scenes which are shown must pass the test of relevancy within the context of the programme. If thought likely to disturb children, the programme should be scheduled later in the evening.

9f  "Scary" themes are not necessarily unsuitable for older children, but care should be taken to ensure that realistically menacing or horrifying imagery is not included.

Standard 10 Violence

In the preparation and presentation of programmes, broadcasters are required to exercise care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence.

Guidelines

10a  Broadcasters should ensure that any violence shown is not gratuitous and is justified by the context.

10b  Broadcasters should be mindful of the cumulative effect of violent incidents and themes and should avoid any impression that violence is dominating a single programme, a programme series, or a line-up of programmes screened back-to-back.

10f  When real or fictitious killings, including executions and assassinations, are shown, the coverage should not be explicit, prolonged, or repeated gratuitously.

The Broadcaster’s Response to the Complainant

[15] TV3 explained that Scream was:

rated for "Adults Only", which means "programmes containing adult themes and directed primarily at mature audiences".

[16] TV3 also noted that the movie had been:

preceded by the written and verbal warning "this film contains scenes of violence and coarse language intended for adult audiences".

[17] TV3 did not uphold the aspect of Mr Hooker’s complaint relating to good taste and decency. It wrote:

When considering "good taste and decency" in relation to Scream several factors must be taken into account, including audience expectation, genre, use of warnings, censor edits, and programme rating. Scream was rated for Adults Only and preceded by a written and verbal warning for coarse language and violence.

Scream is a well-known horror movie and TV3 promoted it as such in promos and press listings on both occasions it has screened. The horror genre carries with it an in-built expectation of the suspension of reality, and for over-the-top depictions of violence. These depictions are unrealistic because they are "heightened". Only in a horror movie is the killer unstoppable/unkillable, and the victims survive seemingly unsurvivable situations if they are "pure of heart". From this the audience would have an accurate expectation of the content of the movie, even if they had not seen the explicit warning at the beginning.

The viewer would begin watching (seeing Drew Barrymore’s character answer the phone) with an expectation that they would be "horrified". This opening segment was edited for screening on-air, and contrary to your recollection of the scene, she did not have her throat cut - she was stabbed once in the heart. The movie continues to 50 minutes (excluding advertising time) before another murder occurs. While the action could be described as gruesome, it is not explicit and the content does not reach a threshold which would be unacceptable in an AO horror movie before 9pm.

[18] In relation to Mr Hooker’s complaint about Standard 2, TV3 did not agree that any viewer would find the actions of the two killers stabbing each other either glamorous or attractive. In its view the scene was "farcical and completely unrealistic" and "intended as parody". It declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

[19] As for the movie’s classification, TV3 found no breach of Standard 7 for the reasons it had given in relation to Standard 1.

[20] Dealing with the complaint that it had not been mindful of children in screening Scream, TV3 wrote:

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has previously ruled that 8.30pm onwards is not deemed to be the normally accepted viewing time of children. However, the Authority has signalled its concern that this Adults Only watershed does not become a "waterfall" so, in reviewing this complaint, [TV3] considered whether the action in the first half-hour was in fact acceptable for an AO rated programme, with a warning for violence, broadcast directly after 8.30pm.

[21] In TV3’s assessment, Scream was a well-known horror movie and had been promoted as such by TV3 in promos and press listings. Accordingly, TV3 considered that the audience would have had an accurate expectation of the content of the movie, even if they had not seen the warning. As to the opening half-hour of the movie, TV3 explained that the movie began with the murder of two students, but in its view it was

not explicit and the audience only sees the female victim being stabbed once on screen during this time period.

[22] Taking into account the context of the movie, TV3 concluded that this content was acceptable for broadcast in an AO movie before 9.00pm. It reiterated that the movie then continued for 50 minutes (excluding advertising breaks) before another murder occurred. It also reiterated that a warning for violent content had preceded the movie in line with Standard 9, Guideline 9c.

[23] TV3 concluded that Standard 9 had not been breached.

[24] TV3 also found that Standard 10 had not been breached. In addition to the contextual matters already referred to, it noted that the violence in Scream was "unrealistic and over-engineered", and that part of the reason horror film buffs watch horror movies is to see the special effects.

The Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

[25] Mr Hooker disagreed with TV3’s decision not to uphold any aspect of his complaint. In relation to Standard 1, he disputed TV3’s contention that the violence was unrealistic. In Mr Hooker’s view the violence was "graphic, explicit, realistic and horrific" and he wrote:

The reasons TV3 [gave] for the audience having an accurate expectation of the content of the movie I do not consider relevant.

[26] Mr Hooker also disputed TV3’s account of the scene in which Drew Barrymore’s character was killed. According to his recollection, she had "obviously suffered a horrific injury of some description to her throat".

[27] As to Standard 2, Mr Hooker reiterated that the scene he complained about glamorised the actions of the killers. In his view, this was because:

the killers were "clearly deriving pleasure from being stabbed";

the perpetrators were young, healthy and attractive;

the violence was not justified;

the violence was rewarded; and

the violence was presented in a humorous fashion and the painful results were not shown.

[28] In Mr Hooker’s view, the scene was:

disturbing rather than farcical and very realistic due to the copious quantities of blood.

[29] Mr Hooker then said in relation to Standard 7 that, by starting the movie in children’s viewing time, TV3 had enticed children to view the movie. He cited Decision No: 2001-220/222 dated 17 December 2001 in support of this argument. He also considered "irrelevant" the reasons TV3 had given to show why the movie had not breached Standard 7. He continued:

The movie showed multiple scenes of extremely realistic violence and numerous horrific encounters. Towards the end of the movie it was unrelenting carnage. TV3 breached Guideline 7a by screening this programme at 8.30pm thereby failing to ensure that the appropriate classification codes were observed as specified in Appendix 1.

[30] Mr Hooker also disagreed with TV3’s decision not to uphold the aspects of his complaint concerning Standard 9. In his view, by showing the opening scene "a few minutes after 8.30pm on a Friday night", TV3 breached Guideline 9a to Standard 9, as it was not mindful of the effect of the programme on children during their normally accepted viewing time.

[31] Mr Hooker then said he considered Guideline 9b had been breached by screening the opening scene soon after the watershed.

[32] As to Guideline 9c, Mr Hooker explained that he disagreed with TV3’s view that the stabbing of Drew Barrymore’s character would not have exceeded the expectations of children watching. He also considered that the use of a warning would have enhanced the programme’s allure for children.

[33] Mr Hooker considered that TV3 had not explained why it considered the opening scene was relevant to the context of the programme in its response to his complaint about Guideline 9e. In his view, the scene was likely to disturb children and TV3 ought to have scheduled the programme later in the evening - particularly as it was broadcast on a non-school night.

[34] Mr Hooker reiterated his complaint that Guideline 9f was breached. He wrote:

The portrayal of being stabbed to death was realistically menacing and horrifying imagery for which the perpetrators showed no remorse.

[35] Mr Hooker then referred to Decision No: 1990-025, dated 21 November 1990, which he regarded as supporting his argument that:

Children are more frightened by violence because they do not fully understand that it is not real.

[36] Mr Hooker also referred to research about media violence in support of various arguments about its effects on children.

[37] In relation to his complaint about Standard 10, Mr Hooker referred to Decision No: 1993-077, dated 28 June 1993, which he considered supported his argument that the broadcast of Scream breached the standard.

The Broadcaster’s Response to the Authority

[38] TV3 made the following comments about the referral of Mr Hooker’s complaint:

It explained that the opening scene in which Drew Barrymore’s character was stabbed was pivotal to the movie.

It disagreed that the stabbing scene involving the two killers had glamorised anti-social behaviour, commenting that the behaviour was not rewarded, as both killers died.

It explained that the warning was not used to "entice" viewers, but to provide adequate notice for parents and caregivers.

It disagreed that Decision Nos: 2001-220/222, Decision No: 1990-025 or Decision No: 1993-077 were relevant precedents.

It reiterated its view that:

the matters of wide viewer recognition of the Scream movie and horror genre, the AO timeslot and warning for content, and the pre-broadcast promotion of the programme [were] very relevant [to its decision that the programme did not breach broadcasting standards].

It considered that Mr Hooker had suggested that TV3 might have been better not to include any warning at the beginning of the movie – as this might be alluring to children, and commented:

TV3 takes its responsibilities in this regard extremely seriously, and the warning was included as a clear indication to parents and caregivers that Scream was intended for adult audiences.

It reiterated its view that:

the threat or anticipation of horrific acts is the reason viewers choose to watch horror movies, and that nothing in Scream could be considered unusual or inappropriate for the programme genre.

The Complainant’s Final Comment

[39] In his final comment, Mr Hooker made a number of points:

He referred to a previous decision of the Authority about the editing of movies for on-air screening.

He said that the fact that Drew Barrymore’s character was murdered may have been pivotal to the movie, but the scene in which this took place was "gratuitous and did not pass the test of relevancy within the context of the programme" and the fact of her murder "would have been conveyed to the viewer from other scenes".

He disagreed that the scene where the killers stabbed each other did not breach Standard 2 and Guideline 2e, commenting that this behaviour was "rewarded by the killers expressing gratitude to each other for being stabbed".

He disagreed with TV3’s view that the movie was shown in "normally accepted children’s viewing time", referring to a previous decision of the Authority and to research commissioned by the Authority.

He disagreed with TV3’s interpretation of other Authority decisions he had cited.

He said that TV3 had effectively asserted that the murder of Drew Barrymore’s character had exceeded the expectations of the children watching at that time.

He questioned "the value of warnings as a defence they provide to a broadcaster", reiterating that many choose to watch "specifically because of the warning".

The Authority’s Determination

[40] By way of introduction, the Authority records that TV3 has emphasised that Scream is a well-known horror movie, and that the horror genre carries with it an in-built expectation of the suspension of reality and highly unrealistic depictions of violence. Moreover, it notes that Scream is a "horror movie which satirises and subverts the horror genre". The Authority accepts that Scream is a horror film which parodies the horror genre. It has read some reviews of the film which, generally, speak positively about it both as a horror film and as a parody of the genre (eg Janet Maslin of the "New York Times"):

Having established himself as the best and most mischievous film maker currently working in the dead-babysitter horror genre, Wes Craven … is in the mood for parody. So Scream winks at everything from a virginal heroine in a flowered cotton nightie to ‘the moment when the supposedly dead killer comes back to life for one last scare’. Along the way, proving it’s not too detached to get down to business, Scream also finds time to disembowel a pretty young victim or two.

…As a film critic, I liked it. I liked the in-jokes and the self aware characters. At the same time, I was aware of the incredible level of gore in the film. It is really violent.

[41] This complaint raises a number of alleged breaches of broadcasting standards and the Authority considers each aspect of the complaint separately. In view of the points covered in his correspondence, the Authority considers that the protection of children is Mr Hooker’s principal concern. The protection of children is dealt with in Standard 9 of the Television Code and this is addressed first by the Authority.

Standard 9, Guidelines 9a, 9b, 9c, 9e and 9f

[42] Standard 9 requires broadcasters to consider the interests of child viewers during their normally accepted viewing times. The Authority notes that its recent research into children’s viewing habits shows that children stay up later and watch television later on Friday and Saturday nights and during school holidays. It also notes that to take account the research, broadcasters and the Authority agreed in the new Television Code to new guidelines relating to children’s interests. The Authority notes that this is the first complaint that brings these guidelines into consideration.

[43] The complainant suggested that there were a number of ways in which the broadcaster breached Standard 9. He considered that Guidelines 9a, 9b, 9c, 9e and 9f to Standard 9 had each been contravened.

[44] The Authority considers that Guideline 9b to Standard 9 encompasses the relevant issues raised by the complainant. Accordingly, the Authority subsumes its consideration of the other guidelines raised by the complainant under its consideration of Guideline 9b specifically and Standard 9 generally.

[45] The question for the Authority is whether the killing of Drew Barrymore’s character, which occurred about 15 minutes into the AO time-band at 8.45pm was within the time period described in the guideline as "soon after the watershed". It was a gruesome and horrific scene even taking into account TV3’s argument that she did not have her throat cut – "she was stabbed once in the heart". In the Authority’s view, the half hour between 8.30 and 9.00pm is within the time period which is "soon after the watershed". Accordingly, the screening of this material should have been avoided in terms of Guideline 9b to Standard 9. The Authority concludes that the broadcaster should have exercised its discretion to ensure that this material was not shown too soon after the watershed. As it did not do so, the Authority considers that the broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers during their normally accepted viewing time and, accordingly, breached Standard 9 of the Television Code.

[46] In reaching this finding, the Authority has taken into account TV3’s argument that the two murders near the beginning of the movie had been edited for screening on-air and notes that Drew Barrymore’s character did not have her throat cut as the complainant alleged but was "stabbed once in the heart". The Authority also notes that viewers, unless forewarned, may not have been aware initially that the film was a parody of the horror genre or aware of TV3 promos and press listings.

[47] The Authority now turns to the other standards raised in the complaint.

Standard 1

[48] When it determines a complaint that a broadcast contravenes Standard 1 of the Television Code, the Authority is required to determine whether the material complained about breaches currently accepted standards of good taste and decency, taking into account the context of the broadcast. The context is relevant, but does not determine whether the programme breached the standard. Accordingly, the Authority has considered the context in which the material complained about was broadcast.

[49] Relevant contextual matters on this occasion include the time of the broadcast (at 8.30pm), the nature of the broadcast (a horror film), the pre-broadcast warning and the programme’s AO rating. The Authority recognises that the horror movie genre is known for its essentially over-the-top depictions of violence and that those familiar with the genre would expect the occurrence of this material. It also accepts that Scream is a well-known horror movie, which contains elements of satire/parody.

[50] Against this background the Authority notes that the material about which Mr Hooker complained contained violence which, in the broadcaster’s own words, was "gruesome" and "horrific". However, on balance, in view of the contextual matters referred to in the above paragraph, the Authority concludes that Standard 1 is not breached on this occasion.

Standard 2, Guideline 2e

[51] The complainant considered a scene which he considered "depicted two people taking turns to stab each other and laughing about it" breached Standard 2, Guideline 2e, as it "glamorised" the realistic portrayal of violent, serious, criminal anti-social behaviour.

[52] Having viewed the scene in question, the Authority does not accept the complainant’s interpretation. In its view, the scene depicted a falling out between the two killers, which led to the infliction of greater injuries than they had agreed to cause each other. In any event, the Authority does not consider that the scene glamorised the portrayal of realistic violence. The violence itself was both far-fetched and farcical, and the Authority does not consider that the scene "glamorised" the killers’ behaviour as it does not consider that it "advocated" the behaviour which was shown. Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Standard 7, Guideline 7a

[53] The complainant considered that the programme had been inappropriately classified as AO material. He referred the Authority to the special note to Appendix 1 of the Television Code, which provides that in certain cases, where programmes contain "stronger material or special elements" which fall outside the AO guidelines, time designation such as "AO 9.30pm or later" may be appropriate.

[54] The Authority finds that Standard 7 was not breached in relation to the broadcast on this occasion. It considers that a special time designation was not warranted for the same reasons that led the Authority to conclude that Standard 1 was not breached.

Standard 10, Guidelines 10a, 10b, and 10f

[55] The complainant considered that Guidelines 10a, 10b and 10f to Standard 10 were breached by the broadcast.

[56] Standard 10 requires that broadcasters exercise care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence. Guideline 10a provides that broadcasters should ensure that any violence which is shown is not gratuitous and is justified by the context. Guideline 10b refers to the cumulative effect of violent incidents and themes and Guideline 10f to the explicit and prolonged depiction of violent events. The Authority considers that these guidelines are not breached in the context of the broadcast of a horror film, where ongoing depictions of violence are both expected and fundamental to the storyline. It therefore declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

For the reasons above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast of Scream on TV3 on 18 January 2002 at 8.30pm breached Standard 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

[59] Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose orders under ss. 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Having considered all the circumstances of the complaint and taking into account the fact that this is the first time that the Authority has upheld a complaint measured against the new Standard 9 and the applicable Guidelines, the Authority does not consider that an order is warranted.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Peter Cartwright
Chair
19 September 2002

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1. Michael Hooker’s Formal Complaints to TV3 Network Services Ltd – (incorrectly dated)
2. TV3’s Response to Mr Hooker – 8 March 2002
3. Mr Hooker’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 2 April 2002
4. TV3’s Response to the Authority – 14 May 2002
5. Mr Hooker’s Final Comment – 30 May 2002
6. TV3’s Further Letter – 21 August 2002
7. Mr Hooker’s Further Letter – 27 August 2002
8. TV3’s Further Letter – 9 September 2002