BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The dramatised story of a young woman in the USA who was kidnapped, confined,

tortured (mentally and physically), raped and abused by her captors in a seven-year ordeal

was presented in a segment on Hard Copy broadcast by TV3 at 8.30pm on 15 September

1993.

Mr Rush complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the re-enactment of the victim's

ordeal, which realistically portrayed her anguish and the captors' powers, was a violation

of public decency and a stimulation to psychopaths. Referring to the link between screen

violence and offending, he maintained that the broadcast breached all the broadcasting

standards dealing with violence.

Pointing out that the broadcast was a true story which was screened in the "AO" time slot,

TV3 said that the standards accepted realistic portrayals within limits. That requirement

had been met as the re-enactments had focussed on the conditions in which the woman

had been detained and the more extreme abuse had been referred to only verbally.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Rush referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority upheld the aspect of the complaint that the

broadcast portrayed an ingenious device for inflicting pain. It declined to uphold the other

aspects of the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item 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.

Hard Copy, broadcast at 8.30pm on 15 September 1993, reported the dramatised story of

a young woman in the United States who had been kidnapped, confined, tortured

(mentally and physically), raped and abused by her captors. A hospital psychologist, Mr

Ian Rush, described the broadcast containing true-to-life enactments as "incredibly

offensive". Referring to the "proven link between video violence and offending", he

complained to TV3 that the programme encouraged violence by showing the victim as

helpless and less than human. He maintained that the broadcast breached the five

standards in the Television Programme Standards dealing with violence – standards 21–25.

In a later letter, he referred to the revised Television Code of Broadcasting Practice dated

March 1993 and complained that the broadcast breached the following standards

pursuant to which broadcasters are required:

G8  To abide by the classification codes and their appropriate time bands as

outlined in the agreed criteria for programme classifications.

G9  To take care in depicting items which explain the technique of crime in a

manner which invites imitation.

G11 To refrain from broadcasting any programme which, when considered as a

whole:

(i) Simulates news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm

viewers.

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during

their normally accepted viewing times.

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior

or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the

community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status,

sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief.

This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material

which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current

affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

The broadcast, he continued, also breached the following standards which provide:

G16 News should not be presented in such a way as to cause unnecessary panic,

alarm or distress.

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

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

V2  When obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve heightened impact,

realistic violence – as distinct from farcical violence – must be avoided.

V4  The combination of violence and sexuality in a way designed to titillate must

not be shown.

V5  Programmes having rape as a theme must be treated with the utmost care.

Explicit detail and prolonged focus on sexually violent contact must be

avoided.

Any programme dealing with rape in any detail must be preceded by a

warning.

V6  Ingenious devices for and unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain, injury or

death, particularly if capable of easy imitation, must not be shown, except

in exceptional circumstances which are in the public interest.

V11 Any realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour, including violent and

serious crime and the abuse of liquor and drugs, must not be shown in a

way that glamorises the activities.

V16 Broadcasters must be mindful of the effect any programme, including

trailers, may have on children during their generally accepted viewing

periods, usually up to 8.30pm, and avoid screening material which could

unnecessarily disturb or alarm children.

TV3 in its response referred to the classification guidelines which refer specifically to

violent programmes. The relevant aspects record:

Classification Guidelines

These guidelines should assist broadcasters in producing and scheduling

programmes and assist the Authority in determining formal complaints. However

a formal complaint must be based on a specific standard, not these guidelines.

Adults Only (AO)

Realistic portrayals of incidents, where violence of a physical, psychological or

verbal nature is called for in the context of the story line, are permitted provided

they are not unduly prolonged, unduly bloody or horrific. Rape scenes should be

insinuated in preference to explicit depiction. Gratuitous violence is not sanctioned

except in so far as it may be farcical and is devised for comic or slapstick effect.

Scenes depicting in undue detail ill-treatment of people and animals are generally

unacceptable. If a story line requires such scenes they must be conveyed with

brevity.

Strong language in proper context with any story line calling for violent

confrontations can only be acceptable if used sparingly. Expletives, when used in

situations where there may be clear justification or in an historic context, may be

sanctioned. However usually they are capable of causing unnecessary viewer upset

and should be avoided.

Special Note

There will be programmes containing stronger material or special elements which

would fall outside the above AO guidelines. In such circumstances time

designations such as "AO 9.30pm" or later may be appropriate.

In such circumstances a greater degree of realism may be permitted than in basic

AO rated programmes, although dwelling on explicit injury of victims should be

avoided. Specific warning identifying content which may offend should be given.

Graphic scenes of sexual violence and unduly bloody or horrific encounters should

not be screened.

In its response to Mr Rush, TV3 explained that the item had been classified "AO" and had

been broadcast in the "AO" timeslot. Pointing out that the item was a true story on how

the woman featured had survived a horrifying ordeal, it said the portrayal had used some

re-enactment to show the conditions under which she had lived for seven years but the

more extreme abuse had only been referred to verbally. That portrayal, it continued,

complied with the "AO" classification guidelines (recorded above) which accept realistic

portrayals provided they are not unduly prolonged or horrific and which forbid the

showing of undue detail of the ill-treatment of people.

Dealing with the complaint under standards 21–25 of the old code, TV3 maintained the

violent story was justified in context, that the gratuitous use of violence was avoided, that

most of the methods of inflicting pain shown were familiar ones and the new method – the

use of a hair dryer to supply oxygen to the victim's box – did not inflict pain, that the story

did not combine violence and sexuality in a titillating way, and the story did not

encourage anti-social behaviour.

TV3 concluded:

The [Complaints] Committee believes the true story told in Hard Copy was

presented honestly. And while the report dramatised aspects of the woman's

enslavement, the dramatisation did not sensationalise the story but gave viewers an

accurate picture of the woman's situation and helped form an accurate perception

of her confinement.

It finally observed:

Please note that the TV3 Complaints Committee takes issue with your statement "...

the proven link between video violence and offending ...". Despite the many studies

carried out in this area, TV3 is unaware of any research that would substantiate

this statement.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority Mr Rush expressed his astonishment that

TV3 did not uphold the complaint as, in conflict with the standards and guidelines, many

of the details which were broadcast were horrifying including the reference to the hair-

dryer. Moreover, deviant psychopaths and sexual sadists would have found the story

titillating.

When advised of the Authority's approach to the standards under which it intended to

assess the complaint, TV3 declined to comment further.

Before considering the specific standards allegedly breached, the Authority noted that the

broadcast was a legitimate current affairs documentary item. The story was related with

the use of re-enactments which, on the whole, were presented in a reasonably

straightforward way. The unpleasant account, however, was very long and contained

some unnecessarily graphic material.

Acknowledging that the "AO" classification is only a guideline, the Authority nevertheless

considered that the requirements of the classification were relevant when it assessed the

complaint under each of the standards nominated. The Authority also noted that the

violence "AO" classification, unlike the one which applies generally, also accepts that

9.30pm, rather than 8.30pm, is the appropriate time to show "stronger material".

Standard G8 requires broadcasters to abide by the classification codes. The Authority is

aware that the 8.30pm watershed does not signal the end of television watching for all

children and the provision of an extension of the 8.30pm watershed to 9.30pm with

regard to programmes containing a high degree of violence is an indication of the concern

felt by many viewers about such programmes. Furthermore, it should be noted, the Codes

are prepared by broadcasters and approved by the Authority which indicates the

broadcasters' awareness of the issues.

However, taking into account the requirement in standard G8 and noting that the matter

covered in the item would not have been unduly surprising for regular viewers of Hard

Copy, the Authority decided that an 8.30pm screening was not inappropriate.

Accordingly, the Authority decided that the broadcast had not contravened standard G8.

Standard G9 requires care from broadcasters when depicting a technique of crime which

invites imitation. In view of this standard's lack of clarity, the Authority referred to an

earlier decision (No: 9/91) where it defined standard G9 to mean:

"Care should be taken in depicting items which explain the technique of crime in a

manner which might attract imitation."

In the broadcast complained about on this occasion, the hair dryer was used to supply air

to a person imprisoned in a box. The Authority found it hard, in view of the violent theme

which ran through the item, to take seriously TV3's argument that the standard was not

breached as the hair dryer was not used specifically to inflict pain. Repulsive details were

disclosed throughout the item which, in themselves, were not unusual. However, the use

of the hair dryer, although unusual and thus subject to standard V6 discussed below, was

not presented in such a way to "attract imitation" and thus, a majority of the Authority

decided, the broadcast had not contravened standard G9. The minority believed that in

circumstances such as this, the mere publicising of the item was sufficient to attract

imitation.

The complaint also alleged that standard G12 was breached by the broadcast. As a general

rule the Authority accepts that the usual viewing times for children stops at 8.30pm

unless, perhaps, the broadcast occurs during the school holidays. As pointed out above,

however, it accepts that children may well watch beyond 8.30pm. Nevertheless, it

concluded that standard G12, for the same reasons which were applicable to standard G8,

was not breached by the item.

As standard G16 applies to news and as the item complained about was of a current affairs

nature, the Authority decided that this standard was inapplicable. Standard G11(i) refers

to "events" as well as news. As the item was a factual report, it did not mislead. As the

events portrayed were far removed from New Zealanders' everyday life, the Authority was

of the view that it would not alarm.

The first exception to standard G13 – which forbids the broadcast of material which might

encourage denigration or discrimination – states that it is acceptable to broadcast factual

material. Accordingly, as the broadcast complied with that exemption, it was not

necessary to examine the item to see whether or not it did encourage those responses.

The first standard explicitly concerned with the portrayal of violence, V1, requires that

any violence shown is essential in context. On the basis that most of the violence dealt

with by the item – certainly the more horrific sort – was described rather than portrayed,

the Authority accepted that the specific violence shown was justifiable in the context of the

gruesome story.

Standard V2 prevents the use of gratuitous violence for the purposes of heightened impact.

While the violence described in the story was extremely noxious and of questionable taste

in view of the way it dwelt on the ordeal, the Authority decided that it neither glamorised

the violence displayed nor was it gratuitous. The noxious violence was most unlikely to

titillate the average viewer and therefore, the Authority concluded, not in breach of

standard V4. The item did show (if somewhat fleetingly) the courage of the victim and

while the Authority accepted that sadists and psychopaths could find the story titillating, it

observed that the standards were not specifically directed at this small section of the

audience.

The Authority decided that standard V5 was not contravened as it did not contain

particularly explicit detail of sexually violent behaviour.

In considering standard V6, the Authority decided that keeping a kidnap victim alive in a

box with a forced air system was an ingenious device for inflicting pain and there was no

public interest reason for its display. Accordingly, the Authority considered that the item

breached standard V6.

As the standard V11 prohibition on glamorising anti-social behaviour was not

transgressed by the item, that standard was not breached.

Finally, for the reasons given above for declining to uphold the complaint under standards

G8 and G12 – the programme had been broadcast in "AO" time – the Authority also

declined to uphold the alleged breach of standard V16 that the broadcaster paid

insufficient attention to the likely effect of the programme on children.

The Authority's function in dealing with complaints is to review and investigate the

broadcaster's decision. As it has recorded on a number of occasions in earlier decisions, its

task is not to assess the complaint under standards neither cited nor alluded to by the

complainant in the original complaint to the broadcaster. The Authority has followed that

procedure in determining this complaint. It has also noted in this decision that it

considered the item complained about was unnecessarily lengthy and contained some

graphic descriptions of the violence inflicted on the victim although the violence actually

employed was not shown.

The broadcast might not have contravened the other specific standards cited when the

complaint is assessed and analysed individually against them. However, the Authority was

strongly of the view that the item breached the spirit of the Code. Indeed, the Authority

decided to record that should the complainant have alleged a breach of standard G2 which

requires broadcasters to take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and

taste in context, the complaint would have been upheld.

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

broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd of Hard Copy on 15 September 1993

breached standard V6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

A majority of the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the

broadcast breached standard G9 of the same Code.

It declines unanimously to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

On the basis that the complaint was upheld only on the ground that it contained an

ingenious device for inflicting pain and not on the grounds that the time of the broadcast

was inappropriate or under the standards that the violence displayed was gratuitous or

glamorised, the Authority decided not to impose an order on this occasion.

The Authority records its dissatisfaction with the time taken by TV3 to determine Mr

Rush's complaint, Under the Broadcasting Act 1989, the broadcaster must reply within

what the Authority regards as the long period of 60 working days. TV3 apologised for the

delay in replying – after some 70 working days – caused by management restructuring

and responded to the complaint shortly afterwards. Nevertheless, in view of the general

concern about the length of time that the formal complaint process takes on occasions, the

Authority expects broadcasters always to reply to complainants as speedily as

circumstances permit and certainly within the statutory time limits.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
30 June 1994

Appendix

Mr Rush's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited

In a letter dated 16 September 1993, Mr Ian Rush, Hospital Psychologist with Terawhiti

Healthcare in Gisborne, complained about a segment of Hard Copy broadcast at 8.30pm

on 15 September. He complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority and to his local member of parliament.

The segment, he wrote, presented the dramatised story of a young woman in the United

States who had been kidnapped, confined for seven years, tortured (mentally and

physically), raped and abused by her captors. He continued:

The re-enactment was extremely true to life and clearly portrayed (a) the anguish

of the victim, and (b) the power of her psychopathic captors.

Referring to the "proven link between video violence and offending - sexual and

otherwise", he said that the broadcast was "a huge violation of public decency" and

breached all the television standards dealing with violence.

He concluded by describing the broadcast as "incredibly offensive" and highly dangerous to

society for which TV3 should be fined the maximum amount. Moreover, the fine should

be paid to the Mental Health Foundation.

In a further letter to TV3 dated 27 October, Mr Rush expressed the opinion that TV3 was

procrastinating to gain time. He listed six standards in the revised General Programme

Standards and seven in the Code for the Portrayal of Violence allegedly breached by the

item. He concluded his letter:

What you must realise is that all violence - fictional, broadcast and real life - is

linked firstly by an attitude that the victim is a helpless victim, less than human.

This is what your programme showed; this is why you have, say, contributed to the

rising rate of violence in such places as Auckland.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint

TV3 advised Mr Rush and the Broadcasting Standards Authority in a letter dated 24

December 1993 that its Complaints Committee had not met for six weeks due to

management restructuring. Adding that it was taking the complaint seriously, TV3

advised that it intended to respond to Mr Rush by the end of January.

In a letter dated 25 January 1994, TV3 advised Mr Rush of its Complaints Committee's

decision and it again apologised for the delay.

Pointing out that the segment in the programme complained about was classified as "AO"

and had been broadcast in an "AO" timeslot, TV3 referred to the "AO" classification dealing

with the portrayal of violence. It states:

Realistic portrayals of incidents, where violence of a physical, psychological or

verbal nature is called for in the context of the story line, are permitted provided

they are not unduly prolonged, unduly bloody or horrific.

The segment, TV3 continued, was a true story of how a woman hitchhiker survived her

capture and enslavement by a couple who subjected her to physical, sexual and

psychological abuse. It continued:

To portray the conditions under which she lived, some re-enactments were

incorporated into the report. However, it should be noted that the more extreme

abuse referred to ... sexual assaults and beatings ... were not re-enacted but referred

to verbally.

The re-enactments concentrating on the appalling conditions, TV3 maintained, took

account of the requirement in the standards that scenes depicting in undue detail the ill-

treatment of people were generally unacceptable.

TV3 then assessed the complaint under the provisions cited in the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice before the section on violence was revised. As the story broadcast on

Hard Copy was true, presented honestly, gave an accurate picture of the woman's

situation and helped the viewer understand her confinement, TV3 said it did not breach

standards 21 - 25. These were the standards under which Mr Rush had originally

complained.

Declining to uphold the complaint, TV3 added by way of comment:

Please also note that the TV3 Complaints Committee takes issue with your

statement " ... the proven link between video violence and offending ... ". Despite

the many studies carried out in this area, TV3 is unaware of any research that

would substantiate this statement.

Mr Rush's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, in a letter dated 2 February 1994 Mr Rush referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (for investigation and review) under

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

He enclosed with the referral a copy of his letter to TV3 in which he gave some reasons for

his dissatisfaction.

1) The "AO" classification for violence did not allow "horrific" realistic portrayals but

TV3 accepted that the story broadcast included "horrifying" details.

2) The item contained "graphic illustration of re-enactment of the details" including

the use of a hair dryer to supply air.

3) Many deviant psychopaths and sexual sadists, he assured TV3, would have found

the story titillating. The segment, he added:

... gave sufficient detail for a psychopath to replicate this crime quite easily.

You cannot be unaware of the numbers of suicides or random highway

sniping as a direct result of television-to-life copycat actions.

I am astonished that you deny the proven connections between television

violence and community violence.

Hard Copy was now broadcast at 9.30pm, he concluded, but it continued to contain

socially unacceptable material.

TV3's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the referral. Its letter

is dated 14 February 1994 and TV3, in its response dated 7 March, did not wish to

comment further.

Mr Rush's Final Comment to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

When asked whether he wanted to make a formal complaint to the Authority, in a letter

dated 16 March 1994 Mr Rush briefly noted five points. Describing TV3's response to his

complaint as "extremely tardy", he noted that Hard Copy had been rescheduled to 9.30pm

shortly after his complaint was lodged. Some male viewers, he maintained, would have

found the item stimulating and there could have been imitative behaviour. Broadcasting

standards, he concluded, should not be ignored by broadcasters in the search for ratings.

Further Correspondence

In his initial letter of complaint, Mr Rush claimed that the broadcast breached standards

21 - 25 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. In a subsequent letter to TV3

dated 22 October 1994, Mr Rush specified the following standards in the revised

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice: G8, G9, G11(i), G12, G13, G16, V1, V2, V4, V6,

V11 and V16. TV3's Complaints Committee assessed the complaint against the standards

in the initial complaint (21 - 25) and the issue was not taken up by Mr Rush when he

forwarded his complaint to the Authority. As the revised Code was in force at the time of

the broadcast, the Authority believed that it should assess the complaint under the G and V

standards nominated. In a letter dated 13 April 1994, it advised TV3 of this decision. It

noted that many of the issues considered by TV3 under standards 21 - 25 were duplicated

in the G and V standards but, nevertheless, asked the broadcaster whether it wished to

advance any further matters for the Authority's consideration before determining the

complaint. On 29 April 1994, TV3 advised the Authority that it did not wish to comment

further.