BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Disney film 3 Ninjas, classified PGR and broadcast on TV3 at 7.30pm on 10

November 1996, told a story about a grandfather who taught his grandchildren how to

be Ninjas. It showed how the karate skills and the knowledge gained by the children

were used to defend themselves against some evil men whom their father, as an FBI

agent, was trying to catch.

Ms Betty Gilderdale on behalf of Children's Media Watch complained to TV3 Network

Services Limited that the film, although classified as PGR and preceded by a warning,

was unsuitable for children of any age because of the amount of violence portrayed.

TV3 in response said that the plot of the film contained much that was farcical, and that

the violent acts portrayed were not realistic and would not desensitise a PGR audience

to the realities of violence. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with the response received, Ms Gilderdale on behalf of Children's Media

Watch referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the film complained about, and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The PGR classified Disney film 3 Ninjas, broadcast on TV3 at 7.30pm on 10

November 1996, recounted a boy's memory of a time when he and his brothers were

taught by their grandfather to be Ninjas. The film showed how the skills learnt were

used by the boys to fight the "baddies" sent to intimidate their father, an FBI agent.

The film was preceded by a warning which stated:

This film may not be suitable for younger family members and parental

guidance is advised.

Betty Gilderdale, on behalf of Children's Media Watch, (CMW) complained to TV3

Network Services Limited that despite the PGR classification, and the warning which

preceded the film's broadcast, it was unsuitable for children because of the amount of

violence portrayed. CMW pointed out that in its view the story line was thin and the

dialogue virtually non existent. There was particular objection to the use of the human

dummy which showed points where a person would be most vulnerable to attack.

CMW argued that the broadcast had specifically breached standards V2, V3, V6 and

V10 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. These provide:

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

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

V3 Warnings should be given, at least at the beginning of a programme, when

a programme contains material which is likely to be disturbing to the

average viewer or which is unexpectedly violent for that programme genre.

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.

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 its response to the complaint, TV3 advised, in relation to standard V2, that the plot of

the film contained much that was farcical and that the violent acts associated were not

realistic, and thus would not desensitise a PGR audience to the realities of violence.

In relation to standard V3, TV3 advised that the warning was given because although

the film was aimed at children, it was primarily aimed at the older age group of

children. The warning advised parents and caregivers that they should be watching the

film with their younger children to explain the underlying message of the film.

Turning to standard V6, TV3 considered that the use of the dummy in the film was to

convey information important for a child to know, subject to the child understanding the

message in the film of only using the techniques shown in self defence. TV3 did not

consider the information was either new or ingenious.

In respect of standard V10, TV3's view was that the overall theme of the film was self

preservation using discipline and restraint.

TV3 declined to uphold the complaint.

In referring the complaint to the Authority, CMW made the point that it was the didactic

message given verbally that was at variance with the overall message given visually. Its

view was that while the grandfather may have warned the children of the seriousness of

what they were learning, the overall message given by the film was that violence was

acceptable.

TV3 in response to the Authority, argued that the overall message contained in the film

was not that violence was acceptable, but that self-defence was acceptable.

The Authority does not accept that the film contained excessive violence or violence of a

realistic nature. It considers that the film was simplistic and stylised, being designed to

appeal to the early teenage audience. The Authority does not disagree with TV3's

comments that the use of the dummy to show target areas in the body to inflict pain was

not new and was not unsuitable information for the target audience. The Authority

notes that the film was classified PGR, and that the classification was reinforced by the

warning preceding the programme. Consequently, the Authority's view is that the

broadcast did not breach standards V2, V3, V6 or V10 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

For the reasons above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
6 March 1997

Appendix

Children's Media Watch Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 15

November 1996

Ms Betty Gilderdale on behalf of Children's Media Watch (CMW) made a formal

complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the film 3 Ninjas broadcast by TV3 at

7.30pm on 10 November 1996. While acknowledging that the film was given a PGR

classification, and that it was preceded by a warning, CMW's view was that the film

was unsuitable viewing for children of any age.

Pointing out that in its view the story line was thin and the dialogue virtually non

existent, CMW's complaint centred around the amount of physical violence shown.

There was particular objection to the use of the human dummy which showed points

where a person would be most vulnerable to attack. The film, CMW said, did not

show any consequences of the acts of violence which, it added, if repeated in real life

might cause severe injuries.

CMW also complained about the promo for the 3 Ninjas broadcast on both 8 and 9

November 1996 during 3 National News. It considered it to be too violent for the time

of its broadcast.

On 26 November 1996, CMW wrote to TV3 listing the standards which it believed had

been breached by both the broadcasts. It referred to the Introduction to the Codes of

Violence and contended that the broadcasts not only contravened the instructions, but

also specifically breached standards V2, V3, V6 and V10.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 12 December 1996

TV3 maintained that the 3 Ninjas was a Disney film which was rated PG when it was

released by the Film and Literature Classification office. Prior to its being broadcast on

TV3 the movie was cut and a warning added.

In respect of the promo broadcast on 8 and 9 November during 3 National News, and

with reference to standard G24, TV3 maintained that the news was a time when it was

generally accepted that "harder" subject matter was broadcast. However, it

acknowledged that the promo should have been rated PGR and was incorrectly placed

during the G classified News time. TV3 upheld that aspect of the complaint.

In relation to standard V2, dealing with the need for realistic gratuitous violence to be

avoided, TV3 said that the plot of the film contained much that was farcical and that the

violent acts associated were not realistic, and would not desensitise a PGR audience to

the realities of violence

In relation to standard V3, dealing with the need for warnings for disturbing or violent

films, TV3 advised that the warning at the beginning of the film stated:

This film may not be suitable for younger family members and parental

guidance is advised.

The warning, TV3 commented, was given because although the film was aimed at

children, it was aimed at an older age group of children. The warning served to advise

parents and caregivers that they should be watching the film with their younger

children to explain the underlying message of the film.

With regard to standard V6 which prohibited the broadcast of ingenious devices for and

unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain, injury or death, and the use of the human dummy

to show the children in the film the places on the body where, if hit, would cause

maximum damage, TV3 argued that the film said the grandfather very seriously

instructed the children to "only use this technique to save their lives". TV3 considered

that this information in a PGR film was acceptable and important for a child to know,

subject to their understanding the grandfather's instruction. TV3 did not consider the

information was either new or ingenious.

As for the reference to the cumulative effect of violence in standard V10, TV3 advised

that the overall theme of the film was self preservation with discipline and restraint.

The film, it continued, dealt with "goodies" and baddies" and the action, while tinged

with humour, was not realistic. A lot of the contact, it added, was self inflicted due to

the baddies' incompetence and they were shown as dimwits who cheated and did not

use their Ninja skills as they should. The baddie had used the pepper bomb and he was

seen as being unacceptable because of this. TV3 said that an average PGR viewer

would have understood that what he did was wrong. It said that nothing shown in 3

Ninjas breached what was acceptable for a PGR film and it declined to uphold the

complaint.

Children's Media Watch's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority - 1 December 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Ms Gilderdale on behalf of Children's Media Watch

referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act of 1989.

Referring to TV3 response to its complaint, CMW stated:

V2 TV3 quotes the humour of the situation and particularly emphasises the

farcical incidents at the end of the film. Our objections were more to the

violence at the beginning and middle of the film which was much more

realistic.

V3 TV3 excuses the violence in this film because it was not "unexpectedly

violent for its genre (a kid's karate movie)". There was a warning given

before the programme that it might not be suitable for "young children".

This is a very vague statement and would be most likely interpreted as being

the under 7's. TV3 in their own defence suggest that this was meant for

children aged ten and over. This was not stated in the warning....

V6 We consider that the showing of a human dummy with indications of the

points at which most pain would be experienced breaches this code in

showing an "ingenious device for unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain,

injury or death, particularly if capable of easy imitation". These children

were shown hitting the dummy until its eyes lit up when seriously hurt.

TV3 defends this episode by saying that the "grandfather very seriously

instructs that the children may only use this technique to save their lives."

We find this statement contains much of what is objectionable in many children's

programmes, particularly those from the USA. It is that the didactic message

given verbally is totally at variance with the overall message which is given

visually. It is becoming abundantly plain from worldwide research that the visual

message has far more impact than the moral message....

V10 We would suggest that children who learn martial arts with a trained

instructor over a period of time do learn discipline. We do not

believe that such discipline can be imparted in a film whose overall

cumulative message is of violent action apparently sanctioned by

humour. Again TV3 instances the basketball match in preference to

a fight, but we nevertheless consider that the first half of the film in

particular was excessively violent.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 17 January 1997

TV3 reiterated its view that any violence shown in the film was not realistic. It said that

the boys and their grandfather sought to defend themselves, not to attack people. The

kidnapping scene, it observed, was used in the film as an example of the tone of the

film because it was a long scene where the boys were defending themselves. TV3

maintained that none of the other scenes in the 3 Ninjas were unacceptable in a PGR

movie of that genre.

In respect of the warning preceding the film, TV3 said it was given not for violent

content, but so that the children could fully understand the messages verbalised and

shown, subject to the guidance of a caregiver. TV3 believed that the verbal messages in

the film were repeated in the visual messages. The grandfather, it said, advised that "a

Ninja never fights someone weaker than themselves" and "they may only use this

technique to save (their) lives", a theme reiterated in the basketball scene where physical

confrontation was avoided.

TV3 reiterated that the actions of the "goodies" were purely defensive,. The overall

message, it contended, was not that violence was acceptable, but that defence was

acceptable.TV3 also disputed CMW's assertion that the film had an extraordinarily thin

storyline.

Children Media Watch's Final Comment - 29 January 1997

CMW advised that it had no further comment.