BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Video footage of a toddler handling a kitten was the winning entry in The Great Kiwi

Video Show broadcast on TV2 on 15 December 1996 at 7.35pm.

Mr Rule complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the video clip

was a disgraceful display of cruelty to a defenceless kitten and questioned why it was

selected as the best video of the year. He expressed his serious concern that the child's

parents had apparently been amused by and encouraged the cruel antics.

Describing the scene as harmless play between a young child and a pet, TVNZ declined

to uphold the complaint. It pointed out that the kitten did not appear to resist the child's

handling of it and made no attempt to run away when it had the opportunity.

Dissatisfied with that response, Mr Rule referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold 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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The winning entry in a home video competition showed a toddler playing with a cat and

was broadcast during The Great Kiwi Video Show on TV2 on 15 December 1996 at

7.35pm. Slightly different brief extracts were broadcast on three occasions during the

programme, and showed the toddler grasping the cat, tumbling it over in his lap, and

picking it up by its fur. It was judged winner of the competition by a panel of judges.

Mr Rule expressed his outrage at what he called "a disgraceful display of cruelty" and

wondered how the clip won the video of the year competition. He abhorred the

depiction of a child wilfully mistreating an animal, and the fact that its parents filmed the

sequence without intervening to protect the cat. Mr Rule pointed to a selection of letters

to "TV Guide" which showed that many other viewers were equally outraged.

TVNZ reported that it had examined the complaint under standard V17 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice, which reads:

V17  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 great 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.

TVNZ expressed some difficulty in reconciling Mr Rule's description of the clip to

what appeared in the programme. It did not agree that the cat was being abused,

pointing out that it did not struggle, did not appear to have its claws extended and, at the

end of the sequence, when it had an opportunity to get away, it did not do so. In

TVNZ's view, the clip showed some harmless play between a young child and a pet,

with the child doing nothing more sinister than fondling and massaging the cat's furry

back as it appeared to burrow between the child's legs. It maintained the cat showed no

sign of discomfort at all.

Referring to the "TV Guide" correspondence, TVNZ pointed out that the owners of the

cat had written to say that the cat was a much-loved member of their family and that the

sequence showed a playful interchange with their 10 month old child.

TVNZ concurred that the clip demonstrated nothing more than a playful interchange

between the child and the cat. It submitted that the cat was not "humiliated or badly

treated" and concluded that the standard was therefore not contravened.

The Authority notes a negative reaction among some viewers to the clip and the

perception that the playful interchange was harmful to the cat and demonstrated to other

child viewers an inappropriate way of handling an animal. It acknowledges those

views. However, it does not agree that the clumsy handling of the cat by the toddler

necessarily demonstrated that it was being badly treated. It agrees with TVNZ that cats

have defences to maltreatment and there was no evidence that the cat was attempting to

escape or protect itself from the toddler's grasp. The Authority therefore concludes that

there was no breach of standard V17.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the

complaint.

Signed for an on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
20 March 1997

Appendix

A J Rule's Complaint to Television New Zealand Lt - 23 January 1997

Mr Rule of Hamilton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the winning

entry for The Great New Zealand Video Show broadcast on TV 2 on 15 December

1996 between 7.30 - 8.00pm.

The winning footage showed a toddler roughly handling a kitten. Mr Rule wrote:

...I was unfortunate enough to witness the abuse being inflicted on a

defenceless kitten at the hands of an unruly child while, presumably the child's

parents, looked on with no intention of intervening - in fact amused by and

encouraging the cruel antics. The kitten was understandably distressed.

Mr Rule argued that pets needed protection, and did not exist simply for amusement.

He stated that he found the footage particularly disturbing as he was also a pet owner.

He enclosed copies of letters from viewers published in "TV Guide" which illustrated

that his views were shared by others.

He sought from TVNZ an acceptable explanation as to how the video came to win,

when it was only a disgraceful display of cruelty.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 30 January 1997

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint in the context of standard V17 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It advised that it had reviewed the footage

several times and had some difficulty matching Mr Rule's account of the scene with

what appeared in the programme.

In TVNZ's view, cats by their nature did not take kindly to being mistreated and had

ways to make their displeasure known. It pointed out that the kitten did not appear to

struggle or to have its claws extended, and at the end of the sequence, when it had the

opportunity to run off, it did not do so.

TVNZ wrote:

To our eyes it seemed that this was harmless play between a young child and a

pet, with the child doing nothing more sinister than fondling or even massaging

the cat's very furry back as the cat appeared to burrow between his legs. The

cat showed no sign of discomfort at all.

It noted that the owners of the cat had written to "TV Guide" in response to the critical

letters, and had explained that the kitten was much loved and cared for and that the

sequence filmed was simply playful fun.

Referring to standard V17, TVNZ advised that it was unable to conclude there was a

breach of standards and accordingly it had not upheld the complaint.

Mr Rule's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 9 February

1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Rule referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

In Mr Rule's view, TVNZ had overlooked the issue that the video was encouraging

children to mistreat animals by example. He did not believe it was relevant to focus on

whether the kitten may or may not have been injured or subjected to undue distress.

Mr Rule enclosed copies of letters received and printed by "TV Guide" since the

broadcast.

TVNZ's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 18

February 1997

TVNZ repeated its view that the reaction of the animal belied Mr Rule's concerns. It

showed no signs of distress and did not struggle or scratch and did not take the

opportunity at the end to run off.

TVNZ also drew to the Authority's attention the denial of mistreatment made by the

owners of the cat in a letter to "TV Guide".

Mr Rule's Final Comment -22 February 1997

In Mr Rule's view, TVNZ had failed to acknowledge that the basis for his complaint

was that broadcasting the video clip may encourage children to abuse animals. Instead,

he wrote:

They [TVNZ] are choosing instead to adopt the stance that as the cat wasn't

actually injured - at least in the clip (although it may have been subjected to

unnecessary abuse) - then there is no problem to be addressed.

Mr Rule noted that TVNZ had highlighted that the cat's owners had written to "TV

Guide" in response to all the negative letters after the broadcast and, he believed,

another letter defended the video. He felt sure that he did not need to highlight the issue

of the prize at stake for the cat's owners. He concluded:

Also, I believe that the basis for the reduction of violence & offensive language

on television is that it encourages such behaviour - which is exactly the same

issue in this case.