BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A sequence in the drama series Wilderness broadcast on TV One at about 10.05 pm on

8 April 1998 focussed on a disturbed young woman who believed she was a werewolf.

In the broadcast, the woman was depicted as being hypnotised by a psychiatrist.

Mr Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the

sequence depicted the actual process of putting a subject into a hypnotic state, in

breach of standard G11(ii) of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Responding to Mr Lowe, TVNZ wrote that the broadcast would not have enabled a

viewer to learn how to place a subject under hypnosis. The sequence was clearly

fictional, it wrote, and the standard was not intended to preclude fictional stories in

which hypnosis was an element. The broadcaster declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Lowe 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 declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about, and

have read the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendix). On this

occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An episode of Wilderness broadcast on TV One on 8 April 1998 at about 10.05 pm

depicted a disturbed young woman being hypnotised by a psychiatrist. The woman

believed that she was a werewolf.

Mr Lowe complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the

sequence breached standard G11(ii) of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice

by depicting the process of putting a subject into a hypnotic state.

TVNZ considered the complaint under the nominated standard G11(ii)of the Code.

Standard G11 requires broadcasters:

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.

ii)   Depicts the actual process of putting a subject into a hypnotic state.

iii)  Is designed to induce a hypnotic state in viewers.

iv)  Uses or involves the process known as "subliminal perception" or any

other technique which attempts to convey information to the viewer by

transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal awareness.

In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ maintained that the key words in

standard G11(ii) were "actual process". The standard was intended to ensure, it

wrote, that viewers did not learn the technique of hypnosis from television. The

broadcaster agreed that the technique was a dangerous procedure in the hands of the

untrained.

TVNZ had carefully examined the offending sequence and, it wrote, did:

...not believe that a viewer can learn from it how to place a subject under

hypnosis. ...[T]he sequence is clearly fictitional and is simply a variation on

the stereotype of a psychiatrist working with his patient on a consulting room

couch.

Even if a viewer followed the psychiatrist character's every word and imitated each of

his movements, no hypnosis would have taken place, the broadcaster continued. It

concluded that the standard was not intended to preclude fictitional stories in which

hypnosis might have been an element.

In referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Lowe argued that "the fear of having

viewers 'put under' by the process depicted" was the actual reason for the existence

of the standard. That fear, he submitted, was exactly the possibility which had been

engendered by the depiction in the episode. Arguing that the process shown was both

clear and complete, he contended that a viewer applying the technique would have

been successful. In response, TVNZ emphasised that the character to which the

complainant had referred was an actor, not a hypnotist. Mr Lowe replied that the

effect was not invalid because an actor was involved, for hynosis was dependent only

on the acquiescence of the subject.

The Authority notes that this is the first instance in which standard G11(ii) has been

the subject of its consideration. It takes cognizance of the standard's injunction to

broadcasters to refrain from broadcasting any programme which, when considered as a

whole, depicts the actual process of putting a subject into a hypnotic state.

In this instance, the Authority does not consider that an "actual process" was

depicted. Rather, it considers viewers saw a theatrical representation of somebody

(an actor) inducing a feigned state of hypnotism. In the Authority's view, there was

no genuine hypnotism, and therefore no prerequisite for the application of the

standard. Accordingly, it declines to uphold the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
6 August 1998

Appendix

Mr Lowe's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 9 April 1998

Mr Lowe of Oakura complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited,

about a sequence in the series Wilderness shown on TV One at about 10.05 pm on 8

April 1998. The sequence, he wrote, breached standard G11(ii) of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice by depicting the process of putting a subject into a

hypnotic state.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 27 April 1998

TVNZ considered the complaint under standard G11 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, as nominated by Mr Lowe. It noted that standard G11(ii)

required broadcasters to refrain from depicting the actual process of putting a subject

into a hypnotic state.

The broadcaster maintained that the key words of the standard were "actual process".

The intent of the standard, it claimed, was to ensure that viewers did not pick up the

technique of hypnosis as the procedure could be very dangerous in the hands of the

untrained.

TVNZ denied that a viewer could have learned from the broadcast how to place a

subject under hypnosis. It suggested that the sequence was clearly fictional and was a

variation "on the stereotype of a psychiatrist working with his patient on a consulting

room couch". It wrote:

Even if a viewer was to follow the "psychiatrist's" word to the letter, and

imitate each of his movements, we feel quite sure no hypnosis would take

place.

Concluding that in its view the standard was not intended to preclude fictional stories

in which hypnosis might have been an element, TVNZ declined to uphold the

complaint.

Mr Lowe's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 25 May 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Lowe referred his complaint to the

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

Mr Lowe argued that he believed the actual reason for the standard was the fear of

having viewers "put under" by the process when it was depicted. That, he submitted,

was exactly the possibility engendered by the sequence he had complained about. He

continued:

The process shown is both clear and complete (just a little shorter than normal

for a novice subject).

Claiming that he had learned the technique of hypnotism by watching stage

hypnotism in the 1950's, Mr Lowe denied TVNZ's response that a viewer applying

the technique depicted in its broadcast would not be successful. He wrote that he

knew "from experience" that was not the case.

Noting that standard G11(ii) was conclusive and that the broadcaster had breached it,

Mr Lowe also contended that the television code should be deleted for non-

compliance with the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights which New

Zealand had signed.

TVNZ's Comments to the Authority – 2 June 1998

The broadcaster advised that it had nothing further to add, "save to note that the

character to which Mr Lowe refers is an actor, not a hypnotist".

Mr Lowe's Final Comment – 10 June 1998

Mr Lowe responded to TVNZ's comment that the character was an actor not a

hypnotist, by writing:

*All actors are hypnotists (they use the techniques to "get into" the target

persona).

*Most hypnotists are actors: because "presenting an image" can be of value

in putting subjects at ease.

*If it's an actor, is the effect invalid ? (No).

*Hypnosis is dependent only on the acquiescence of the subject: it has

nothing to do with "mystic power".