BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A news item on Midday reported on increasing lawlessness and the use of vigilante justice amongst black communities in South Africa. It focussed on a group of vigilantes avenging the alleged pack rape of a young woman, and included footage of the accused men being beaten by the woman and some vigilantes. The item was broadcast on TV One on 29 April 1999, and repeated in One Network News at 6.00 pm.

Mrs Ripley complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that graphic footage of defenceless people being beaten and kicked, preceded only by what she said was a "quiet warning from the news-reader", should only be shown in the late news, if at all. Such violent scenes should not be shown at a time when children and young teenagers were able to watch, she wrote.

TVNZ responded that the report was an important and disturbing news event, about the emergence in South Africa’s black townships of "something as evil and disturbing" as the suffering experienced during the apartheid era. While the report was uncomfortable to watch, it resulted in viewers being better informed about the lawless nature of the townships, TVNZ wrote, in declining to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mrs Ripley referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.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 a tape of the item complained about, and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing. In a subsequent submission, Mrs Ripley sought to extend the complaint to the 6.00 pm One Network News broadcast. As that was not part of the original complaint, the Authority deals only with the complaint as it relates to the Midday news broadcast.

Mrs Ripley specifically complained about a news report featured on the Midday bulletin about South African men who were tied up and beaten until they were bleeding. Mrs Ripley stressed that she found this sort of news particularly distressing and asserted that it should only be shown in the late evening news, if at all.

TVNZ considered the complaint in the context of standard V12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard provides:

V12  The treatment in news, current affairs and documentary programmes of violent and distressing material calls for careful editorial discernment as to the extent of graphic detail carried. Should the use of violent and distressing material be considered relevant and essential to the proper understanding of the incident or event being portrayed, an appropriate prior warning must be considered.
        
Particular care must be taken with graphic material which portrays especially disturbing images, such as:

- ill-treatment of people or animals

- close-ups of dead and mutilated bodies of people or animals

- views of people in extreme pain or distress, or at the moment of death

- violence directed at children or children in distress

Material shown in late evening may be more graphic than that shown during general viewing times.

Mrs Ripley’s complaint, TVNZ observed, had to do with the very nature of news, and the obligations of journalists towards the general public. The public was not well served if it was provided with a diet of sanitised news which, by definition, was not truthful news, it added. Because a great deal of unpleasantness went on in the world, any news broadcast would often contain material which was distressing in nature, TVNZ wrote. It continued that to suggest that news should be softened or left out altogether was to suggest censorship, and its view was that censorship of information "fundamentally contradicts the concept of democracy".

It was important to TVNZ in handling violent incidents in news terms for it to indicate that violence had consequences, it wrote. However, the broadcaster acknowledged that it had to take care to ensure that the level of violence did not become gratuitous. In the item seen by Mrs Ripley, the reporter told viewers that much of the actual violence would be too brutal to be shown. The item, TVNZ wrote, contained only two really graphic shots which properly reflected the event and its consequences, without "wallowing in the brutality in any gratuitous way". It was an important and disturbing news event for New Zealanders to view, it added. The broadcaster stressed that the item’s context was a slide into lawlessness, and vigilante justice, in South Africa’s black townships. It indicated that something as evil and disturbing as the suffering of the townships during the apartheid days was "now emerging".

TVNZ pointed out it did warn viewers that the item would be graphic. It apologised that Mrs Ripley found the warning "too quiet", and said the warning was read as part of the presenter’s normal delivery. It regretted that Mrs Ripley was offended by the item but, the broadcaster wrote:

…we would head down a very dangerous path if we misled viewers through sanitising news. [Some] news events are uncomfortable to watch, but that is no reason for not showing them. [You] are better informed about the lawless nature of South Africa’s black townships for having seen this carefully edited material.

TVNZ concluded that, in the context of a news bulletin showing an actual news event of some significance, there had not been a breach of standard V12. It noted that the programme was screened during the day-time AO time-band.

In referring her complaint to the Authority, Mrs Ripley emphasised that a great deal of the unpleasantness that went on in the world was carried into homes via the television news. The item, she stressed, portrayed images of the ill-treatment of people, and of people in extreme pain or distress. She rejected TVNZ’s view that censorship of such information fundamentally contradicted the concept of democracy.

Mrs Ripley said she was angry about TVNZ’s comment that although some news events were uncomfortable to watch, that was not a reason for not showing them. TVNZ, she underlined, carried a huge responsibility for the content of the news items it screened, and censorship "should be part and parcel of that".

She concluded by stressing that the broadcaster had failed to address her original complaint, that the news item should definitely not have been screened at midday when children and young teenagers were watching. She sought to extend that criticism to the 6.00 pm news broadcast as well.

In response, TVNZ wrote that the item appeared in a recognised news programme, that news necessarily and inevitably from time to time contained material of a distressing nature, and the item was preceded by a warning. Further, it stressed, that the item was broadcast during a period of the day when AO programming was permitted.

In a final comment to the Authority, Mrs Ripley reiterated that the item was broadcast at midday, and again at 6.00 pm when "even more children would be at home watching television". She also re-emphasised the broadcaster’s responsibility for the content of the news items it screened, and for the times at which they were screened. Finally, Mrs Ripley wrote that TVNZ could not screen anything it liked simply because it was broadcast at a time when AO programming was permitted.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority accepts that the broadcaster’s assessment of the complaint under standard V12 was entirely apposite. In her formal complaint to TVNZ, Mrs Ripley had referred specifically to the Midday news broadcast, and the broadcaster in response treated the complaint as arising from that broadcast. While the news bulletin was not, and was not required to be, classified, the Authority notes that it was broadcast during the day-time AO time-slot. This permits the screening of material which contains "adult themes or those which, because of the way the material is handled, would be unsuitable for persons under 18 years of age".

The Authority considers the complaint within that context. It notes that the relevant news item was preceded by a warning by the newsreader about the graphic nature of the upcoming footage. The footage which accompanied the commentary was inherently violent and distressing, and to some extent graphic but, in the Authority’s view, it was relevant and essential to the story being reported. The Authority appreciates that the item was presented as a shocking event in contemporary news, and the footage was relevant to illustrate the reality of the event which had occurred. It notes that although shocking, the depiction of events was not gratuitous, the reporter’s commentary was condemnatory of what was happening, the full story of the circumstances relating to the incident was given, the commentary included reference to other more graphic scenes which were withheld from the broadcast, and the item concluded with informed comment about the implications for South Africa of the emergence of vigilantes, and the effect on police behaviour. In all the circumstances, the Authority is unable to find that the standard was breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
13 September 1999

Appendix

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

1. Mrs L J Ripley’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited, made via the
   Broadcasting Standards Authority – 29 April 1999

2. TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 May 1999

3. Mrs Ripley’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 15 June 1999

4. TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 28 June 1999

5. Mrs Ripley’s Reply to the Authority – 8 July 1999