BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An episode of The Lakes broadcast on TV One on 26 May 1999 beginning at 9.05pm contained a scene depicting a violent gang rape.

Ms Wightman of Wellington, Mr Turley of Nelson and Ms Buchanan of Christchurch each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the episode. Ms Wightman contended that it was unacceptable to show sexual violence on public television, particularly when no warning was given prior to the programme that it would contain rape scenes. Mr Turley’s complaint focused not just on the rape scene, which he deemed unacceptable, but also on what he called the gratuitously offensive language used, and the programme’s focus on depraved and offensive sexual activity. Ms Buchanan objected to the fact that in the course of a single programme the content included murder, a gang rape and the prospect of fornication between a parishioner and a priest.

TVNZ acknowledged that the rape scene was violent and uncomfortable to watch. However, it argued, it was not included gratuitously nor did it invite voyeuristic or prurient interest. In its view the programme quite properly reflected the horror and demeaning nature of the assault and the serious consequences for the victim. As far as the language was concerned, it contended that it was not unsuitable given the raw nature of the drama, and its screening more than half an hour after the Adults Only watershed. It declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Wightman, Mr Turley and Ms Buchanan each referred their complaints 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendices. On this occasion, it determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

A violent gang rape was depicted in an episode of The Lakes broadcast on TV One on 26 May 1999 beginning at 9.05pm. The Lakes is a series set in England’s Lake District and was described by TVNZ as "one of the most critically acclaimed dramas to come out of Britain in recent years."

Ms Wightman complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the rape scene breached standard V5 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice because of the prolonged focus on the sexually violent contact, and the broadcaster’s failure to provide an explicit warning relating to the scene. The rape, she noted, continued for a considerable period of time as three men were shown violating the victim. In addition, she added, the warning at the beginning of the programme referred only to the programme containing nudity and sex scenes. In her view, it was poor judgment on the part of the broadcaster to consider that viewers required a warning about sex scenes and nudity, but not about a prolonged rape scene.

Mr Turley’s complaint focused not just on the rape scene, which he deemed inappropriate for broadcast, but also on the offensive language and explicit sexual activity which appeared to be a feature of the series. As for the rape scene, he contended that it contravened all acceptable standards of community entertainment. Furthermore, he said, it demeaned women and had the potential to incite predatory behaviour among certain men.

Ms Buchanan complained "in the strongest possible terms" about the episode which, she noted, contained murder and deceit in the disposal of a body, gang rape of the most harsh and explicit kind, and the prospect of fornication between parishioner and priest. Despite warnings, she maintained, such programmes were accessible to young viewers. In her view, the violent tone of The Lakes endorsed violent behaviour.

In its responses, TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint in the context of standards G2 and V5 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standard G2 requires broadcasters:

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs.

Standard V5 reads:

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.

TVNZ emphasised that the programme had received much critical acclaim, both in New Zealand and in Britain. It acknowledged that the programme contained a number of sex scenes, including the rape sequence. It argued:

From a dramatic point of view, the sex scenes – consensual or not – were necessary in establishing and maintaining the contrast between the peaceful hills and waters of the Lake District, and the dark, cynical side of human nature revealed in the village community.

The sex scenes, it contended, were a vital part of the series, and were not gratuitous. By way of observation, it noted that complaints dealt with by the British Standards Commission about this series had not been upheld.

As for Mr Turley’s complaint about the language used in the series, TVNZ maintained that it was not unsuitable given the raw nature of the drama and the fact that it did not screen until more than half an hour after the Adults Only watershed. Furthermore, TVNZ noted, there was a verbal and visual warning which preceded this and every other episode broadcast, clearly indicating that it might not be to the liking of viewers who were offended by sex scenes and "unsavoury language".

With respect to the rape scene, TVNZ agreed that it reflected violence and was uncomfortable to watch. Nevertheless, it argued, it was not included in the programme gratuitously. It was, TVNZ asserted, a particularly challenging moment, because the victim was perhaps the most unlikeable of a thoroughly unpleasant lot of characters. As the rape sequence unfolded, TVNZ suggested that viewers had to abruptly confront their perceptions and prejudices about the character as she, suddenly, became the victim.

While there was no attempt to conceal the fact that the rape was occurring, TVNZ argued that it was not sexually explicit, but quite properly reflected the horror and demeaning nature of the assault.

TVNZ emphasised that the programme was preceded by a warning and had started more than half an hour after the AO watershed. While it recognised that standard V5 specifically referred to a warning about rape, TVNZ said it had some reservations about attaching such a warning in case the warnings themselves attracted prurient interest. Nevertheless, it acknowledged that the warning should have referred to violence as well as to sex and language, and noted that the appraiser had recommended that the warning include the word "violence". It was unclear why that recommendation had not been acted upon, it wrote. However, it continued, the absence of the warning was not sufficient to constitute a breach of standard V5.

Turning to standard G2, TVNZ argued that as the programme carried an AO certificate, viewers would have known that its content was unsuitable for viewing by people under the age of 18. Given the context of the series as a widely acclaimed drama, and carrying an AO certificate, TVNZ concluded that it had not breached standard G2.

When Ms Wightman referred her complaint to the Authority, she advised that she was not satisfied with TVNZ’s explanation as to why no warning was given relating to the rape scene, as required under standard V5. In particular, she challenged its assertion that the warning could have attracted prurient interest. This was a "dubious claim" she said, as in her view, any such viewers would have been attracted by the reference to the sex scenes. Secondly, she suggested that if TVNZ were genuinely concerned about attracting this kind of viewer, it would have chosen not to show the scene. Thirdly, she continued, viewers such as herself who did not wish to watch television programmes containing rape were denied the right to choose whether to watch. Finally, she wrote, there appeared to be an implication that TVNZ believed that it could disregard any regulations it did not agree with.

Ms Wightman said she also disagreed with TVNZ’s reasoning relating to standard G2. She did not agree that the AO certificate and the claim that the programme was "quality drama" sufficed to absolve the broadcaster of responsibility to maintain standards. In her view, rape scenes exceeded acceptable norms of decency and good taste.

In his referral to the Authority, Mr Turley maintained that it was broadcasters who determined accepted norms of decency and good taste and, he contended they were progressively lowering community standards in their efforts to find more and more salacious entertainment. He continued:

The more we present depravity and violence on TV and film as ‘life’ the more it becomes the norm and the downward spiral of community standards continue. They become ‘life’. What was unacceptable community behaviour becomes acceptable. Personal licence and self gratification in their most bestial forms will be OK. We wonder why we have a dysfunctional, violent, crime ridden society. It is because so called community standards are being progressively eroded.

Ms Buchanan emphasised in her referral that her main concern had been that despite the warnings, young people would have been able to watch the programme.

Responding to the Authority, TVNZ emphasised that the rape scene occurred well into the series, and in the latter part of this hour-long episode. Although it acknowledged that the warning did not include the word violence, TVNZ contended nevertheless that it was made clear that the programme contained material suited only for mature audiences. It also noted that the Authority’s British counterpart had declined to uphold complaints it had received about this episode and others in the series.

The Authority’s Findings

Standard G2 – good taste and decency

The complaints under standard G2 focused on the language, described by one complainant as gratuitous, and on what was described as depraved and brutal behaviour which included sexual activity and acts of violence. It was contended that these were unsuitable themes even for adult viewing and that they breached standards of decency and propriety in a New Zealand context.

When it deals with complaints alleging a breach of standard G2, the Authority is obliged to take into account the context in which the language or behaviour occurs. It has identified a number of contextual factors which it considers relevant. First, it notes, the programme was screened at 9.05pm, well within AO viewing time. In conjunction with the AO classification, in the Authority’s view it was clearly indicated to viewers that the programme contained material which was intended for an adult audience. Secondly, the programme was preceded by a verbal and visual warning relating to its content which specifically advised that it contained sex themes and language which could offend. In addition, the Authority observes that the programme was part of a series which dealt with adult themes and language.

While the Authority acknowledges that the themes were unquestionably adult and that the language could be considered objectionable, it concludes that the safeguards outlined above sufficed to ensure that the broadcast complied with standard G2. In its view, the material was not unsuitable for adults who elected to watch, particularly as viewers were given adequate information about the content prior to the broadcast. It declines to uphold this aspect of the complaints.

Standard V5 – care to be taken in programmes with rape as a theme, and warnings to be given

Ms Wightman complained that TVNZ failed to comply with this standard as it did not warn viewers of the rape scene as it is required to do. She also complained that the focus on the rape was unduly prolonged.

TVNZ acknowledged that its warning – relating to sexual activity and language – should have included a reference to violence. The Authority shares this view, and considers that the warning should have acknowledged that the rape scene was one depicting violence. However, it decides that on this occasion the omission does not transgress the standard. It reaches this decision for three reasons: first, that rape was not the programme’s theme, secondly because it was clearly identified as a programme which contained adult material, and thirdly because although the depiction was disturbing, it was neither explicit nor detailed. Neither, in the Authority’s view, was it presented as sexually titillating.

As for the complaint that the focus on the rape was unduly prolonged, the Authority’s view is that the scene, while disturbing, was handled with care. It portrayed the degradation and violence of rape, and its dehumanising effect on both victim and perpetrator, in an objective and dispassionate manner. The Authority concludes that the attack was appropriately dealt with in the context of a series which emphasises amoral human behaviour, and declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
16 September 1999

Appendix I

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

Susan Wightman’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 31 May 1999

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 14 June 1999

Ms Wightman’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 20 June 1999

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 30 June 1999

Ms Wightman’s Final Comment – 3 July 1999

Appendix II

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

Alan Turley’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 27 May 1999

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 10 June 1999

Mr Turley’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 13 June 1999

Mr Turley’s Further Comment – 22 June 1999

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 30 June 1999

Appendix III

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

Peggy Buchanan’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 29 May 1999

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 15 June 1999

Ms Buchanan’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 30 June 1999

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 14 July 1999