BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A special Assignment programme broadcast on TV One on 31 May 1998 at 6.30pm focused on the trial of Malcolm Rewa, accused and found guilty of a large number of sexual attacks on women. It replaced the advertised Our World programme.

Mrs Mitchell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the time of the broadcast, which she said breached standards of good taste and decency, and the fact that it replaced a programme watched unsupervised by many children. She noted that no warning had been given about the change to the schedule, but even if it had, she observed, many families would not have been aware of the warning.

In its response, TVNZ noted that Rewa’s trial, which had concluded the previous day, had elicited a great deal of public interest. Its decision to broadcast the programme, at that time, was made subject to provisos, which included a number of promos announcing the schedule change, and a warning prior to the programme indicating the graphic nature of its content. It concluded there was no breach of standards.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mrs Mitchell 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 upholds the complaint that standards G12, V16 and V17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice were breached.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

In place of the regularly scheduled Our World programme, TVNZ broadcast an Assignment special on TV One on 31 May 1998 between 6.30–7.30pm. The programme was a documentary which covered the case of Malcolm Rewa, who had been found guilty the previous day of a large number of sexual attacks on women. The programme reviewed Rewa’s life, went behind the scenes in the police investigation, and spoke to some of his victims.

Mrs Mitchell, who advised she did not watch the programme, complained to TVNZ that its themes were unsuitable for broadcast at a time when a regularly scheduled programme intended for children was normally broadcast. She maintained that parents had a right to expect that their children could safely watch a programme at that time without supervision. She argued that no matter how responsibly the broadcaster approached the subject matter, its timing was a breach of standards.

When it considered the complaint, TVNZ assessed it under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require 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.

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during their normally accepted viewing hours.

TVNZ emphasised that the Rewa case had raised intense public interest, and that its details had been widely publicised during the long trial. In its view, there was a need to satisfy public interest in the outcome as soon as possible after the trial was concluded. Therefore, it argued, its decision to broadcast the Assignment special was made after careful deliberation, and was subject to a number of provisos. First, it noted, throughout the weekend it had screened trailers advising the change to the schedule, including announcements during One Network News on both Saturday and Sunday. Further, TVNZ pointed out, the introduction to the programme emphasised the graphic nature of the content, and was of sufficient duration as to enable parents who considered the content unsuitable for their children to switch off. In TVNZ’s view, with these precautions, viewers would have been left in no doubt as to the nature of the documentary.

With respect to the 6.30pm broadcast time, TVNZ observed that its news programmes during the trial had regularly broadcast evidence which was similarly distressing in nature. It submitted that a mature and reflective examination of the case at roughly the same time would be found neither surprising nor offensive. In TVNZ’s view, it was dangerous to over-sanitise news and current affairs material.

As far as standard G2 was concerned, TVNZ said it did not believe that in the context of a story about a horrifying series of sexual crimes, the story went beyond currently accepted norms of decency and taste. It maintained that the graphic material was shadowy and inexplicit, but that it had to be shown in a way which did not diminish the trauma suffered by Rewa’s victims.

Turning to the standard G12 complaint, TVNZ pointed to the advance warning about the programme change, and to the introduction which drew attention to the content. It maintained that as the case had been reported widely in the same time slot, parents would have had sufficient information to make up their own minds as to whether their children should watch the documentary. In its view, it had demonstrated that it was mindful of the effect which the programme might have had on children by providing the extensive and adequate warning about the programme’s content.

As the complainant did not nominate any standards, the broadcaster identified standards G2 and G12 as being relevant. In the Authority’s view, standards V16 and V17 are also relevant. It therefore sought additional comment from TVNZ on those standards. They read:

V16 Broadcasters must be mindful of the effect any programme, including trailers, may have on children during their generally accepted viewing periods, usually up to 8.30pm, and avoid screening material which could unnecessarily disturb or alarm children.

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.

When it responded to the Authority’s request to deal with the complaint under these standards, TVNZ emphasised points it had already made, including the fact that there had been coverage of the trial during previous weeks in the 6.00–7.30pm time period; that the programme was clearly sign-posted in a series of promos during the weekend; that the introduction made clear what the subject matter was; and that the subject was clearly a matter of public interest. TVNZ argued that it had a responsibility not to delay the broadcast of an important documentary after the verdict had been reached. Further, it contended that although the programme was broadcast in G time, it was clearly a current affairs documentary. It maintained that current affairs and news must necessarily at times contain contentious material, no matter what time of the day it was broadcast.

In considering the complaint under standards V16 and V17, TVNZ referred to the Introduction to the Violence Code which states:

Violence in news programmes and documentaries often presents particular dilemmas. Broadcasters have a responsibility to present news honestly and without sanitising it but must avoid the temptation to sensationalise or use violence to shock gratuitously.

It was TVNZ’s belief, it asserted, that the Assignment special presented the issues honestly and avoided sanitising them. To do otherwise, it argued, would have done an injustice to Rewa’s victims. It said it did not believe the programme sensationalised the story, nor did it believe that the implied violence was included to shock gratuitously.

As far as standard V16 was concerned, TVNZ contended that it was not the intention of the standard to prevent the broadcast of legitimate news and current affairs material before 8.30pm. It suggested it was inevitable that there were times when news material would disturb and alarm children, but it did not accept that it was intended that the content of early evening news programmes should be censored. It argued that given the wide publicity about the programme change, the public’s knowledge of the Rewa trial, and the specific warning in the introduction, TVNZ had done everything it could to avoid unnecessarily disturbing children, while at the same time providing a topical documentary for the wider audience.

Turning to standard V17, TVNZ maintained that it covered the story with considerable care and sensitivity. It stressed that there was no gratuitous material in the documentary, nor any sequences which did not pass the relevancy test.

As a final observation, TVNZ urged the Authority to consider the ramifications should it rule that the Assignment special should not have been broadcast at 6.30pm. It contended that would threaten its ability to do its job as a purveyor of news and current affairs, and argued that it was socially unacceptable to sanitise such material.

The Authority’s Findings

Standard G2 – good taste and decency in context

The Authority turns first to the complaint that standard G2 was breached because material which TVNZ itself described as "explicit and distressing" was screened at 6.30pm. The subject matter in itself, the Authority considers, was better suited to an adult audience because it dealt with criminal behaviour which included a large number of sexual crimes and violence against a number of women over a period of several years. When dealing with themes which have the potential to cause offence, the Authority is required to examine them in the context in which they occurred. On this occasion, it notes, the item was preceded by a clear warning, and the change to the regular schedule had been advertised throughout the weekend. The Authority also acknowledges that the nature and extent of Rewa’s offending had been exposed in news items published by all media throughout the lengthy trial. Furthermore, because of the scale of the offending, the details of his offences were widely publicised. On balance, the Authority concludes that despite the early evening time slot, the treatment of the subject matter in the Assignment special on 31 May would not have caused widespread offence in the community and thus did not contravene standard G2. The Authority therefore declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Standard G12 – mindful of the effect on children

Next the Authority turns to the complaint that by screening the programme at 6.30pm, TVNZ had not demonstrated that it had been mindful of the effect on children. First, the Authority notes Mrs Mitchell’s argument that the Assignment special replaced the regularly scheduled Our World programme which, she argued, was a programme parents were confident about letting their children watch unsupervised.

Although the Authority notes that TVNZ provided warnings about the schedule change, and the programme was introduced with a warning advising that its content was "explicit and distressing", it questions whether such content should be screened early in the evening in place of a regularly scheduled programme which parents expect to be suitable for young viewers to watch unsupervised. The Authority considers that the presence of a warning in the programme’s introduction, and references to the proposed schedule change did go some way towards ameliorating any potential for a breach of the standard. However, it considers the graphic reenactments which described the predatory pattern of Rewa’s offending and the emphasis on the distress caused to the victims of his attacks could well have disturbed child viewers.

In particular, the Authority points to the re-enactment of the incident where the mother of three young children was attacked in her home by Rewa, and as a result, the programme recounted, her children were now too terrified to walk down the hall in their home. In the Authority’s view, that information could have had a profound effect on children who were watching. It points to both the local and international research on violence which has shown that reality footage is often problematic and disturbing for children. Here, the programme recounted not only actual events, but events which had happened in New Zealand and which were, for some viewers, very close to home. Further, they involved accounts of child victims of violence which children could have identified with.

On balance, the Authority concludes, the broadcaster fell short of demonstrating that it had been mindful of the effect of the programme on children when it made a decision to broadcast the programme at this hour. While it acknowledges that warnings were given, that the subject was topical and was not dealt with gratuitously or in a salacious manner, it finds aspects of the programme would have been unnecessarily disturbing for children.

The Authority reiterates that it reaches its conclusions for the following reasons. First, the programme replaced a regularly scheduled programme which was suitable for children, and secondly, it does not consider that 6.30pm on a Sunday night is a suitable time to broadcast material which included graphic and disturbing reenactments of Rewa’s offences. Furthermore, the programme involved accounts of child victims in the context of family life. It upholds the complaint that standard G12 was breached.

Standard V16

The Violence Code applies to all programmes; and that includes news and current affairs programmes. Under standard V16, if the theme is likely to disturb or alarm children, then it is the broadcaster’s responsibility to screen the programme at a later hour.

TVNZ submitted that it was not the intention of the standard to prevent the broadcast of legitimate news and current affairs material. It argued that it was inevitable that some material would disturb or alarm children, but maintained that the standard was not intended to sanitise or censor the content of early evening news programmes. It argued that the key word in standard V16 was "unnecessarily" and suggested that given its efforts to advise viewers, both by the promos and the introduction, it had done everything it could to avoid unnecessarily disturbing children, while at the same time providing a relevant and topical documentary.

While the provision of warnings, both in the promos and in the introduction, goes some way towards demonstrating that TVNZ was mindful of the effect of the programme on young children in the early evening, the Authority does not consider that on this occasion the warnings sufficed, particularly as the programme included reenactments which were real, graphic, and likely to disturb children. It acknowledges TVNZ’s concern that it should not be fettered in its ability to convey difficult and unpleasant truths. However, it considers that details concerning the method by which Rewa stalked his victims and the terror he engendered were not suitable themes for young viewers. The Authority returns to the point made above that current research reveals that reality footage is far more disturbing to viewers than fictional violence. Adults are equipped to deal with such themes, but children are not.

Standard V17

This standard requires broadcasters to deal with disturbing themes with care and sensitivity, and to avoid gratuitous and irrelevant material. If such themes are thought likely to disturb children, broadcasters are required to schedule the programme later in the evening.

TVNZ maintained that the documentary contained no gratuitous material nor any sequences which did not pass the test of relevance. It did not believe the potential to disturb children prevented it from broadcasting legitimate news and current affairs material during the early evening.

While the Authority concedes that the themes were handled sensitively and with care, and the programme did not contain gratuitous material, it notes the injunction to broadcasters to broadcast material which is thought likely to disturb children later in the evening. In the Authority’s view, some of the material was of a disturbing nature – particularly the realistic reenactments of specific offences, and the emphasis on the distress caused to victims and their families – and it believes that TVNZ should have screened the programme later in the evening.

Conclusion

The Authority finds a breach of standards G12, V16 and V17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, all of which relate to the broadcast of themes which are disturbing to children during their generally accepted viewing time. It does not see this decision as a precedent which will prevent important topical issues from being aired during early evening prime time. The detailed description of Rewa’s offending did not in itself necessarily imply a breach. On this occasion, the breaches occurred because a regularly scheduled "safe harbour" programme for children was replaced with a programme which highlighted the impact on the victims, both through reenactments of particular incidents and the description of the terror experienced in one case by the children of a victim.

In reaching its conclusion, the Authority again points to the large body of research which shows that reality footage compounds children’s fears. It believes that had TVNZ been mindful of children, it would have concluded that 6.30pm was too early to broadcast the Assignment special. The Authority reaches this view because children were also the victims of the complex and bizarre catalogue of offending which was recounted in the programme. As children viewing at this hour are of a young age, and are likely to be highly impressionable, the Authority considers that there was therefore an extra onus on the broadcaster to consider the impact this report was likely to have on them.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of an Assignment programme on 31 May 1998 at 6.30pm breached standards G12, V16 and V17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) or s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. As explained above, the Authority considers that 6.30pm was too early for the Assignment special. Nevertheless, it acknowledges that TVNZ’s arguments for broadcasting the programme at that hour contained some merit. Accordingly, it decides that no order is warranted on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
1 October 1998

Appendix

M A Mitchell’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 10 June 1998

Through the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Mrs Mitchell of Nelson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an Assignment special broadcast on 31 May 1998 on TV One at 6.30pm. The programme dealt with the trial and conviction of serial rapist Malcolm Rewa.

Mrs Mitchell complained that because of the time of the broadcast, the programme breached standards of good taste and decency. Furthermore, she wrote, it was screened in the time slot usually given to Our World, a programme watched by many children of all ages. She added that responsible parents deemed it suitable and felt their children were safe watching unsupervised. She continued:

Imagine the consternation and upset of one parent whose young children watched what she thought was "Our World" unsupervised. The children aged 8–11 years asked the meaning of the word rape. The upset female child turned to her brothers, saying "This’ll never happen to you," whereupon further explanations were needed. I go into this detail to explain why I consider this breach so seriously.

Mrs Mitchell stated that to the best of her knowledge, no warnings about the programme were screened in the hours preceding the programme. However, she noted, even if they had been, families enjoying the outdoors on a fine Sunday afternoon would not have seen them.

She continued:

No matter how responsibly you have felt the programme approached the subject the timing of the screening breached all standards.

On a personal note, Mrs Mitchell observed that it seemed as if the programme makers could not wait to push the "horrid programme in our faces". She said it was bad enough to have most entertainment programmes dealing with rape, murder and violence, without those subjects invading the hours when children were supposed to be able to watch safely.

As a postscript she added that mothers of young children complained to her that many children’s programmes had an unacceptable level of violence.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 24 June 1998

TVNZ noted that the trial of Malcolm Rewa had concluded the previous day, and that the programme had reviewed his life, had looked at the police investigation, and had spoken to some of his victims. It continued:

…it is fair to say that the horrifying evidence produced in court day after day caused many a New Zealander to pause and consider how such a sequence of terrible crimes had gone on for so long unresolved.

In the view of TVNZ the case had raised intense public interest, and there was a need to satisfy that public interest as quickly as possible after the verdict was announced.

TVNZ noted that its decision to show the programme in place of Our World was made after careful deliberation and was subject to a number of provisos. First, throughout the weekend it was to screen programme trailers advising that there was a change in schedule. Secondly, during One Network News on both Saturday and Sunday, announcements were to be included advising that Assignment would replace Our World and would feature Malcolm Rewa. It was also required that the introduction to the programme would emphasise the graphic nature of the information contained in the programme. It noted that the introduction spoke of the "explicit and distressing" nature of the programme.

TVNZ pointed out that these provisos were all met. In its opinion, viewers would have been left in no doubt that the documentary replacing Our World would be distressing for some viewers.

Turning to the 6.30pm broadcast time, TVNZ observed that details from the trial had been reported on One Network News at that time of day. It added:

…it did not seem to TVNZ that a mature and reflective examination of the case in a current affairs context at roughly the same time would be found either surprising or offensive.

TVNZ said that it was sorry that in Mrs Mitchell’s case, the documentary had brought some embarrassing questions, but submitted that the Rewa case was widely known and had been mentioned many times in early evening news bulletins, on day time radio programmes and in newspapers.

In TVNZ’s view, an important story should not be consigned to the depths of the night simply because the content might offend some viewers.

As far as standard G2 was concerned, TVNZ did not consider that in the context of a documentary about a horrifying string of sexual crimes, the programme exceeded the standard. It maintained that the graphic material was shadowy and inexplicit, but had to be shown in a way which did not diminish the trauma experienced by Rewa’s victims.

In reference to standard G12, TVNZ argued that its prolific advance warning about the programme change and the specific references made during the programme’s introduction would have given parents and caregivers enough information to make a decision about their children’s viewing. Its view was that it had been mindful of the effect the programme might have had on children and had therefore provided extensive and adequate warning about the content. It advised that it had found no breach of statutory programme standards.

Mrs Mitchell’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 29 June 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mrs Mitchell referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mrs Mitchell emphasised that it was not the content of the programme she objected to, but that it breached standards of decency, good taste, and responsibility in the context of the time of the broadcast. She regarded the time as being a safe time for children’s viewing, and objected to the consequent destruction of childhood innocence and trust, which was the right of every child. She also believed it breached the right of parents to have confidence that it was safe to allow their children to watch programmes unsupervised during child safe viewing time.

As a general comment, she considered it "very very sad" that television – a medium with such power for good – pandered to people’s basest instincts and indeed instead of giving the public what it wanted, she suggested that television led in promoting ever more violent and degrading programmes to feed the appetite it created.

In notes written on TVNZ’s response, Mrs Mitchell commented first that as she had not watched the programme, she had no complaint about it except to say that it pandered to prurient interest. She repeated that her complaint was that by screening during children’s viewing time, TVNZ had breached the standards of good taste and decency and responsibility.

Responding to TVNZ’s point that there were news reports on the trial at the same hour during the week, Mrs Mitchell asked why therefore it had to be repeated. Furthermore, she noted, many parents did not allow their children to watch the news because of the frequency of unsuitable content.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 24 July 1998

TVNZ advised that it had little to add except to emphasise that the content of "this important documentary" was well sign-posted by TV One. It repeated that throughout the weekend TVNZ had shown trailers advising of the programme change and of the topic to be covered in Assignment.

TVNZ also drew the Authority’s attention to the introduction to the programme which provided a warning about its graphic content and was sufficiently long that parents would have had time to switch off if they considered the material was inappropriate for their children.

It also repeated that discussion of the Rewa case at that hour of night had occurred frequently in news bulletins in the preceding weeks.

Mrs Mitchell’s Final Comment

Mrs Mitchell did not respond when invited to make a final comment.

Further Correspondence

At the Authority’s request, TVNZ considered the complaint under standards V16 and V17. Its response was dated 7 September 1998.

First, TVNZ reiterated that points it had already made in respect of the placement of the Assignment programme. It repeated that:

• The subject of Rewa and the rapes had been referred to on many occasions in previous weeks in the 6.00–7.30pm time period because reports of the trial had been included in the news.
• The programme change was clearly signposted in a series of promos broadcast throughout the weekend.
• Even if parents and caregivers missed the promos, the introduction made the subject matter clear.
• The subject of the documentary was clearly a matter of public interest.
• TV One had built up a reputation for providing swift and topical news and current affairs coverage. It would have been irresponsible had it delayed the broadcast of the documentary.
• Although the broadcast was in G time, it was clearly a current affairs documentary. Current affairs and news must necessarily from time to time contain contentious material, no matter what time it is broadcast.

In considering standards V16 and V17, TVNZ referred the Authority to the Introduction to the Violence Code which states:

Violence in news programmes and documentaries often presents particular dilemmas. Broadcasters have a responsibility to present news honestly and without sanitising it but must avoid the temptation to sensationalise or use violence to shock gratuitously.

TVNZ wrote:

It is our belief that the Assignment special on Malcolm Rewa did present the issues honestly, and quite properly avoided sanitising in circumstances where to even contemplate sanitising would be to do an injustice to Rewa’s many victims. We do not believe the programme can be accused of "sensationalising" the story of Malcolm Rewa, nor do we believe that the implied violence was included to "shock gratuitously".

As far as standard V16 was concerned, TVNZ said it did not believe that it was the intention of the standard to prevent the broadcast of news and current affairs material before 8.30pm. Inevitably, it noted, there were times when news material may disturb or alarm children. However, TVNZ argued, it did not accept that the standards were intended to sanitise and censor the content of early evening news programmes. It continued:

We would argue that, given the wide publicity concerning the programme, change, the public’s knowledge of the Rewa trial and the specific nature of the programme’s introduction, TVNZ did everything it could to avoid unnecessarily disturbing children, while necessarily providing the wider audience with a relevant and topical documentary.

Turning to standard V17, TVNZ said it believed the documentary covered the Rewa story with considerable care and sensitivity. It argued there was no gratuitous material in the documentary and no sequences which did not pass the test of relevancy.

As a final observation, TVNZ urged the Authority to consider the ramifications, should it rule that the Assignment special should not have been broadcast at 6.30pm. It wrote:

That would threaten television’s ability to properly do its job as a purveyor of news and current affairs. To sanitise is to censor – and we believe it is socially unacceptable in New Zealand that news and current affairs material should be so treated.

A decision against Assignment would immediately impact on other current affairs material broadcast at that time (TV3’s 20/20 for example) and would, presumably, prevent TV One extending a One Network News programme beyond 6.30pm to accommodate a breaking but disturbing story of wide public interest.