BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A segment of Hard Copy, broadcast by TV3 between 8.30–9.30pm on Wednesday 12

January, showed two people being shot dead during the armed robbery of a store.

Mr Smits complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast involved the

gratuitous display of violence, that it exploited death and that it should have been preceded

by a warning.

Pointing out that the type of item included in Hard Copy broadcast in "AO" time was well-

known to the audience, TV3 maintained the portrayal was neither unduly prolonged nor

horrific. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Smits

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 upheld aspects of 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 has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

An armed robbery of a convenience store in the United States in which two people were

shot dead was the subject of an item on Hard Copy broadcast at 8.30pm on 12 January

1994. One of the robbers killed was a member of a band which had recently achieved

some success. The item included video footage of the robbery apparently taken by a

security camera. Parts of that footage were repeated a number of times during the

screening of the item and extracts from the shooting sequence were shown on five

occasions.

Mr Smits complained to TV3 that showing the film on several occasions for the purposes of

entertainment involved the callous exploitation of death. He alleged that the broadcast

breached the standards relating to the portrayal of violence and the requirement for

appropriate warnings.

TV3 emphasised that Hard Copy was screened in "AO" time at 8.30pm, that it had been

shown at that time for the previous 18 months and that viewers had a good

understanding of the programme's likely content. Moreover, it cited the classification for

violence in "AO" time which accepts realistic portrayals provided they are not "unduly

prolonged, unduly bloody or horrific". As the broadcast did not contravene this

requirement and as the details shown in the broadcast, although unpleasant, were neither

excessive nor gratuitous, it declined to uphold the complaint. In addition, it did not believe

a warning was appropriate in view of the audience's expectations.

As neither Mr Smits nor TV3 nominated any standards against which to assess the

complaint, the Authority has decided the following in the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice encompass his concerns. They read:

V1  Broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that any violence shown is

justifiable, ie is essential in the context of the programme.

V2  When obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve heightened impact,

realistic violence – as distinct from farcical violence – must be avoided.

V3  Warnings should be given, at least at the beginning of the programme,

when a programme contains material which is likely to be disturbing to the

average viewer or which is unexpectedly violent for the programme genre.

V8  When real or fictitious killings – including executions and assassinations –

are shown, the coverage must not be prolonged.

Before considering the broadcast in detail, the Authority observed that the quality of the

film was poor and that aspects of the coverage were repeated on several occasions -

including the use of slow motion. Moreover, not only was the film of poor quality, it was

also in black and white and was not accompanied by quantities of blood or outbursts of

shouting or screaming.

Dealing with the aspect of the complaint covered by standard V3 – that warnings are

required on some occasions – the Authority was divided whether a warning was required

on this occasion. On balance, the majority agreed with TV3 and decided that, in view of

the expected nature of Hard Copy, a warning was not necessary. In view of the prolonged

and repetitive nature of the broadcast showing the death of two of the robbers, the

minority decided that a warning was necessary.

Its concern about the prolonged nature of the item was relevant to the Authority's decision

on the other aspects of the complaint. While there was no dispute that TV3 was justified

in screening the film of the shooting, the Authority considered that its use more than once

had to be justified by the points being made in the story. However, the broadcast did not

indicate in any way valid justifications for the repeated screenings and, thus, taking into

account that the film involved real killings, the Authority unanimously concluded that the

coverage was unnecessary to illustrate the points being made. Consequently, it breached

standard V8. In reaching this decision on standard V8 the Authority considered that this

ruling incorporated the prohibition of gratuitous violence in standard V2.

With reference to the other standard under which the complaint was considered – the

requirement in standard V1 that the violence shown be justifiable in context – the

Authority decided that this matter had also been captured by its decision on standard V8.

As the portrayal of the killings was unnecessarily repetitive and prolonged, the length of

the screening could not be considered essential in context.

For the reasons given above the Authority upholds the complaint that the

broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd of an item on Hard Copy on 12

January 1994 breached standard V8 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

A majority of the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the

broadcast breached standard V3 of the same Code.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1)(d) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. On the basis that the repetitive nature of the broadcast was in

breach of the standards, rather than the initial screening of the incident itself, and as the

programme was broadcast in "AO" time, the Authority decided not to impose an order on

this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
9 June 1994

Appendix

Mr Smits' Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited

In a letter dated 12 January 1994, Mr Phillip Smits of Auckland complained to TV3

Network Services Ltd about an item on Hard Copy broadcast between 8.30 - 9.30pm

earlier that evening.

Explaining that the item dealt with the armed robbery of a convenience store, Mr Smits

said that not only was it reported that two people were shot dead, the viewers witnessed

shots of their death which were screened a number of times. He argued that it was

unnecessary for the footage to be shown, adding that it involved the exploitation of death.

Expressing his contempt for the callousness of the item, Mr Smits maintained that the

broadcast breached the standard relating to the portrayal of violence and the standard

which requires appropriate warnings.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint

TV3 advised Mr Smits of its Complaints Committee's decision not to uphold the complaint

in a letter dated 31 March 1994.

Pointing out that Hard Copy had been screened at 8.30pm on Wednesday evenings for 18

months, TV3 said that it was broadcast in "AO" viewing time and the viewers had a good

understanding of its likely content.

It quoted the classification guideline for violence in "AO" time which accepts realistic

portrayals provided that they are not "unduly prolonged, unduly bloody or horrific". It

then assessed the segment complained about under this standard and concluded that while

the details of the incident might have been unpleasant, they were neither excessive nor

gratuitous. In view of audience expectations, it did not believe a warning was appropriate.

TV3 concluded by pointing out that the segment complained about had already had some

scenes removed by the Network Censor.

Mr Smits' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, in a Complaint Referral Form dated 8 April 1994 Mr

Smits referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In an accompanying letter, Mr Smits questioned the relevance of TV3's use of the context

in which the segment was broadcast. Describing Hard Copy as "sleazy, sensational,

salacious, sexist" tabloid journalism which blatantly manipulated the viewer's emotions, he

stated that the violence involved which showed people being killed was "gratuitous,

sensationalised and trivialised". He also maintained that a warning was appropriate.

TV3's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the referral. Its letter

is dated 13 April 1994 and TV3, in its response dated 18 April, stated it had no further

comment to make.

Mr Smits' Final Comment to the Authority

When asked whether he wished to comment further, in a letter dated 23 April 1994 Mr

Smits stated that he did not wish to add anything. To reinforce his concern about the

items which were broadcast on Hard Copy, he enclosed a copy of a recent letter to TV3

expressing his disgust about an item just broadcast.