BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The film Red Heat was screened by Channel Two at 8.30pm on 19 July. Starring

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the film told the story of a policeman from Moscow who

travelled to Chicago to apprehend an offender.

Mr England complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film

was excessively violent and that the use of the phrase "Jesus Christ", as an expletive,

was blasphemous.

Pointing out that the film had been acquired and classified before the current violence

code was issued, TVNZ accepted that the broadcast now breached the standards. It

said that it intended to review the classification of similar films which had been

acquired before the present standards were laid down. It declined to uphold the

complaint about the language used.

Dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ on the aspect upheld, Mr England

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 upheld the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme 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.

Red Heat, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as a policeman from Moscow who travels

to and liaises with the Chicago police force to get his suspect, was broadcast on

Channel Two at 8.30pm on 19 July.

Mr England complained about the excessive violence and the use of the term "Jesus

Christ" as an expletive.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G2 and V1 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The first 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 V1 states:

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

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

TVNZ considered the language not to be inappropriate for a fast moving action film

and declined to uphold the standard G2 aspect of the complaint.

It proceeded to deal with the violence complaint and reported that the film had been

screened – without complaint – in August 1991 and February 1993. It continued:

Because the film was acquired by TVNZ more than three years ago it went

through the company's censorship process before the present codes relating to

violence on television were promulgated. The earlier screenings of the film had

prompted no complaints and so TVNZ had no reason to think that the film

needed to be reappraised before its latest screening.

Having examined the film in view of the complaint, TVNZ decided that the level of

violence was excessive at 8.30pm although it would have been acceptable at 9.30pm or

later with an appropriate warning.

As a consequence of Mr England's complaint, TVNZ reported, it was checking other

advance schedules to identify any similar films which might not have been censored

under the present standards. Moreover, TVNZ reported, the complaint had served as

a reminder to TVNZ's programmers of their obligations under the violence standards.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr England expressed his disdain

for TVNZ's procedures as he argued that two films screened subsequent to Red Heat

were also excessively violent. TVNZ, he maintained, should be held accountable for

its actions.

In its report to the Authority on the complaint, TVNZ pointed out that the complaint

about the violence in Red Heat had been upheld and that it was dealing with a

complaint (from Mr England) about one of the two films he had referred to. In his

final comment, Mr England argued that TVNZ, as was apparent from its actions in

subsequently screening other films containing violence, did "not give a damn" about

whether or not a complaint was upheld.

Mr England referred to the Authority his dissatisfaction with the action taken by

TVNZ after his complaint alleging excessive violence had been upheld. TVNZ said

that the film would have been acceptable for screening at 9.30pm or later with a

warning and was checking its schedule to ensure that films of a similar genre as Red

Heat were classified under the existing standards prior to broadcast.

Having watched Red Heat, the Authority agreed with TVNZ that it was not suitable

for screening at 8.30pm. However, it had little sympathy for much of TVNZ's

language when it described the film as an "action movie" of "considerable merit" which

"lampooned Soviet and American police stereotypes". Indeed, it only concurred with

the first epithet – action movie – which, in the Authority's opinion, should not,

because of the excessive violence, have been screened at all.

Although not an explicit part of the referral, the Authority would note that should it

have been required to deal with the standard G2 aspect of the complaint, it would,

regardless of the language used, have upheld it on the basis that the violence portrayed

contravened accepted norms of taste and decency in behaviour.

However, the referral required the Authority to determine whether or not TVNZ's

actions were satisfactory having upheld the standard V1 complaint with regard to Red

Heat. To the degree that TVNZ's action was to check that all films of a similar genre

were classified under the current standards, the Authority, while surprised and

disappointed that it had not been done anyway, would endorse that action. However,

in view of the suggestion that such classification could result in films similar to Red

Heat starting at 9.30pm, rather than 8.30pm, the Authority was not satisfied with

TVNZ's action. It concluded that classification should take place to ensure that films

of a similar genre, which so blatantly breach standard V1, are not screened at all.

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

action taken by Television New Zealand Limited, having upheld the complaint

about Red Heat broadcast on 19 July, was not satisfactory.

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

Act. As TVNZ in fact upheld the complaint and the Authority disagreed only on an

aspect of the subsequent action taken and in doing so has made it abundantly clear that

this film and others of its genre should not be screened at any time, it believes that an

order would achieve nothing further.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
3 November 1994

Appendix

Mr England's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 25 July 1994

Mr R J England of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

film Red Heat shown on Channel Two at 8.30pm on 19 July.

Mr England complained, first, about the excessive violence in a film broadcast at that

time and, describing the mass murder in a shower as grotesque and obscene, argued

that the film should never have been broadcast at all. Secondly, he objected to the use

of the term "Jesus Christ" as an expletive and, pointing out that he was not a

"religious wowser", Mr England concluded:

I am sick of the incessant diet of rubbish TVNZ tries to pass off as acceptable

viewing. Most New Zealanders can't be bothered. I can.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 August 1994

When advising Mr England of its Complaints Committee's decision, TVNZ said that

the complaint had been assessed under standards G2 and V1 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

Noting that this film had been screened on two previous occasions (25.8.91 and

21.2.93), TVNZ explained that as it had acquired the film more than three years ago, it

had been classified prior to the promulgation of the present code dealing with violence

on television. As the earlier screenings had not prompted any complaints, TVNZ said

that it had had no reason to think that the film needed to be reappraised. It continued:

The (Complaints) Committee viewed the film and came to the conclusion that,

while it had considerable merit as an action movie which lampooned Soviet and

American police stereotypes, the violence included was not suitable for

screening at 8.30pm.

The Committee would not have been similarly concerned were the film to have

screened at 9.30pm or later with an appropriate warning.

It declined to uphold the complaint that the language used in the context of a "fast

moving action" film went beyond the currently accepted norms.

Upholding the complaint under standard V1, TVNZ responded that it had taken the

following action:

As a consequence of your complaint, advance schedules are being checked in an

effort to identify other films of this genre which may have been censored

before the present codes took effect. Your complaint will also serve as a

reminder to programmers of TVNZ's obligations under the violence codes.

Mr England's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 25 August

1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's action, Mr England referred his complaint to the

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

Focussing on the action it said it would take, Mr England maintained that making a

formal complaint to TVNZ was "a complete and utter waste of time" as it would

revert to its former practice once the issue raised by a complaint has faded away. He

argued that complainants could "give up out of sheer frustration".

Naming two films broadcast after Red Heat, Mr England stated that they were

excessively violent and, he wrote:.

The above example shows that TVNZ disregards totally at its own whim

standards set by your Authority. It also shows that their response to

complaints even if justified is a complete and utter sham.

I look forward to action being taken regarding the sheer hypocrisy

demonstrated by TVNZ. That is, after finding a film Red Heat was overly

violent and then stating that "advance schedules are being checked in an effort

to identify other films of this genre". They should not be allowed to get off

the hook on this. Just for once can TVNZ be held accountable for their

actions!!

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 15 September 1994

When asked to comment on the referral, TVNZ declined to comment on one of the

films named by Mr England (The Dead Pool) as it was dealing with a complaint about

it (from Mr England). No complaints had been received after the other one

(Terminator Two).

TVNZ pointed out that, contrary to Mr England's assertion, 8.30pm was Adults

Only (AO) time for which the classification read:

Programmes containing adult themes and those which, because of the way

material is handled, would be unsuitable for persons under 18 years of age.

Mr England's Final Comment to the Authority - 16 and 22 September 1994

Following a telephone call to the Authority to ascertain what action could be taken, in

his first letter Mr England wrote and suggested that stopping TVNZ screening

"infernal advertisements" was the appropriate punishment.

In the second letter, he said obtaining signatories to a complaint would not be difficult.

Objecting to both the content and style of TVNZ's letters, he wrote:

Stripping away all the bluster and other nonsense ... the fact is TVNZ

UPHELD the complaint regarding "Red Heat" and stated that they would be

more circumspect in future regarding films of this genre ... THERE CAN BE

ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT THE TERMINATOR

(same leading actor as Red Heat) AND THE DEAD POOL are EXACTLY

"OF THE SAME GENRE" ... and therefor one is left to the unassailable

conclusion that TVNZ does not give a damn about whether or not a complaint

was/is upheld ... they continue on regardless ... the "mercury syndrome".

To HOLD public confidence in the BSA TVNZ must, in conclusion be

penalised for their undoubted duplicity regarding the above, otherwise the

whole "system" is a sham.