BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The portrayal of two women catching and threatening a peeping tom with a knife was

part of the story line on Melrose Place broadcast by TV3 between 7.30–8.30pm on

14 August.

Mr Parry complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the scene which involved one

woman holding a knife at the throat of the man breached the standards dealing with

violence. Brandishing knives on television, he said, was mindless violence.

Arguing that showing the knife was essential in the context of the story and that the

broadcast had been preceded by a warning, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Parry 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 that the threatened use

of the knife was not justifiable. Moreover, it decided that even if the broadcast had

been justifiable, the warning broadcast was insufficiently informative.

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.

The capture of a peeping tom who broke into the apartment into which he was

peeping was one aspect of the storyline in Melrose Place broadcast on 14 August.

Upon his capture at knifepoint by the woman at whom he had been peeping and her

neighbour, he was tied up but refused for some hours to accept that his actions were

repugnant until one of the women held the knife at his eyes and threatened to blind

him as punishment for his activities. The episode was preceded by a verbal and

written warning which said:

The following programme deals with issues that may not be suitable for all

family members.

Mr Parry complained to TV3 that as violence was increasing in the community and as

behaviour on television could lead to copycat crimes, knives should never be

brandished on television.

TV3 assessed the complaint under the following standards:

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

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

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 that programme genre.

V6  Ingenious devices for and unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain, injury or

death, particularly if capable of easy imitation, must not be shown, except

in exceptional circumstances which are in the public interest.

Explaining the storyline in some detail and pointing out that the two women had

grabbed the kitchen knives to defend themselves against the intruder, TV3 argued in

relation to standard V1:

Amanda's violent act, the brandishing of the knife, is essential in the context of

this story.

As for standard V3, TV3 maintained that the level of threatened violence was unlikely

to disturb viewers. However, because younger viewers might not have realised that

the violence was only threatened, the broadcast was preceded by a warning.

Standard V6 refers to the use of ingenious devices for or unfamiliar methods of

inflicting pain. As it considered that the threatened use of a knife fell into neither

category, TV3 did not uphold that aspect of the complaint.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Parry stressed his abhorrence at

the portrayal of knives on television and insisted that there was a correlation between

television violence and New Zealand's high crime rate.

The Authority first assessed the standard V1 aspect of the complaint – that the

violence must be essential in context. It considered that the protracted and very

threatening use of knives in the programme complained about was gratuitous. In

particular, it considered the scenes of the knife being held at the peeper's throat and

near his eyes as he was being threatened – including the threat of blinding – were

unjustifiable.

Furthermore, Melrose Place is classified as "PGR" (Parental Guidance Recommended)

and a majority of the Authority was of the view that, because of the threatening

manner in which the knife was brandished, those scenes would not have been

justifiable even in a programme broadcast in "AO" (Adults Only) time.

On this point, the minority believed that the women's response to grab knives to deal

with the situation which they were in was understandable. Accordingly, although it

agreed that showing the knives in the way portrayed contravened standard V1 in a

programme broadcast in "PGR" time, the minority believed that it would have been

justifiable in an "AO" programme.

The Authority then proceeded to assess the standard V3 aspect and was of the view

that the particularly threatening use of the knife that was broadcast should not have

been shown without an explicit warning that the programme portrayed violence.

While acknowledging that TV3 accepted that the scenes in which the knives were

brandished justified a warning, the Authority decided that the warning which was

broadcast was insufficiently explicit to be of much assistance to viewers. The

Authority considers that there are at least four headings under which warnings could

be broadcast – violence, offensive language, provocative nudity and explicit sexual

behaviour. The warning which was broadcast on this occasion was uninformative as it

lacked specificity as to the issue which might "not be suitable for all family members".

The Authority decided that because the warning was inadequate, it involved a breach

of standard V3.

The Authority accepted TV3's argument that the threatened use of a knife did not

involve ingenious devices or unfamiliar methods in contravention of standard V6.

In summary the Authority decided that violence which involves the threatening use of

knives was seldom justified on television On the few occasions when it was justified,

the Authority was unanimous in its view that the use of knives must be preceded with

a warning which explains that violence is to be portrayed. With the complaint about

Melrose Place on this occasion, the Authority decided, first, that the threatened use of

a knife was not justified and, secondly, because a warning is essential before the

portrayal of such violence, the warning which was broadcast was insufficiently

informative to allow a viewer to be aware of the type of behaviour which the

programme contained.

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

by TV3 Network Services Ltd of Melrose Place at 7.30–8.30pm on 14 August

breached standards V1 and V3 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold the complaint under standard V6.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. It does not intend to do so, first, because this is the first

occasion when it has determined a complaint about the portrayal of violence involving

the threatened use of a knife, and secondly, by broadcasting a "warning", even if

ineffectual, TV3 at least acknowledged that the broadcast raised standards matters.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
12 December 1994

Appendix

P R Parry's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited - 2 September 1994

Mr P R Parry of Auckland complained about an incident on Melrose Place, broadcast

about 8.15pm on 14 August, which showed two young women tying up and

threatening a man while holding a knife at his throat.

Violence in the community was on the increase, Mr Parry wrote, and knives should

never be brandished on any television programme as it could lead to "copycat" crimes.

Noting that "Readers Digest" listed television in New Zealand as nearly the most

violent in the world, he urged the total removal from television of any display of the

threatened use of a knife.

The letter was sent to the Broadcasting Standards Authority which forwarded it to

TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster of Melrose Place.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 16 September 1994

When advising Mr Parry of its Complaints Committee's decision, TV3 said that the

complaint had been assessed under standards V1, V3 and V6.

Dealing first with standard V1, TV3 said an understanding of the story, the characters

and their background was essential. It described Melrose Place as a melodrama and

reviewed the story line where Ted, the peeping tom, after peeping at Amanda from

the apartment next door, comes to her apartment while she is in the shower.

Amanda and her neighbour Jo, after grabbing knives to defend themselves as they are

very upset about the peeping tom, overpower the intruder. After describing the

process by which the peeping tom is made to acknowledge the error of his ways, TV3

provided the following summary:

This quick rundown of the scenes shows how Amanda's actions are important

to the context of the programme and the message is also important. It shows

two women defending themselves against an intruder who meant to do one of

them harm. Even though their reactions are exaggerated and the action is intense,

they are understandable in the context of the programme and are important to

the resolution of the story. Amanda and Jo finally manage to do the right thing

and call the police without hurting Ted.

Amanda's violent act, the brandishing of the knife, is essential to the context of

this story.

In its discussion of the complaint under standard V3, TV3 maintained that the level of

threatened violence was unlikely to disturb adult viewers. However, because younger

viewers might not realise that the violence was only threatened, the broadcast was

preceded with a warning that:

The programme may not be suitable for all family members.

The warning, TV3 maintained, was appropriate in the context.

Standard V6 requires that any unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain be avoided.

Referring to Shakespeare's Macbeth, TV3 said that the use of a knife was not new.

In declining to uphold the complaint, TV3 wrote:

As for the possibility of "copy-cat" crimes, Amanda was defending herself from

an intruder; she did nothing to be put in such a situation and gained nothing from

her threats. Her actions are never condoned by the "good sensible" character of

Jo who tries to convince Amanda to call the police on several occasions and

Amanda eventually does the right thing and calls the police. It should also be

noted that Ted is never hurt.

Mr Parry's Referral to the Authority - 8 and 13 October 1994

Dissatisfied that TV3's decision did not mean the removal of all knife brandishing

scenes from television, Mr Parry referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

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

Describing TV3's justification of the scene - as part of the story line - as

unacceptable, Mr Parry said it was, given the display of this kind of violence on

television, no coincidence that New Zealand's crime rate was very high. Enclosing a

press report of a judicial comment on the effect of a film on a disturbed viewer, Mr

Parry maintained that scenes such as the one complained about vitiated the combined

efforts of various groups to discourage people from carrying knives.

Mr Parry said he had lived in Canada for four years where television programmes

showing knives were not screened. In the army, he added, it was a military offence to

point a weapon at another soldier and, he concluded:

I am absolutely determined to have knives banned from TV once and for all; by

no stretch of the imagination is it entertainment.

In his second letter he repeated his concern and noting another press report of a knife

brandishing incident at a school, he commented:

It is not hard to guess where such people get their ideas.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 20 October 1994

TV3 advised it did not wish to comment further.