BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Incidents from previous "State of Origin" rugby league matches were shown in a

preview to the sports news, and during the sports report itself on One Network News

broadcast on 22 May 1998 between 6.00–7.00pm.

Mr Moir of Dunedin complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that Television New Zealand Ltd had failed to

respond to his formal complaint about the broadcast of violent incidents which had

occurred in previous "State of Origin" matches. In his view, TVNZ had glorified the

incidents and had breached standards relating to the protection of children, truth and

accuracy and violence.

TVNZ advised that it had not recognised his first letter as a formal complaint. It

described the item as a standard background piece, and emphasised that the violent

incidents from previous games were of relevance because they illustrated the history

of the series. It did not uphold any aspect of the complaint.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The State of Origin rugby league match between New South Wales and Queensland

was previewed in a sports report during One Network News on TV One on 22 May

1998 between 6.00–7.00pm. The preview included a number of violent incidents from

previous matches and it was reported that such brawls were typical of the series.

Mr Moir of Dunedin complained to TVNZ that the item glamorised violence by

focusing on fighting which had occurred in previous encounters between the teams.

He argued that the incidents depicted breached standards relating to the protection of

children, truth and accuracy, and violence. When he received no response from TVNZ

within the statutory time limit, he referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

In its response, TVNZ advised that Mr Moir's letter had not been recognised as a

formal complaint, and therefore had not been referred to the correct department. It

then proceeded to deal with it under standards G1, G12, V1, V2 and V3 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which were nominated by Mr Moir. The

first two require broadcasters:

G1     To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G12   To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing hours.

The other standards 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 a 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.

Describing the item as "a standard background piece" broadcast as part of the build up

to the match, TVNZ emphasised that its purpose was to set the game in both its

historical and present context. It acknowledged that the scenes of brawling and

fighting could have been omitted but, it argued, that would not have fairly and

accurately reflected the series. In the event, it noted, the game turned into one of the

best in the history of the series, but that did not detract from the fact that the fear of

trouble prior to the game was very real.

Turning to standard G1, TVNZ said it did not consider the coverage of incidents from

previous games was untruthful or inaccurate. It simply reflected the fact that brawling

had occurred on previous occasions and that the series had a reputation for being a

"war" between the two Australian states.

As far as standard G12 was concerned, TVNZ advised that it found nothing in the

item which would have adversely affected children. It argued that it simply recorded

the truth about past games in the series.

With respect to standard V1, TVNZ maintained that the on-pitch violence was an

integral part of the day's news story. It denied that it was dwelt upon, contending

that it was shown as a significant factor in the build-up to the 1998 series. Standard

V2 was not endangered, in TVNZ's view, because the scenes were not used

gratuitously, but to illustrate a point made by the reporter. It submitted that there

was no breach of standard V3 because the material was not such that a warning was

appropriate. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

The Authority deals first with the matter of TVNZ's failure to respond to the

complaint within the 20 working day time limit. It notes that TVNZ had advised Mr

Moir that his letter was not recognised as being a formal complaint and was therefore

not sent on to the correct person within TVNZ. However, the Authority observes,

even if the complaint had not been recognised as a formal one, it was still reasonable

for Mr Moir to expect a response. That did not occur.

Turning to the substance of the complaint, the Authority notes that Mr Moir listed a

number of standards which he said he believed were applicable, and left open the

possibility that other standards might apply. In addition to those nominated, the

Authority considers that standards V13, V14 and V15 might also be relevant. Those

standards read:

V13    The use of library footage containing violent incidents, be it from a

battle field, sports venue or elsewhere, should be used only when its

repetition is necessary to illustrate the issue being discussed.

V14    Care must be taken to ensure that violent incidents during or

surrounding play are not repeated gratuitously.

V15    Sports announcers and commentators must avoid making comments

which appear to approve of or glamorise any violent behaviour on or

off the field which is not in accordance with the rules of the particular

sport.

The Authority turns first to the complaint that standard G1 was breached. It notes

that the item illustrated the build-up to the game with footage of incidents from

previous encounters. Although it transpired that the game was not as violent as

previous ones, it was not, in the Authority's view, inaccurate or untruthful to refer to

some of the violent incidents from earlier games in the series.

With respect to the complaint that TVNZ failed to be mindful of children, and thus

contravened standard G12, the Authority finds no breach. It reiterates that the report

was on events surrounding earlier games, and does not consider that they were focused

on in a manner which would have had an adverse effect on children who were

watching.

In dealing with the allegations that the incidents portrayed breached standards in the

Violence Code, the Authority repeats that in its view, the applicable standards are

standards V13, V14 and V15 which are cited above. It therefore subsumes standards

V1, V2 and V3, nominated by Mr Moir and dealt with by TVNZ, under these

standards.

The essence of Mr Moir's complaint is that on-field violence was glamorised by the

item's emphasis on incidents of brawling and fighting which had occurred in previous

games. Standard V13 is apposite, as it specifically refers to the use of library footage

containing violent incidents from a sports field. The issue for the Authority is

whether the use of such footage was necessary to illustrate the issue being discussed.

On balance, it concludes that it was relevant. The footage was used to highlight the

apparent concern that the game to be played that evening could be violent, as had been

the case in previous State of Origin matches. It also illustrated that in a vigorous body

contact sport such as rugby league, such incidents were not uncommon. Under those

circumstances, the Authority concludes that standard V13 was not breached.

Next it turns to a consideration of standard V14. That standard applies specifically to

sports programmes, and requires broadcasters to take care to ensure that violent

incidents are not repeated gratuitously. On this occasion, the incidents were included

to illustrate the point that violence had been a feature of the series in the past.

Although by their editing the incidents were accentuated, the Authority concludes that

no breach occurred as they were not repeated gratuitously.

Standard V15 also applies specifically to sports programmes. It prohibits sports

announcers and commentators from making comments which appear to approve of or

glamorise violent behaviour on or off the field. The Authority notes that the language

used by the reporter contained a number of references to war, aggressiveness and

toughness, but did not give the impression that he appeared to condone the behaviour

portrayed. It therefore declines to uphold this aspect.

In summary, and while acknowledging that in light of the history of the series, on-field

violence was shown as part of the build-up to the State of Origin games, the

Authority does not consider that the coverage on 22 May was sufficient to contravene

the standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
24 September 1998

Appendix

Alan Moir's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – received 22 June 1998

Mr Moir of Dunedin referred a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 on the basis that he had not received a

response from TVNZ within the stipulated time period. The complaint was

concerned with an incident on a sports programme about the build up to the State of

Origin rugby league match between NSW and Queensland.

He complained that on 22 May during the news hour, the State of Origin match was

previewed by showing footage of fighting which had occurred between the two sides a

number of years ago. After the advertising break, he noted that some good aspects of

previous encounters were shown, but then the segment finished with more fighting

between the two sides. In Mr Moir's view, TVNZ had glorified the violence. He said

he believed a number of standards were breached and listed standards G1, G12, V1,

V2 and V3 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 20 July 1998

TVNZ described the item as "a standard background piece" broadcast as part of the

build up to a major sports fixture which, it said:

...set the specific game in the context of events at the time as well as recalling

the reputation the series has had in a historical sense.

It suggested that it could not be challenged that the "State of Origin" series had

developed its own character over the years to the point where it had become "all but a

gladiatorial encounter" and that on-pitch flare-ups and brawling were commonplace.

TVNZ acknowledged that One Network News could have excluded such material but,

it asked, would that be an accurate and fair reflection of the series? In TVNZ's view,

it would not. It considered that it should reflect situations as they were, rather than as

people might wish them to be. It continued:

The at times violent history of the series was of special relevance for this

competition because of the pre-match debate about tensions between certain

players and the speculation thus fuelled about possible on-pitch difficulties.

However, TVNZ noted, in the event the game turned into one of the best in the

history of the "State of Origin" matches, and this was properly reflected in match

coverage on One Network News. It argued it would have been remiss not to have

reported the fact that, in the days preceding the game, the fear of trouble was very

real.

Turning to standard G1, TVNZ did not consider that the item was inaccurate or

untruthful. It noted that the item did not say that on-pitch fighting had been

predominant in the play. What it did reflect, TVNZ asserted, was that because such

brawling had on occasion occurred, the series had a reputation of being a "war"

between two Australian states.

As far as standard G12 was concerned, TVNZ said it found nothing in the item which

would adversely affect children. It maintained that the events shown in the item told

the truth about the violence in "State of Origin" games, and about the fear that such

violence would recur in the 1998 series.

TVNZ said that it saw no problem with standard V1, as the violence shown was an

integral part of the day's news story. It maintained that standard V2 was not

endangered because the scenes were not used gratuitously, but were used to illustrate a

point. It found no breach of standard V3, it wrote, because the material did not

require a warning.

TVNZ concluded that there was no breach of standards in the broadcast.

Mr Moir's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – received 3

August 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Moir referred the complaint to the

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

Dealing first with the breach of standard G1, Mr Moir noted that the scenes showing

the brawling were shown on the segment before the advertisement break, and then

again on the sports news. He pointed out that the fighting had occurred some years

ago, and suggested that TVNZ must have had to do a lot of searching to find the

material. He noted TVNZ's assertion that such brawling had occurred, and he

responded that violence occurred occasionally in most sports.

Turning to standard G12, Mr Moir said he did not believe that the violence had earned

the series a reputation. He wrote:

I believe that TVNZ made a meal of the fighting considering the sports news is

only on for a few minutes during the news hour. There were two segments of

fighting put on so I believe it would put children and parents off.

With respect to standard V1, Mr Moir said that he did not believe that the 1998 series

was going to be a grudge match, and he was concerned that the violence was dwelt on.

Finally, he asked, with reference to standard V2, what point it was when the segments

shown occurred years ago.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 12 August 1998

TVNZ advised that it had nothing further to add.