BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A scene towards the end of the programme Water Rats broadcast on TV2 at 8.30 pm on 23 July 1998 depicted a man seizing a policewoman and threatening her with a knife.

Mr Parry complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the brandishing of knives in a threatening manner, especially where women were shown as victims, was unacceptable on television. Knives, he wrote, should never be shown used as weapons on television because that led to copycat crimes.

TVNZ responded that the showing of knives could not be absolutely banned. What was important, it suggested, was how knives and other weapons were shown and in what context. Here, it wrote, the scene was essential to the drama. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Parry 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 declines to uphold the complaint.

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.

A scene near the end of the programme Water Rats broadcast on TV2 on 23 July, beginning at 8.30 pm, showed a policewoman being seized by a man and threatened by him with a knife.

Mr Parry complained to TVNZ that the brandishing of knives in a threatening manner was utterly unacceptable on television, especially where women were the victims. He said that his concern was that their use on television could and did lead to copycat crime. He asked when the broadcaster was going to desist from showing such "gratuitous and unnecessary" violence. Mr Parry argued that showing such violence was neither educational nor entertaining, and was counter-productive to any community efforts to educate young people against violence.

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint in the context of standards V1 and V2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which 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 farcicial violence – must be avoided.

The broadcaster argued that an absolute ban could not be placed on the showing of knives as weapons, any more than an absolute ban could be placed on showing the use of guns, clubs, stones or fists in a threatening manner. Much drama involved conflict and much conflict involved weapons, it wrote. To take the argument to absurd lengths, TVNZ maintained, Mr Parry would object to the famous death scene in Julius Caesar. What was important, it continued, was how knives and other weapons were shown, and in what context, rather than the fact that they were shown.

It agreed that the knife, in the scene which was complained of, was wielded in an aggressive fashion, but argued that the impression of menace which was potentially there was diluted by the dialogue. Had the scene been removed, TVNZ contended, it would have been impossible to show the whole programme because, without it, the drama would not have been resolved.

Noting that the programme was broadcast with an AO certificate, the broadcaster contended that the scene was not unsuitable viewing for those over the age of 18 years.

Mr Parry responded that it was a fatuous argument to compare Shakespeare’s violence with that shown on television, for the audiences were quite different and those watching Shakespeare were not likely to commit copycat crimes. Further, he wrote, an AO certificate was of little help when many young people stayed up very late at night watching television.

The Authority first considers the context in which the incident occurred in the broadcast, as standard V1 requires. The knife wielding incident depicted violence which was implied rather than actual. The Authority does not find that the violence was inappropriate, in the context of a drama, in a way which would contravene standard V1. It notes that the police were shown as having the situation under control. It understands Mr Parry’s point that screen violence has a serious impact on people who are already predisposed to violence as a means of resolving conflict. It also is aware of the extensive body of research which puts that view. However, in this instance it does not find the scene was sufficiently troubling so as to threaten the standard.

The Authority turns next to consider the complaint under standard V2. It does not consider that the implied violence which was depicted was gratuitous in the sense demanded by the standard. Rather, it was a stylised drama which did not contain any aspects which would attract the standard.

It therefore declines to uphold the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
29 October 1998

Appendix

Mr Parry’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 25 July 1998

Mr P R Parry of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the programme Water Rats which was broadcast on TV2 on 23 July 1998 commencing at 8.30 pm.

He complained that the brandishing of knives in a threatening manner, as was depicted in the programme, was utterly unacceptable on television, especially where women were the victims. Knives, he reiterated, should never be shown used as a weapon. Their use on television could and did lead to copycat crimes, he asserted.

Mr Parry asked when the broadcaster was going:

…to desist from showing such gratuitous and unnecessary violence, which is neither educational nor entertainment, and counter-productive to any efforts made in the community to educate young people against such violence.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 11 August 1998

TVNZ considered the complaint in the context of standards V1 and V2 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It opined that an absolute ban could not be placed on showing knives as weapons, any more than showing the use in a threatening manner of other weapons could be stopped. Much drama involved conflict, it wrote, and much conflict involved weapons.

Suggesting that Mr Parry would probably object to the "famous death scene in Julius Caesar, yet it would be outrageous to remove Shakespeare’s plays from the literary repertoire", TVNZ wrote that it was not so important whether or not knives or other weapons were shown, but how they were shown and in what context.

Referring to the scene about which Mr Parry had complained, TVNZ contended that it represented the climax of the story and ended with the knife-wielder being apprehended. Although the knife was wielded in an aggressive fashion, it argued, the impression of menace which was created was diluted because of the dialogue. To remove the scene, the broadcaster continued, would have made it impossible to show the whole programme. Without the scene, the drama would have had no resolution, it wrote.

TVNZ pointed out that the programme had an AO certificate, and it denied that the scene was unsuitable viewing for people over the age of 18 years.

Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ concluded that the scene was a vital ingredient of the story. The fictional violence was justified in the context of showing a disturbed and cornered individual lashing out at the forces of law who came to apprehend him, it wrote. The broadcaster contended that standard V2 was irrelevant, as the scene was not gratuitous.

Mr Parry’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 18 August 1998

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

He criticised TVNZ’s comparison, of the violence of Shakespeare with that too often shown on television, as fatuous. The audience, he wrote, was quite different, and those watching Shakespeare were not likely to commit copycat crimes.

He said that he objected to the use of knives by actors and actresses purporting to be thugs, rapists and other criminals. It was of little use, he asserted, to put on an AO certificate, as young people often stayed up late at night watching television.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 1 September 1998

The broadcaster responded that it had never doubted that some children watch television at all hours of the night. Should the broadcaster pursue the complainant’s logic, it continued, it would never screen any material intended for mature audiences. It was not a broadcaster’s responsibility to be a parent or caregiver.

TVNZ concluded that it had little to add to its earlier response to Mr Parry.

Mr Parry’s Final Comment

When invited to make a final comment, Mr Parry did not respond.