BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An Assignment programme broadcast on TV One at 8.30pm on 15 July 1999 examined a theory which linked those who abused animals in their youth to violent offences in later years. The documentary included video footage of teenage boys tormenting a dog. It was explained that they had filmed the video themselves.

Joanne Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that she was disgusted that the programme included footage of boys subjecting a dog to torture. In her view, it violated the Code relating to the Portrayal of Violence. In addition, she noted that there had been no warning preceding the programme.

TVNZ responded that the incident had been edited in such a way as to convey the cruelty inflicted on the animal while avoiding showing what actually occurred. It suggested that Ms Walker’s distress was caused more by what had happened than by what was shown. In its view, no gratuitous material had been shown and the material had been handled with particular care and skill, and therefore no standards had been breached. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Walker 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 a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A report on Assignment broadcast on TV One, on 15 July 1999 beginning at 8.30pm, examined a link between maltreatment of animals by young people and subsequent violent offending. It included videotape footage which referred to, although did not explicitly show, the torture of a dog by a group of boys. One sequence showed a dog being stalked and shot at, and another showed a dog being put into a plastic bag and lighter fuel being poured onto the bag. Viewers were told, but not shown, that the bag was then set alight. It was reported that the videotape footage had been discovered in a car and as a result of the discovery, a young man had been convicted of arson in relation to his cruelty to an animal.

Ms Walker complained to TVNZ that the videotape of the dog being tortured was "the most revolting thing" she had ever seen on television. She maintained that viewers could still have had a clear image of the barbarism of the boys by simply describing the events. She expressed her disgust at the footage being included in the programme, and complained that it breached the Code relating to the Portrayal of Violence. She noted that the Violence Code stated that violence must be justifiable, that gratuitous use of realistic violence must be avoided, and warnings should be given. She noted that no warning had been given prior to the programme.

In its response to the complaint, TVNZ advised that it had assessed it under standards V2 and V12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards read:

V2  When obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve heightened impact, realistic violence – as distinct from farcical violence – must be avoided.

V12  The treatment in news, current affairs and documentary programmes of violent and distressing material calls for careful editorial discernment as to the extent of graphic detail carried. Should the use of violent and distressing material be considered relevant and essential to the proper understanding of the incident or event being portrayed, an appropriate prior warning must be considered.

Particular care must be taken with graphic material which portrays especially disturbing images, such as:

i)    ill-treatment of people or animals

ii)   close-ups of dead and mutilated bodies of people or animals

iii)   views of people in extreme pain or distress, or at the moment of death

iv)   violence directed at children or children in distress

Material shown in the late evening may be more graphic than that shown during general viewing times.

TVNZ began its consideration by examining first whether the story, viewed as a whole, was a proper subject for a current affairs investigation. It concluded that it was a worthy subject, as it examined the work of a former FBI agent who believed there was a link between animal cruelty and subsequent violent behaviour.

TVNZ noted that the item explained how the videotape had been discovered in a car and that the discovery had led to the arrest and conviction of a 20 year old man. In using extracts from the videotape, it argued that the producers had proceeded with "the utmost care". The programme, it noted, reflected the outraged views of those who had seen the full tape, and included only shots in which cruelty was implied rather than explicitly shown. It added:

There was a sound editorial reason for including extracts because they pointed out not only the types of cruelty being carried out but the particular mental state of those who could impassively film such awful events.

The first sequence showed what viewers were told was a dog being stalked and shot at. However, TVNZ noted, viewers only saw a cowering dog getting up and running off. In the second sequence, another dog was carried into the picture by one of the assailants. The third sequence showed what was apparently the same dog being put into a plastic bag and lighter fuel being poured onto the bag. Viewers were told that the bag was then set alight, but that was not shown, TVNZ observed.

TVNZ concluded that Ms Walker’s distress was occasioned more by what had happened, than by what she actually saw. It said it considered the item had been assembled carefully so as to give viewers an accurate impression of the cruelty the men were capable of, without resorting to gratuitous visual material.

TVNZ agreed that most viewers would have shared Ms Walker’s horror at what was described, and in particular at the admission by the leader of the group that he had watched the videotape about ten times, and that part of him enjoyed it. This, TVNZ contended, was relevant in the context of determining what constituted the criminal mind.

With reference to standard V2, TVNZ concluded that no gratuitous material had been used in the item and therefore the standard was not infringed.

As for the complaint under standard V12, which requires careful editorial discernment as to the extent of graphic detail carried, TVNZ’s view was that such discernment had been appropriately exercised as viewers had been shielded from seeing the gross acts of cruelty. The standard, it noted, also called for a warning. In TVNZ’s view, in the context of a current affairs investigation, where the topic had been made clear, and no gratuitous shots had been included, no warning was necessary. It concluded that the scenes had been handled with particular care and skill "successfully reflecting the warped nature of the human behaviour being illustrated without specifically showing its excesses."

In her referral to the Authority, Ms Walker contended that TVNZ had breached the standard relating to good taste and decency and had not handled the violence portrayed with sufficient care. She maintained that a warning should have been given.

Specifically she objected to the hunting and stalking of the dog which she said was an extremely barbaric segment, showing a terrified dog being shot at. She also objected to the segment which showed a close up of the dog being strangled – not, as TVNZ described it, "being carried into the picture". Finally, she noted, the dog was put in a bag with lighter fluid poured onto it, and although viewers were spared a shot of the dog being incinerated, Ms Walker contended that the segment should not have been included on television. Each segment was, she observed, true, violent and graphic. In her view, it was not appropriate to broadcast the programme without a warning relating to violence.

In its response to the Authority, TVNZ advised that it had no further comment to make.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority concurs with the complainant that the documentary – which set out to examine a theory that there was a link between ill-treatment of animals by juveniles and subsequent criminal behaviour – was disturbing. Its task however is to decide whether conveying the information, and illustrating it with the edited video footage of the boys tormenting a dog, breached any broadcasting standards.

In addition to the standards raised under the Violence Code, the complaint also raised an issue of good taste and decency. That standard was not dealt with directly by TVNZ, although the issues raised are encompassed in its discussion of the violence standards. The Authority deals with the good taste aspect by subsuming it under standards V2 and V12.

The Authority turns first to the complaint that the documentary contained violence which was gratuitous and therefore in breach of standard V2. It begins with an analysis of the content of the documentary. The theme was that there was a link between ill-treatment of animals and subsequent offending. An example was given of a student in Mississippi who had killed his mother before shooting and killing two students at school. Police found an entry in his journal describing how he had killed his dog. In their view, that description was a clear predictor of the boy’s subsequent violent killing. Reference was also made to a serial killer who, as a child, regularly dismembered animals in his garage at home. It was reported that the disturbed behaviour patterns of serial killers regularly included animal cruelty, and in five out of six school shootings in the USA, there was such a link. The theory was further illustrated by footage edited from a video filmed by a group of older teenage boys as they tortured and apparently killed a dog. The video had been found in an abandoned car by employees of a towing company who, when they were interviewed, expressed their shock at what it revealed.

The documentary included four extracts from the video. In the first, the boys were seen stalking and shooting at the dog, which was cowering by a tree. In the second, one of the boys was seen holding the dog by its neck. The third extract, which included commentary from the camera operator, showed a boy putting the dog into what was said to be a plastic bag. In the final sequence, one of the boys was seen to pour lighter fluid over the bag. A voiceover report indicated that the film continued with footage of the bag being lit and the dog incinerated. That extract was not shown in the documentary.

The documentary continued with an interview with the principal offender in this incident and endeavoured to discover why the boys had tortured the dog and why they had filmed it. As a result of submissions to the court, which emphasised that this kind of cruelty was an indicator of subsequent violent offending, a maximum sentence of 22 months was imposed on the principal offender.

The programme concluded with the observation that the odds were high that those who had a pattern of violence with animals had a high risk of domestic and other violence. It suggested that knowledge of this offending could have prevented such incidents as the school killing referred to earlier in the programme.

The Authority’s view is that this difficult subject was handled with care and sensitivity. The video tape, it notes, was carefully edited to avoid showing any of the violent acts perpetrated on the dog. It concludes that the broadcaster therefore complied with the requirements of standard V2.

The Authority also finds no breach under standard V12 in relation to this video footage. While the boys’ cruelty to the dog was unquestionably distressing, the footage did not actually show what occurred. The Authority concludes that the extracts were appropriately edited in order to illustrate the story but without including graphic detail. In those circumstances, it does not consider that a specific warning relating to this footage was necessary, particularly as the subject matter of the programme was made clear at the outset. As a further observation, it notes that the footage comprised but a small proportion of the total programme.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
21 October 1999

Appendix

The Authority received and considered the following correspondence when it determined this complaint:

i)    Joanne Walker’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 28 July 1999

ii)   TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 August 1999

iii)   Ms Walker’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 1 September 1999

iv)   TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 9 September 1999