BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An American documentary entitled Scared Straight – 20 Years On was broadcast by TV3 on 12 July 1999 at 8.30pm. It examined a rehabilitation programme for youthful offenders which was based on behaviour modification. The programme was trialled in the 1970s, and 20 years later some of those participants were asked about their experiences on the course and how they had lived their lives since then.

James Whitham complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme condoned violence and encouraged intimidating and threatening behaviour. He contended that it had breached a number of broadcasting standards.

TV3 responded by noting that the behaviour modification programme had been used successfully in America to help teenage offenders. In the context of an AO programme, which had been preceded by a verbal and written warning relating to language, TV3 maintained that no standards had been breached.

Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, Mr Whitham referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to determine 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 course run in American prisons which aimed to deter young offenders from subsequent criminal behaviour was examined in the documentary Scared Straight – Twenty Years On broadcast on TV3 on 12 July 1999 beginning at 8.30pm. The documentary examined the success of the programme and included interviews with participants who had been part of the initial trial.

James Whitham complained to TV3 that the broadcast breached a number of broadcasting standards. In particular he objected to the use of intimidation and abusive language to modify the young people’s behaviour. He said he considered some of the behaviour to be illegal and therefore unfair to the teenagers who were on the programme. Further, Mr Whitham argued, viewers would have been led to believe that the method employed by the programme was justified as a means of dealing with juvenile offenders. He also contended that the violence shown was not justified and breached standards under the Violence Code.

TV3 examined the complaint under the standards nominated by Mr Whitham. Standards G2, G3, G4, G5, G11 and G13 require 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.

G3  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express opinions.

G11  To refrain from broadcasting any programme which, when considered as a whole:

i)    Simulates news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm viewers.

ii)   Depicts the actual process of putting a subject into a hypnotic state.

iii)   Is designed to induce a hypnotic state in viewers.

iv)  Uses or involves the process known as "subliminal perception" or any other technique which attempts to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal awareness.

G13  To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:

i)    factual, or

ii)    the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or

iii)    in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

G5  To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

The other standards read:

G16  News should not be presented in such a way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

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.

V11  Any realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour, including violent and serious crime and the abuse of liquor and drugs, must not be shown in a way that glamorises the activities.

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.

V17  Scenes and themes dealing with disturbing social and domestic friction or sequences in which people – especially children – or animals may be humiliated or badly treated, should be handled with great care and sensitivity. All gratuitous material of this nature must be avoided and any scenes which are shown must pass the test of relevancy within the context of the programme. If thought likely to disturb children, the programme should be scheduled later in the evening.

TV3 began by explaining that the "Scared Straight" programme had been successfully used in America since the 1970s to help teenage offenders understand the choices they were making and to help them improve their lives. The first part of the documentary showed 17 teenagers who went to a prison in New Jersey to take part in the course. The second part of the programme showed those same people twenty years later and discussed how they had lived their lives since then.

The programme, TV3 noted, was rated as AO and had been preceded by a written and verbal warning relating to the language it contained. When considering the complaint that standard G2 was breached, TV3 noted these contextual points. It also observed:

The "Scared Straight" course involved activities which may not have been appropriate in a normal day-to-day situation, for example prisoners yelling at and intimidating teenagers. However, in the specific context of the "Scared Straight" course where these teenagers were law breakers who had committed offences ranging from burglary to assault and had no regard for their victims and in fact intended to continue offending, the intimidation by the "lifers" was an effective way to illustrate to them that prison was not as attractive as they thought.

In TV3’s view, the material was appropriately screened in the context of an AO programme with a warning for language.

As for the complaint that standard G3 was breached because the young people were not allowed to express their views while they were in prison, TV3 responded that in the prison world, it was not appropriate for them to speak, unless required to. However, it noted, they did have the opportunity to express themselves in the follow-up part of the documentary. It declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

TV3 also rejected the complaint under standard G4 that the participants had not been dealt with fairly. It noted that the participants and the prisoners who attempted to scare them into going straight all spoke very highly of the course.

With respect to the standard G5 complaint, TV3 emphasised that the point of the course at the prison had been to educate young offenders about the consequences of the lifestyles they were leading. They were exposed to seemingly harsh treatment because they were also criminals who intended to continue offending and had expressed little or no feelings for their victims. It noted that the course was of benefit to the whole community because it brought about a change in their attitudes. It therefore declined to uphold this aspect.

TV3 advised that it had found nothing in the programme that used or involved subliminal methods and therefore declined to uphold the standard G11 complaint. It also declined to uphold the G13 complaint, arguing that nothing in the documentary would have led to discrimination against any group. Next it argued that standard G16 was inapplicable.

Turning to the complaints under standards V1 and V2, TV3 maintained that although the behaviour shown could be seen as intimidating, it was essential in the context. It found that the language and scenarios used illustrated the dangers and day-to-day violence which would be encountered in a prison. In the context of an AO programme which contained a warning relating to language, it considered there was no breach of standards.

TV3 rejected the complaint that standard V11 had been breached by the portrayal of realistic anti-social behaviour. It pointed out that the "Scared Straight" course could only have been effective if prison life and behaviour had been de-glamorised in the eyes of the young offenders. To this end, it noted, the behaviour of the "lifers" was intended to be realistic and to create a negative impression on the teenagers.

With respect to the standard V12 complaint, TV3 contended that none of the material was "graphic" or "distressing" for the viewer. It was clear, it said, that the teenagers at whom the course was directed were juvenile criminals who intended to continue offending. It did not consider the material shown was graphic or distressing for the adult viewer and declined to uphold this aspect.

TV3 also rejected the complaint under standard V17. It noted that a clear warning had been given prior to the programme, and argued that the scenes shown which involved the juveniles and the "lifers" were relevant to understanding the nature of the "Scared Straight" course.

Mr Whitham began his referral to the Authority by stating that methods used by the programme to effect behavioural modification – including intimidation and abusive language – were illegal under New Zealand law because they had the potential to cause psychological damage. He contended that "Scared Straight" had the potential to inflict psychological trauma on teens who had not yet attained mental maturity. The programme’s title, he argued, was literally correct, and the juvenile offenders were scared into going straight by the intimidation and persistent threats of physical injury.

Mr Whitham noted that TV3 admitted that the activities featured in the programme were not appropriate in normal daily situations. He suggested that they were not normal in New Zealand’s prisons either. He took issue with TV3’s argument that the behaviour modification programme was necessary to inform juvenile offenders of what life was really like in prison. In Mr Whitham’s view, it was unnecessary for the young offenders to have been subjected to the intimidatory tactics used in order to become informed about prison life. He wrote that TV3 had itself drawn conclusions about what prison was like without having experienced it.

Mr Whitham also objected to TV3’s proposition that the teenagers were given "information" which enabled them to make a choice about their actions. In fact, he said, they were subject to intimidation and abusive language, and were given ultimatums to obey or else were subjected to physical injury or punishment. Mr Whitham contended that such "information" was potentially a dangerous and negative influence on these teenagers, and would encourage them to use such tactics in their own lives. Long term, he argued, there was greater benefit in teaching positive and productive behaviour.

To TV3’s argument under standard G3 that the teenagers on the programme had no right to speak out, Mr Whitham responded that it was clear that there were no guidelines for how they were to be treated and that it was a breach of the standard that they were not given the right to express their own opinions.

Mr Whitham repeated his argument under standard G4 that the teenagers on the course had not been dealt with fairly. He noted that for some of them, the ordeal had not been effective in changing their lifestyle.

Mr Whitham argued that what he called the implementation of illegal methods to modify the offenders’ behaviour did not respect the principles of law in society, and thus breached standard G5.

Next, Mr Whitham contended that the programme had breached standard G11(iv) because it had used subliminal techniques to convey the notion that the means for modifying the young offenders’ behaviour was acceptable. He argued that TV3 should have warned viewers that the behavioural modification programme used illegal methods to effect a change in behaviour, and that such methods were not condoned in New Zealand.

Mr Whitham argued that standard G13 was breached because the abusive and patronising language, and the intimidatory tactics used, portrayed teenagers as inherently inferior. He suggested that the patronising element imposed an inferiority complex on the teenagers. Mr Whitham argued that TV3’s argument that the use of such methods was acceptable in dealing with teenage offenders indicated that it therefore endorsed discrimination.

With respect to the complaint under standard G16, Mr Whitham explained that in his view the documentary was designed to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress so as to justify the approach used in the programme.

Turning next to standard V1, Mr Whitham maintained that as the methods used to achieve behavioural modification were illegal under New Zealand law, the violence shown was not justifiable, nor was it essential in the context of the programme.

Under standard V2, Mr Whitham contended that the violence portrayed had been used to achieve heightened impact, and should have been avoided.

Standard V11 was breached, Mr Whitham argued, because illegal methods had been used to achieve behavioural modification, and therefore the broadcast glamorised the activities of the prison inmates when they intimidated and abused the teenagers.

Next Mr Whitham claimed that standard V12 was breached because no warning was given before or during the programme that the behavioural modification programme used illegal methods to change the behaviour of the young offenders.

Finally, under standard V17, Mr Whitham argued that the broadcast, which showed teenagers being subjected to humiliation and bad treatment, breached the standard. He contended that the behavioural modification programme had the potential to indoctrinate and condition the teenagers to commit physical violence on other children or their peers to gain their control or obedience. He also argued that the programme would have conveyed the belief that the techniques used were acceptable in modern society.

In TV3’s response to the Authority, it suggested that Mr Whitham’s concerns related not to the broadcast or to standards issues, but to the existence of the course itself. It concluded:

Whether or not this type of program/course would be ‘legal’ in New Zealand is irrelevant to this complaint. The broadcast of the television programme did not break any New Zealand law… .

In his final comment, Mr Whitham reiterated that the methods demonstrated on Scared Straight to modify the behaviour of the teenage offenders and which included coercion, undue influence, threats to cause physical injury, duress and intimidation were crimes according to the criminal law of western industrialised countries. He repeated his contention that a number of broadcasting standards had been breached by the broadcast of the documentary.

The Authority’s Findings

Having read the lengthy submissions, the Authority concludes that the essence of Mr Whitham’s complaint is, as TV3 suggests, that he did not approve of the methods used in the behavioural modification course at the prison. In the Authority’s view, this complaint – focussing as it does on a viewer’s preference – does not raise an issue of broadcasting standards.

Accordingly, the Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances, pursuant to s.11 (b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
21 October 1999

Appendix

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

1.    James Whitham’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 20 July 1999

2.    Mr Whitham’s Further Complaint to TV3 – 26 July 1999

3.    TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 17 August 1999

4.    Mr Whitham’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 23 August 1999

5.    TV3’s Response to the Authority – 14 September 1999

6.    Mr Whitham’s Final Comment – 20 September 1999