Shrapnell and Boock and TV3 Network Services Ltd

Shrapnell and Boock and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1996-052, 1996-053

Dated

16 May 1996

Complainant

John Shrapnell, Clive Boock

Number

1996-052–053

Programme

3 National News

Broadcaster

TV3 Network Services Ltd

Channel/Station

TV3

Standards

Standards Breached

Summary

The public execution in China of a group of men described as criminals was broadcast

on 3 National News on TV3 just after 6.00pm on 25 October 1995.

Mr Shrapnell and Mr Boock complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster,

that it had not discharged its duty to be mindful about what material was broadcast

during hours when children would be watching. In their view the prior warning given

by the newsreader that the scenes would be disturbing did not relieve the broadcaster of

its obligation.

When TV3 failed to respond to his complaint within the statutory time period, Mr

Shrapnell referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

TV3 responded to Mr Boock that its decision to screen the item was justified because of

the significant human rights issue which it illustrated. It also noted that a clear warning

about the content of the item was given and sufficient time to allow viewers to decide

whether children should watch. It denied it was being sensationalist and declined to

uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Boock referred it to the

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaints.

Decision

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

correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

An item broadcast soon after 6.00pm on 3 National News by TV3 on 25 October 1995

showed the public execution, by firing squad in China, of a group of men described as

criminals. As well as the initial execution, the item showed the administration of a final

shot to the head. The accompanying commentary described what was happening.

Mr Shrapnell and Mr Boock complained to TV3 that the item breached the Codes of

Practice and the Broadcasting Act because the broadcaster did not exercise care over

material broadcast during hours when children would be watching. Mr Boock also

pointed out that the item was not about an event that had occurred that day or even that

week and that therefore there was no urgency to broadcast it at that early hour. Mr

Shrapnell argued that the item breached the Violence Code. In his view, the prior

warning given by the newsreader that the item would be disturbing did not relieve TV3

of its obligation to take care.

TV3 considered the complaints under standard V16 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, which reads:

V16 Broadcasters must be mindful of the effect any programme, including

trailers, may have on children during their generally accepted viewing

periods, usually up to 8.30pm, and avoid screening material which

could unnecessarily disturb or alarm children.

It advised that its decision to show the item was made in consultation with its senior

editorial staff who concluded that the issue of human rights in China was significant

enough to show the item in full. It noted that the item pointed out that 70 per cent of the

world's executions occur in China, which indicated that it was seriously out of line with

the rest of the world. TV3 advised that it also took into account the fact that the

executions were not shown close-up; that they were screened near the end of the item,

thus giving parents an opportunity to supervise children; and that "the world's major

broadcaster", ABC, had shown the item in its entirety on the early evening news.

TV3 also pointed out that its introductory statement made clear that it was going to

screen scenes of the death penalty being administered, and that the pictures would be

shocking to some viewers. It considered it worth noting that since the story was

screened, human rights abuses had come under greater media attention. It denied that it

was attempting to be sensationalist or to gain viewer attention by showing scenes of

violence.

The Authority accepts that it is justifiable journalistically to show the footage of the

executions because it helps viewers to understand the gravity of human rights abuses in

China, and the reality of executions. It agrees that the footage was indeed compelling

television. However, it decides that, in spite of the warning given in the item's

introduction, it was unsuitable for screening so early in the evening, when families were

watching television. It considers the placement in the early minutes of the news hour an

error of judgment, particularly since the execution had not happened that day, nor even

possibly that week, and there was no necessity to carry it as one of the lead stories. It

upholds the complaint that the item breaches standard V16.

In addition, the Authority considers the complaint should have been assessed under

standard V12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard reads:

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:

- ill-treatment of people or animals

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

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

- violence directed at children or children in distress

Material shown in late evening may be more graphic than that shown during

general viewing times.

The Authority accordingly referred the complaints back to TV3 and asked for its

response in respect of standard V12.

TV3 accepted that the material clearly fell within the parameters of standard V12 and

advised that it considered a number of factors in reaching its decision that the standard

was not breached.

First, it argued that the scenes were topical. It noted that the item did not make clear the

exact time of the trial and execution of the prisoners, but that the footage had been

released on, or just before, the day the material was broadcast. It also regarded as

relevant the close trade and other ties New Zealand has with China, and appropriate that

New Zealanders be informed of China's attitude to human rights and international

opinion. TV3 noted that of the item's 1 minute and 26 seconds' duration, the execution

occupied only about 10 seconds, and was recorded in a wide shot which did not reveal

identifiable people. Next, TV3 considered the warning which, it noted, was clear to

viewers and that sufficient time was given for them to act on that warning.

Finally, TV3 observed that its decision to screen the item was made carefully and with

consideration of the possible impact on all viewers. It felt that the images were not used

in a sensationalist or gratuitous manner and that viewers would have had sufficient time

to exercise their discretion.

The Authority notes that when screening items containing disturbing images, such as

those specifically identified in standard V12, the broadcaster is obliged to take particular

care. It also notes that the standard recognises that material shown late in the evening

may be more graphic than that shown during general viewing times.

The Authority agrees with TV3 that New Zealand viewers should be informed of human

rights abuses in China. However, it considers that, in spite of the warning which

advised viewers of the content, the footage of the prisoners being shot was too graphic

and disturbing to be broadcast on early evening television. Accordingly, it upholds the

complaint that standard V12 is breached.

For the reasons above, the Authority upholds the complaint that TV3

Network Service Ltd's broadcast of an item on 3 National News on 25

October 1995 breached standards V12 and V16 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority does not intend to do so on this occasion. It

considers the broadcaster's error in judgment was not sufficient to warrant an order and

notes in particular that a clear warning was given.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
16 May 1996

Appendix I

John Shrapnell's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 25 October

1995

An item screened just after 6.00pm on 3 National News showed the public execution of

a group of criminals in China. Mr John Shrapnell of Wellington complained that in

spite of the newsreader's warning that the scenes were disturbing, the item should not

have been broadcast at a time when children were watching. He wrote:

The item not only showed graphic pictures of the initial execution by firing

squad but also the administration of the coup de grace by a shot in the head.

The accompanying voice over described what was happening.

As a former television journalist, Mr Shrapnell said that he appreciated that there was a

duty to present unpalatable images that were relevant to society, but in his view, they

should be restricted to adult viewing hours. He also believed the violence portrayed

breached the requirements in the Broadcasting Act and the Codes.

Mr Shrapnell argued that the event portrayed was not a significant news event such as

the massacre at Tienamin Square, but was a regular event because a large number of

people are executed in this way in China each year. He suggested that the item was

therefore included not because it was news, but because it had "good pictures" and

concluded:

Throughout the 25 years I spent in the industry it was accepted that pictures of

a human being during the instance of death were totally unacceptable. I

distinctly remember the furore that hit the American news media when a

network showed a Vietnamese police chief summarily executing a Vietcong

suspect with a pistol in the streets of Saigon.

TV3's Response to the Complaint - 30 October 1995

In a brief response, TV3 advised that it was considering the complaint under standard

V16 and that a formal response was forthcoming.

Mr Shrapnell's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 7

February 1996

After 60 working days had elapsed, and he had received no response from TV3, Mr

Shrapnell referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

Referring to TV3's advice that it was considering the complaint under standard V16

(disturbing or alarming children), Mr Shrapnell wrote that he believed the complaint

should also be considered under the violence standards.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 February 1996

TV3 advised that it had considered the complaint under standard V16 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It noted that its director of News and Current Affairs and other editorial staff had made

the decision to show the execution scenes because they decided the issue of human

rights in China was significant enough to show the item (prepared by an ABC reporter)

in full. It noted that the item pointed out that 70% of the world's executions occurred in

China. It advised that in making the decision to screen the item it took into account:

1. The actual executions, though graphic, were not shown in close up.

2. The executions were at the end of the item allowing plenty of time for

concerned parents to supervise or momentarily switch off the television

set.

3. The world's major news broadcaster, ABC had also decided the issue

was significant enough to show in its early evening bulletin.

TV3 noted that the introduction to the item provided an appropriate warning and made

clear that it was going to include scenes of the death penalty being carried out and that

the pictures would be shocking to some viewers. It added that viewers had about 40

seconds to decide whether they or their children should continue watching.

Since that story screened, it continued, human rights abuses in China had received

increasing attention from the media. It denied that its decision to screen the item was an

attempt to be sensationalist or to gain viewer attention.

Mr Shrapnell's Referral to the Authority - 19 February 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response to the complaint, Mr Shrapnell referred it to the

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

He observed that TV3 seemed to think it could break the rules as long as it told viewers

it was about to do so. He considered that parents should feel safe allowing their

children to watch television before 8.30pm because it was children's viewing time.

In making the warning that it would shock viewers, Mr Shrapnell wrote that the

common sense understanding of that warning was that it would shock adult viewers.

He added if that were true, it would be even more shocking to children.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 28 February 1996

In its brief response, TV3 advised that it had no further comment to make.

Further Correspondence

The Authority considered that TV3 should have assessed the complaint under standard

V12 as well as standard V16. In a letter dated 28 March 1996, it sought TV3's

comments under standard V12.

TV3's response was dated 16 April. It advised that it accepted that the material clearly

fell within the parameters of standard V12, particularly the sub-clause which reads:

- views of people in extreme pain or distress, or at the moment of death.

In determining whether or not the broadcast breached the standard, TV3 reported that it

considered a number of factors. The first was topicality. It noted that the item did not

make clear the exact time of the trial, the sentencing and execution of the prisoners.

However it wrote, the release of the material and the response of the Chinese president

to the UN all happened on, or just before, the day of the broadcast.

Secondly, it argued that the item was relevant in light of New Zealand's trade and other

ties with China. TV3 considered it appropriate that New Zealanders be informed of

China's human rights attitude.

Turning to the content, TV3 noted that the item, excluding the introduction, was 1

minute 26 seconds in duration. Of that, the execution occupied about 10 seconds. It

wrote:

The execution images were recorded in what can best be described as a wide

shot. There were no zooms into the bodies or faces of those executed. The

images were not cut to create a sequence. None of the executed were readily

identifiable and facial expressions were not apparent.

Leaving aside the question of whether the item should have been screened at all,

the Complaints Committee considers the presentation, editing and duration of

the material to be appropriate.

With respect to the warning given about the item, TV3 argued that the warning was

clear to viewers and sufficient time was allowed to enable them to act on that warning.

Finally, TV3 pointed out that its decision to screen at the time was not made lightly or

without consideration of the possible impact on all viewers. It concluded that the

images were not used in a sensationalist or gratuitous manner and because there was a

clear and unequivocal warning, viewers would have had time to exercise their

discretion. It maintained the item did not breach standard V12.

Appendix II

Clive Boock's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 26 October

1995

Mr Boock of Dunedin complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that its broadcast of an

item on 3 National News on 25 October 1995 just after 6.00pm breached broadcasting

standards.

He noted that the item showed 11 people being forced to kneel down and being shot in

the backs of their heads. It then showed another two shots being fired into the bodies to

ensure that they were dead. Accompanying that graphic depiction were interviews with

concerned groups about the number of executions being carried out in China.

Mr Boock's complaint was that the item was the second story on the early evening

news. He wrote:

The newsreader warned viewers that the item contained scenes of violence and

that the content may offend some viewers but I do not believe that scenes of

mass execution should ever be shown at times when children may be joining

their parents to watch items of importance and interest. The item in question

was not about an event which had occurred that day, or probably even that

week, so any sense of urgency in showing an item such as this does not apply.

Acknowledging that state execution was abhorrent and needed to be protested against,

Mr Boock maintained that it was unacceptable to include that footage during an early

evening news bulletin. He suggested that TV3 apologise to its viewers and ensure that

"this sensationalist style of news item is not gratuitously used to gain viewer attention."

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 February 1996

TV3 advised that its director of News and Current Affairs and other editorial staff had

made the decision to show the execution scenes because they decided the issue of

human rights in China was significant enough to show the item (prepared by an ABC

reporter) in full. It noted that the item pointed out that 70% of the world's executions

occurred in China. It advised that in making the decision to screen the item it took into

account: