BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The following sequence of films was shown on TV2 at 8.30pm from Saturday 18–

Wednesday 22 February: The Untouchables, You Only Live Twice, Iron Eagle II,

Blade runner and X-Files. The first four were trailered in a promo entitled The Boys are Back in Town.

Marion Hancock complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, first, about the violence

in one specific scene and, generally, the excessive violence in The Untouchables,

secondly, about the violence shown in the extracts included in the promo, and thirdly,

the cumulative effect of the violence in the films screened on consecutive nights.

While denying that each film individually breached any of the standards, TVNZ

upheld the complaint that the "macho" style of the promo could give the impression

of excessive violence. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold the entire

complaint, Ms Hancock referred the aspects not upheld to the Broadcasting Standards

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

For the reasons below, a majority of the Authority upheld the complaint about the

excessive violence in The Untouchables broadcast at 8.30pm and, unanimously,

upheld the complaint about the promo. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the

complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed each of the programmes referred to in the

complaint and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its

practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

The programmes

The Boys are Back in Town was the title of a promo screened on TV2 on a number of

occasions promoting a series of films to be broadcast at 8.30 during the following

week. The series included The Untouchables (shown at 8.30pm on 18 February), You

Only Live Twice (8.30pm on 19 February), Iron Eagle (8.30pm on 20 February) and

Bladerunner (8.30pm on 21 February). At 8.30pm on 22 February (Wednesday), an

episode of X-Files was screened.

The complaint

Ms Marion Hancock of Auckland complained to TVNZ about three matters. First,

she maintained that because of the amount of violence it contained, The Untouchables

in itself breached the specific standards in the Violence Code. Secondly, she argued

that the violent extracts contained in the promo breached the standards. Thirdly, she

alleged that the screening of the films on four successive nights and X-Files on the fifth

contravened the standard relating to the cumulative effect of violence.

Ms Hancock noted that she was co-chair of Media Aware but in her later

correspondence stated explicitly that her complaint was a personal one.

The standards and classifications

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the two nominated standards in the violence code

(V2 and V10) but, with regard to the contents of the promo, substituted standard G24

for the one (G23) cited by Ms Hancock. She later acknowledged that standard G24

was the correct one and it reads:

G24 Broadcasters must be mindful that scenes containing incidents of violence

or other explicit material may be acceptable when seen in the total context

of the programme, but when extracted for promotion purposes such

incidents will be seen out of context and may thereby be unacceptable, not

only in terms of the codes but also for the time band during which the

trailer is placed.

The violence standards nominated by Ms Hancock state:

V2  When obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve heightened impact,

realistic violence – as distinct from farcical violence – must be avoided.

V10 The cumulative or overall effect of violent incidents and themes in a single

programme, a programme series or a line-up of programmes back to back,

must avoid giving an impression of excessive violence.

TVNZ began by pointing out that all five programmes were shown in "AO" time and

all carried "AO" certificates. The classification records:

Adults Only - AO

Programmes containing adult themes or those which, because of the way the

material is handled, would be unsuitable for persons under 18 years of age.

"AO" programmes are restricted to screening between midday and 3pm on

weekdays (except during school and public holidays) and after 8.30pm until 5am.

With regard to violence, the "AO" classification is expanded and it states:

Adults Only - AO

Realistic portrayals of incidents, where violence of a physical, psychological or

verbal nature is called for in the context of the story line, are permitted provided

they are not unduly prolonged, unduly bloody or horrific. Rape scenes should

be insinuated in preference to explicit depiction. Gratuitous violence is not

sanctioned except in so far as it may be farcical and is devised for comic or

slapstick effect.

Scenes depicting in undue detail ill-treatment of people and animals are generally

unacceptable. If a story line requires such scenes they must be conveyed with

brevity.

Strong language in proper context with any story line calling for violent

confrontations can only be acceptable if used sparingly. Expletives, when used

in situations where there may be clear justification or in an historic context, may

be sanctioned. However usually they are capable of causing unnecessary viewer

upset and should be avoided.

The broadcaster's response to the complainant

Acknowledging to Ms Hancock that each programme would be unsuitable for viewers

under the age of 18 years, TVNZ argued that none would harm viewers over that age.

It then proceeded to give a brief summary of each programme in which it emphasised

the fantasy elements of You Only Live Twice, Bladerunner and X-Files. That

description, it added, was also relevant to Iron Eagle II which involved war games

between former enemies and an unidentified foe using Migs and F1 11s. The

Untouchables, TVNZ explained, was a development of a popular television series in

which a naive Federal agent, Elliot Ness, battled the Chicago underworld in the days of

Al Capone. Sean Connery, as a law enforcement officer, won an Oscar for his

performance and, TVNZ argued:

An audience of 18 and over is familiar with the Al Capone legend and, we

suggest, would not be surprised or distressed by the violent incidents that occur.

TVNZ repeated the point that each programme had an "AO" certificate and argued

that some violent behaviour, as the Code acknowledged, was acceptable in the cause of

"good story telling".

However, TVNZ continued, it was concerned about the "macho" title of the promo –

The Boys are Back in Town – under which the series was promoted. Although it

might have been inadvertent, it concluded that the macho manner in which the series

was promoted amounted to a breach of standard V10.

In her specific complaint about The Untouchables, Ms Hancock had referred to one

specific scene where the character played by Sean Connery fires his gun into the

mouth of an already dead man. TVNZ argued that the scene was essential to plot

development and because it was shown mostly in the reaction of the other characters,

it did not transgress standard V2.

With regard to the standard G24 complaint about the violence shown in the promo,

TVNZ said it reflected the adult action nature of the film and as it was shown in

"AO" time, it did not breach that standard.

The referral of the complaint to the Authority

While expressing her appreciation, first, with the speed with which TVNZ had

handled her complaint, and secondly, that the complaint about the trailer had been

upheld under standard V10, Ms Hancock expressed surprise that the complaint about

the trailer had not been upheld under standard G24 as well.

She also argued that the "AO" certificate in itself did not remove the broadcaster's

responsibility to acknowledge the likely viewers adding:

Yes, this is an issue of parental responsibility but it is also an issue of

community and broadcaster responsibility. So my concerns relating to The

Untouchables in particular and the line-up in general, remain.

As for the Sean Connery corpse shooting incident, Ms Hancock acknowledged that it

was pivotal to the plot but if it could not be at least partially cut, "then the film is not

suitable for screening according to the current codes". Describing herself as not a

particularly squeamish person, Ms Hancock said that the incident was horrific and

maintained that the film breached standards V2 and V10.

The broadcaster's response to the Authority

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ explained that it had upheld the complaint about

the promo under standard V10 because "a hyped-up, macho image to the programmes

could have given the impression of excessive violence". That image was incorrect,

TVNZ added, when each programme was examined individually.

As for Ms Hancock's comments on programme classifications, TVNZ insisted that it

took the requirements seriously but if it was to prepare schedules on the basis that

children might be watching at any time, the classifications would become meaningless.

It argued:

We submit that the broadcaster's obligation in this area is to advise viewers of

the classification of programmes so that parental responsibility can come into

play in deciding whether younger members of the family should be viewing.

As for the specific corpse shooting scene in The Untouchables, TVNZ said different

people were affected in different ways but it did not accept that a complaint should be

upheld simply because a single sequence was distasteful to one group of viewers.

In her final comment, Ms Hancock argued that TVNZ had not addressed her

complaint about the promo under standard G24. Moreover, she said, the "line-up on

successive nights of these programmes" contravened standard V10. She acknowledged

that the programmes were screened during the "AO" time slot but, she stressed, the

codes also applied to "AO" programmes.

The Authority's findings

As has occurred on a number of occasions when dealing with complaints about the

violence contained in films and other programmes, TVNZ has referred to the

introduction of the Violence Code where it is stated:

It is important, nevertheless, to recognise that conflict and tension are a part of

life and literature. Some of the greatest works of literature, music and film-

making – crafts of which television is an extension – depend to a greater or lesser

extent on conflict and sometimes violence is part of that conflict. Through such

conflict some of the great ideas, concepts and perceptions of our culture have

found expression. Conflict appropriately handled can be constructive and

television entirely without conflict would be bland. Furthermore, some of the

violent behaviour on television is in essence the reflection of real life and good

story telling.

It is a statement in the code prepared by the Authority in consultation with the

broadcasters from which the Authority does not resile. However, it is a statement

which must be seen within the context of the total Introduction. Rather than record it

in full, the Authority believes that it is appropriate to record the paragraphs preceding

and following the one above. They state:

Viewers inevitably have varied perceptions of violence and, indeed, what in fact

is "violence". There are however, expressions of public concern in New Zealand

and world wide about the amount of violence on television and some research

indicates a link between prolonged viewing of excessive violence and violent

behaviour. Frequent viewing of violence may desensitise viewers to the horrors

of violence, increase their feelings of helplessness and fear, and promote the use

of violence to resolve conflict.

...

Despite this, broadcasters must ensure that programmes are free of all forms of

gratuitous violence, be it explicit or implied. Violence must not be portrayed as

acceptable or glamorised. For example, care should be taken to avoid showing

heroes or the "goodies" as the perpetrators of excessive violence. If an act of

realistic violence is shown, its serious consequences should not be glossed over,

ie, a severe blow to the head should not be portrayed as a momentary irritation.

Bearing in mind the full Introduction, the Authority proceeded to assess the complaint

that the series breached standard V10.

1. The series – standard V10

In assessing the complaint, the Authority first examined the programmes referred to in

the complaint. It began by putting The Untouchables to one side in view of the

specific matters about this film made in the complaint.

As for the other films, You Only Live Twice, Iron Eagle II and Bladerunner, and the

episode of the X-Files complained about, the Authority considered that they were

relatively harmless action films. Although action – including violent action – featured

as a major component of each of the programmes, in the Authority's opinion it was

violence which would not have a deep emotional impact on an adult viewer. It

contained, as TVNZ explained, substantial elements of fantasy. Moreover, the

Authority noted that You Only Live Twice, a James Bond film from the 1960s, was

very dated to the extent that it had almost become a parody of the violent theme it

supposedly contained.

The Authority accepted that each of these programmes was entertainment in the

action genre. They were classified "AO" and screened, as appropriate, in the "AO"

timeslot. Because of the shallowness and predictable nature of the violence, the

Authority concluded that it would have had minimal impact on the viewer and did not

give the impression of excessive violence in contravention of standard V10.

The Authority then proceeded to assess the complaint that The Untouchables

breached standards V2 and V10.

2. The Untouchables – standards V2 and V10

From the outset, the Authority noted that this film clearly differed from the other

programmes complained about. It was not set in some exotic place or at a time which

was of minimal relevance. Rather, it was set in Chicago during the prohibition era – a

period in American history which is reasonably well-known and, unlike the other

programmes, it was clearly embedded in reality. Moreover, TVNZ argued, it was a

high-quality drama for which actor Sean Connery won an Oscar.

The complainant referred to the scene in which a corpse was shot in the mouth as a

breach of standard V2 which, TVNZ replied, was a pivotal point in the plot. While

being unconvinced that the violence in that scene was gratuitous – as required in order

to breach standard V2 – the Authority noted that it was a particularly violent incident.

Furthermore, it was by no means the only violent incident given that the film had a

theme of violence. It included some scenes in which the violence shown featured as a

striking visual aspect. These included the scene in a lift when two people were shot,

the lengthy sequence where the character played by Sean Connery was shot and

killed, the subsequent scene in the railway station where the "book-keeper" was

captured and the lengthy scene on the courthouse roof involving Elliot Ness and Frank

Nitty which concluded with Ness throwing Nitty off the roof-top. That was

followed by a close shot of the body below.

The Authority considered carefully the aspect of the complaint which alleged that the

film breached standards V2 and V10. As with the corpse shooting scene mentioned

above, the Authority was not convinced that - in the words of standard V2 - any of

the scenes noted had been "obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve

heightened impact". Accordingly, it decided standard V2 had not been contravened.

Standard V10 states that, in a single programme, the "cumulative effect of violent

incidents ... must avoid giving an impression of excessive violence". Taking into

account the point that the incidents noted above were contained in a film – The

Untouchables – to illustrate the theme that extreme violence could only be countered

by even more extreme violence, a majority of the Authority was inclined to the view

that standard V10 had been breached.

The fact that the film had been screened at 8.30pm meant that, to the majority, the

recurrence of violence was even more significant.

3. The watershed

Ms Hancock argued that broadcasters had to acknowledge the fact that young people,

especially during weekends, did not stop viewing at 8.30pm. (The Untouchables was

screened at 8.30pm on a Saturday evening.) TVNZ replied by pointing out that

parents must take some responsibility for the viewing by young people when "AO"

programmes are broadcast in "AO" time.

The Authority considers that there is validity in both arguments and emphasises that

broadcasters have recognised that 8.30pm is not an absolute barrier when they

concurred with standards G23 and V17. They read:

G23 Discretion should be used in the placement of AO classified promotions

screened during PGR programmes which are broadcast in AO time bands.

If the PGR programme is one which is aimed at the family audience, and

commences at or continues transmission beyond 8.30pm, then it should

carry only PGR classified promos. PGR programmes screening during

daytime weekday AO time bands and those which commence at 9.00pm

or after may carry AO promotions.

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.

The Authority has raised this point as it acknowledges TVNZ's argument that some

action films – involving realistic violence – enjoy immense popularity. At the same

time it believed that Ms Hancock had raised an important issue when, in referring to

the corpse shooting scene, she argued that if it could not be cut then the full film

should not be shown. To the Authority, this difference in views can possibly be

accommodated by screening action films, which could be in breach of the standards

relating to violence if shown immediately after the 8.30pm watershed, at a later time.

The hour of screening, the Authority observed, is not relevant in deciding whether

standard V2 has been breached, as the gratuitous use of realistic violence for the

purposes of heightened impact is not acceptable at any hour. However, in deciding

whether, as required by standard V10, an "impression of excessive violence" is

conveyed the Authority must have regard to context which can include the hour at

which the film – or the violent sequences – are screened.

Taking these matters into account, the Authority was divided in its decision as to

whether The Untouchables breached the requirement in standard V10 that the

cumulative effect of the violent incidents must not give the impression of excessive

violence.

A majority of the Authority decided that it did breach the standard because of the

repetitive incidents of realistic violence in a film with a violent theme which in

addition was shown at 8.30pm.

A minority disagreed. While not taking issue with the number and type of the

incidents portrayed or with the film's theme, the minority considered that there were

additional relevant matters. Those, it stated, were the points that the film was

obviously historical, that it recorded the violence of the prohibition era in Chicago in

an apparently realistic way and that it contained an obvious moral perspective about

the necessity of the law enforcement officers' approach. Also the film had been in

circulation for some years and was now a mainstream example of the genre. Taking

those matters into consideration, the minority did not accept that standard V10 had

been contravened.

4. The promo – standard G24

The last aspect of the complaint which was referred to the Authority was whether the

promo contravened standard G24. (TVNZ had upheld the broadcast as a breach of

standard V10.) It involved examining the promo under the standard to see whether the

material contained in the promo was taken out of context. Although the promo

referred to a series of action films, the action each contained was not the only aspect

of each film. However, as the promo suggested, in the Authority's opinion, that

violent action was the dominant, if not the sole, aspect of each of the films, the

Authority had little hesitation in upholding the broadcast of the promo as a breach of

standard G24.

For the above reasons, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that

the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of the film The Untouchables at

8.30pm on Saturday 18 February 1994 breached standard V10 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority unanimously upholds the complaint that the broadcast of the

promo entitled The Boys are Back in Town on a number of occasions in "AO"

time was in breach of standard G24.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

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

Act. It does not intend to do so for the following reasons.

In recent weeks, the Authority has been required to determine complaints about the

violence contained in a number of programmes broadcast at 8.30pm on TV2. In

addition to the programmes to which Ms Hancock referred, it has determined

complaints about Murder in the Heartland (No: 42/95), The Accused (No: 41/95), X-

Files (No: 40/95) and American Ninja 3: Blood Hunt (No: 50/95).

The Authority upheld the complaint about Murder in the Heartland under standard

V10 but has declined to uphold the others. Because of the large amount of seemingly

continuous explicit and realistic violence in Murder in the Heartland, the Authority

considered that it should not have been shown at all.

The decision regarding the 8.30pm watershed has been a point raised by the

complainant on each occasion but, in view of its approach to each complaint, the

Authority has not discussed the issue at length. Indeed The Untouchables is the first

in which the Authority has dealt specifically with the point of whether or not it was

acceptable for screening at 8.30pm.

As explained above, a majority of the Authority has upheld the complaint about The

Untouchables under standard V10, giving an impression of excessive violence, and has

stated that the film should not have been screened at 8.30pm. Such a programme, it

added, might be acceptable later in the evening however. As the Authority considers

that this decision will be used by broadcasters in future scheduling decisions, it

believes that an order on this occasion is not appropriate.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
6 July 1995

Appendix

Marion Hancock's Formal Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 5

March 1995

Acknowledging her position as co-chair of Media Aware although later explaining

explicitly that her complaint was a personal one, Ms Marion Hancock of Auckland

complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the screening of the film The

Untouchables at 8.30pm on TV2 on 18 February 1995. She also complained about a

trailer which promoted the movies scheduled to be screened on the 19th, 20th and

21st February in the 8.30pm timeslot on TV2. The third part of her complaint

focussed on the cumulative effect of this line up of violent feature films on four

successive nights during the 8:30pm timeslot.

Ms Hancock commented that the screening of The Untouchables contravened

standards V2 and V10 of the Television Code. Regarding the contravention of

standard V2, Ms Hancock referred particularly to a scene in which Sean Connery

picked up a corpse, placed his gun in its mouth and shot the back of its head off.

Standard V10 was contravened because of the overall effect of the violent incidents in

the film which, she claimed, gave an impression of excessive violence.

Referring to the trailer, which screened during the broadcast of The Untouchables, Ms

Hancock wrote that this trailer/promotion had contravened standard G23 by

deliberately extracting and using violent scenes from upcoming films. Moreover, the

voice-over had also focussed on violence and had intensified the overall violent effect

of the trailer by saying:

Passion comes hot and murder comes easy.

Regarding the line-up of violent films shown on four successive nights at 8.30pm, and

including The X-Files broadcast on the 5th night, Ms Hancock stated that this was a

contravention of V10 since the cumulative effect was certainly of excessive violence.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 24 March 1995

TVNZ advised Marion Hancock that her complaint in respect to the violence in the

films The Untouchables, You Only Live Twice, Iron Eagle II, Bladerunner, an episode

of the X-Files and the promo for the first four films noted above, had been assessed

under standards G24, V2 and V10 of the Programme Standards.

Noting that the five programmes carried "AO" classifications, TVNZ emphasised that

the films were clearly shown in adults' viewing time. TVNZ had an obligation to

provide entertainment suited to an adult audience, it said, and there could be no doubt

that the blockbuster genre which the films represented enjoyed immense popularity.

In considering whether or not it was appropriate to run the films at 8.30pm, TVNZ

believed that because of the way the storyline was handled in each of the films, they

would be unsuitable for viewers under 18 years of age. However, TVNZ also believed

that taken individually the films did not contain material which would harm viewers

who were 18 years of age or older.

TVNZ described briefly the plot and the violent aspect of each film and repeated that,

in its opinion, the films taken individually did not threaten harm to the adult audience

at whom they were directed. It also believed that viewers had some responsibility to

take note of "AO" classifications and pointed out that the 8.30pm "watershed" was

now long established and well understood.

Agreeing with the Broadcasting Standards Authority's view (contained in the

introduction to the standards dealing with violence) that "some of the violent

behaviour on television is in essence the reflection of ... good story telling", TVNZ

emphasised again that, individually, the programmes had not breached the violence

standards.

Moving on to the complaint about the trailer, TVNZ said it was concerned that the

films had been promoted as a series under the "macho" title - The Boys are Back in

Town. It advised that the matter had been discussed with the Programme Department

and agreed with the complainant that, by promoting several action-style films as a

programme series and in a "macho" manner, TVNZ had inadvertently breached

standard V10.

Referring to the standard V2 complaint about the scene in The Untouchables, TVNZ

noted that the horror of the moment was reflected mostly in the reaction of the

characters present in the scene. Claiming also that it was a powerful moment in the

film and important to the development of the plot, TVNZ said it did not believe that

it was gratuitous and therefore had not breached V2.

With regard to the promo and standard G24, TVNZ claimed that because the promo

was shown in "AO" time the standard had not been breached.

In summary, TVNZ said that standard V10 had been breached in regard to the promo

because "of the strain" that was placed "on the cumulative impact in V10" but the

complaint regarding alleged breaches of standards V2 and G24 had not been upheld.

Ms Hancock's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 9 April

1995

When referring her formal complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989, Marion Hancock said that she was pleased that one of the

three sections of her complaint had been upheld although she was a little baffled by

the reasoning involved and by the standard under which the complaint had been

upheld. She asked the Authority to investigate the two sections of her complaint

which had not been upheld.

She also said she was pleased by the prompt attention that her complaint had received

and trusted that this was an example of the speedier handling of complaints by TVNZ

and that its action had not been influenced by her involvement with Media Aware.

In a letter of the same date to TVNZ, she expressed the opinion that the promo also

breached standard G24 because the extracts shown seemed to have been chosen for

their violent impact and gave an impression of excessive violence.

As for the films themselves, she acknowledged that they had been shown during an

AO time slot but, she contended:

However, the codes in question, whilst giving particular consideration to the

dangers of the effects of violent entertainment on young people and their

particular viewing times, do not exempt AO programmes and time slots. I

would also repeat what we have said before about the likelihood of older children

(and probably quite a few younger ones) being in front of television sets and viewing

programs commencing at 8.30pm especially at the weekends. Yes, this is an

issue of parental responsibility but it is also an issue of community and

broadcaster responsibility. So my concerns relating to "The Untouchables" in

particular and the line-up in general, remain.

She agreed with TVNZ that the Sean Connery corpse shooting scene was pivotal but,

if it could not be cut at least partially, she said, the film was not suitable for screening

under the current standards. The act itself was horrific and, she argued, the screening

of the film breached standards V2 and V10.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 3 May 1995

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said that it was sorry to read that it had not

adequately explained its reasons for upholding the complaint concerning the

promotion.

TVNZ believed that individually the films were not in breach of the standard

concerning cumulative violence. However, it acknowledged that the portrayal of the

films as a series under the banner The Boys are Back in Town had "inadvertently

added a hyped-up, macho image" to the programmes which could have given an

impression of excessive violence. Despite the decision on the promo, TVNZ

maintained that the impression of violence was not found when the programmes were

examined one-by-one.

Turning to Ms Hancock's letter of 9 April to TVNZ, the broadcaster noted her view

that "older children (and quite a few younger ones)" were likely to be watching

television at 8.30pm. It submitted nevertheless that if it were to prepare its schedules

on the basis that children might be watching at any time of the day, the Television

Programme Classifications would become meaningless. It maintained:

We submit that the broadcaster's obligation in this area is to advise viewers of

the classification of programmes so that parental responsibility can come into

play in deciding whether younger members of the family should be viewing.

While it respected the efforts of Media Aware to protect the interests of children,

TVNZ maintained that television also had an obligation to provide entertainment for

adult viewers and that the use of the "AO" classification symbol provided that

opportunity. It added:

We do not believe that a classic movie such as "You Only Live Twice" should

be denied adult viewers - nor should they be prevented from watching an Oscar

winning performance in "The Untouchables'.

Referring to the shooting incident in The Untouchables, TVNZ observed that different

incidents affected different people in different ways and that a case could not be made

for a complaint to be upheld simply on the basis of a single sequence being distasteful

to one group of viewers.

Ms Hancock's Final Comment - 16 May 1995

In her response to TVNZ, Ms Hancock maintained that The Untouchables breached

standards V2 and V10. The cumulative violence contravened V10 and the scene where

a corpse's head was shot off transgressed V2.

As for the promo and while appreciating TVNZ's decision with regard to the

contravention of standard V10, Ms Hancock argued that TVNZ did not address the

issue of the selection of excerpts used which, she had complained, breached standard

G24. (TVNZ had been correct, she noted, to refer to G24 and not G23 to which she

had referred initially.) By its decision, she stated, TVNZ had shown that it had not

considered the complaint about selecting the more violent incidents for publicity

purposes. She said:

Whilst I am pleased that their intention is not to promote such a line-up as a

series again, I am still concerned about the selection of excerpts which I strongly

hold contravened G24.

She also sought the Authority's ruling that a similar series as the one complained

about- whether described as such - would also be in breach of standard V10.

As for TVNZ's insistence that the programmes were classified as "AO", Ms Hancock

wrote:

I fully accept that they all screened during the AO programming time but these

codes were designed to apply to AO programming. I therefore find the

argument specious, perplexing and somewhat disturbing.

She repeated that she was impressed with the speed with which TVNZ had

responded to the complaint.