Some problems with NZ Children's Television
The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (referred
to as the Classification Act) is an Act of Parliament to regulate and classify
films, videos and publications in a way that balances the need for freedom of
expression with the need to protect society from harm. The Classification Act created the New
Zealand Office of Film & Literature Classification and obligated it to
consider social research when making classification decisions and placing age
restrictions on material.
Currently people rely on ratings and classifications to
advise them of the content of publications and to limit access by those under a
specified age to unsuitable material.
The classification system as administered by the Classification Act is
used in pre-release intervention.
However, fast developments in technology are blurring the distinctions
between services that have traditionally been regulated in several different
ways.
The difference between supplying films and broadcasting is
becoming less clear, as satellite and cable broadcasters tailor content to
individual viewers on demand and the line between supplying film and print
publications and broadcasting is becoming blurred because the Internet now has
sufficient capacity to carry real-time video, which can be viewed in the same
way as television can be.
Currently, 'supply' is largely handled by a pre-release
classification system while 'broadcasting' has been handled by a post-broadcast
complaints system. The Department of
Internal Affairs investigates and sometimes prosecutes people who deliberately
collect objectionable material and find ways to distribute it to other people
via the Internet. All parties that are
responsible for the enforcement and compliance of standards for determining if
something is objectionable rely on the framework and definitions in the
Classification Act
The Classification Act repealed its predecessors, the
Indecent Publications Act 1963, the Films Act 1983 and the Video Recordings Act
1987. It consolidated applicable
sections of other Acts[1],
and created the Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC). The OFLC is an independent Crown Entity and
subject to the accountability requirements set by the Crown Entities Act
2004. The role of the Chief Censor,
currently David Shanks, appointed in July 2017, is prescribed in the
Classification Act and the OFLC are accountable directly to the Minister of
Justice and are funded by the Government through funding to the Internal
Affairs Department, and from fees for commercial publication classifications.
The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993
only does Films, Videos, and Publications.
Broadcasting is regulated by the Broadcasting Standards Authority under
a different law, the Broadcasting Act 1989.
Broadcasting has historically been considered a particularly important
and unique medium for providing information and entertainment to members of the
public. For example, it has been a very
important source of news and political commentary and debate. Parliament recognised this by maintaining a
separate set of standards for broadcast content, based around "standards
of good taste and decency", and also accuracy of reporting, and so
on. The differences between broadcasting
and other forms of content delivery are increasingly indistinguishable due to
online distribution and other technological changes. For example, people are
increasingly watching classified TV shows online using sites like Netflix or
Lightbox.
Complaints about broadcasts are directed to the broadcaster
in the first place, and then to the Broadcasting Standards Authority
(BSA). The way that classifications
influence broadcast content are if the Classification Office classifies a movie
as Objectionable (banned) then the film is also banned on broadcast
television. If the Classification Office
requires excisions (cuts) be made to a film, then the uncut version is banned
on broadcast television. And the
Responsibility of broadcasters for programme standards under section 4.
Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its
programmes and their presentation, standards that are consistent with, the
observance of good taste and decency; and the maintenance of law and
order. Where, in respect of any film
within the meaning of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act
1993, there is in force under that Act a decision classifying that film as
objectionable; or there is in force under that Act a decision classifying that
film as if certain excisions had been made, no broadcaster, shall broadcast
that film or any part of that film; except with the consent of the Chief Censor
of Film and Literature and subject to any conditions subject to which the Chief
Censor has given the consent.
The OFLC states their purpose is “To provide and communicate
impartial classification decisions and information services,” and their vision
that “New Zealand society is protected from the harm caused by the unrestricted
availability of restricted and objectionable publications,” and this is
followed by the statement that they “will achieve this by balancing the values
inherent in freedom of expression with the need to protect society from injury.” Section 88 of The Films Video and
Publications Classification Act 1993 also require the OFLC to conduct necessary
research to perform its functions and the Chief Censor’s personal statement
reads, “I will help to make New Zealanders, especially children safe from the
harm caused by the unrestricted availability of restricted and objectionable
publications[2].”
The OFLC is part of a wide framework of Censorship Regulation
in New Zealand. The OFLC examines and
classifies material as per the Classification Act. Other bodies impose restrictions:
·
Film
and Video Labelling Body Inc issues ratings (unrestricted) to films and videos
and submits to the Office of Film and Literature Classification films and
videos of a nature that should be restricted.
·
Film
and Literature Board of Review is the Statutory Body that reviews the decisions
of the Classification Office.
·
Inspectors
of Publications employed by the Department of Internal Affairs help to ensure
that publications are supplied in accordance with existing classifications, and
that supply of objectionable publications is investigated and prosecuted.
·
Every
member of the Police is deemed to be an Inspector of Publications.
·
Objectionable
publications are prohibited imports and may be seized at the border by the New
Zealand Customs Service.
The Classification Act defines its meaning of the word
objectionable in section 3 and “for the purposes of the Act, a publication is
objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with
matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that
the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public
good”[3].
In addition, under sub-section 1B (2 and
3) there are certain criteria that always lead to a publication being banned
and any publication that is seen to advance, encourage, uphold, or strengthen
the sexual exploitation of children, sexual conduct with or by children,
exploits children’s nudity, sexual violence or coercion, torture or extreme
violence, bestiality, necrophilia, and use of excrement or urine to degrade or
in sexual conduct[4].
Publications may be age-restricted for containing highly
offensive language likely to cause serious harm[5],
if likely to be injurious to the public good for specific reasons[6]
and in section 4d consideration is given to the persons, classes of persons or
age groups of the persons to whom the publication is intended or is likely to
be made available to[7].
A reason given for age restrictions are
that the general level of emotional and intellectual development of a person
under the specified age means they are more likely to be disturbed by the
publication and that it may increases the risk of them killing or causing
serious harm to themselves or others[8].
The Classification Act is under almost constant consideration
to remain relevant in an ever-changing society with rapid digital technological
advances and almost instant internet transmission of data. The first amendment to the Principal Act was
the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Amendment Act 2005 which
expanded definitions around digital devices, updated the language, classifications,
and penalties. This was followed by the
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Act 2012 as part of
the Regulatory Reform Bill to change wording to save the film industry money by
streamlining the classification process[9]. There is a current Bill in its third reading
in the House of Representatives and this Bill is to amend the Films, Videos,
and Publications Classification Act 1993 to provide the High Court and the Film
and Literature Board of Review with flexibility in making interim restriction
orders.
In addition to these legislative changes are a multitude of reviews
and influences. Such as, the House of
Representatives Inquiry into the Operation of the Films, Videos, and
Publications Act 1993 and related issues, the OFLC research and reports such as
the Attitudes towards Classification Labels 2015 and lobby groups also research,
report and submit on their areas of interest. A significant influence on the passing of the Classification
Act was a ruling in the Wellington Court of Appeal in 1986 known as Collector
of Customs v Lawrence Publishing Co Ltd, which found that censorship regulators
should base their decisions on social science and medical research.
The lobby group Family First’s website states that they
“participate in social analysis and debate surrounding issues relating to and
affecting the family being promoted by academics, policy makers, social service
organisations and media.” They also fund
research and reports that uphold their Judeo-Christian traditional heterosexual
family values and lobby prolifically against sexual content in film, television
and literature and violent video games for teenagers and adults. In 2015, they published a report into screen
time for children in which comparable overseas country’s guidelines for young
children’s viewing were disseminated, they also lament the dearth of information
specific to New Zealand children’s viewing habits. Family First surmise that there is little
reason to assume New Zealand will be impervious to global trends, and that there
are no New Zealand guidelines for children under five years old. Family First go on to compare that in contrast
to this, France bans all television channels from screening any programs aimed
at children under three years old.
Children less than seven years old have a difficult time
understanding the difference between fantasy and reality. Christakis et al (2007) describe that at
around seven to eight years old children reach a turning point they call the
“age of reason” when children understand that slapstick and fantasy violence is
funny because it is completely unrealistic.
Pre-school children are more likely to imitate aggression and violence
they see on screen, found Christakis et al (2013), especially if there is no
realistic consequence for the violence they are watching and that there really
is no such thing as safe violence for young children.
Researchers Robertson et al (2012) used data from the Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (the Dunedin Study), a
longitudinal study of health and behaviour in a New Zealand population-based
birth cohort, to test concerns that exposure to television violence leads to
anti-social behaviour. They discuss that
despite fifty years of research into this topic the issue is still
controversial because the research has been of short-term observations of
children after they have watched violent programming and the studies have been
unable to show if children develop behavioural problems because they watch poor
behaviour on television or if children with antisocial behaviour prefer to
watch violent programs. The Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study followed 1037 children born
between April 1972 and March 1973, across the range of New Zealand’s
socioeconomic groups, mostly of Pākehā ethnicity with 7.4% identifying
themselves as Māori and 1.5% as Pacifica[10].
A notable strength of the Dunedin Study
is that 90% of the cohort could be assessed at almost every follow up, giving the
ability to measure covariates and control for confounding factors.
Robertson et al (2012) note that observational research
cannot prove that television viewing causes antisocial behaviour but they can
make causal inferences and the findings are consistent with most studies of a
similar nature. They found it notable
that television viewing remained a significant predictor of having a criminal
conviction and that television viewing in childhood is associated with
increased antisocial behaviour.
The effects of violent television on children’s behaviour are
the subject of a blog post in 2016 on the OFLC website by the Deputy Chief
Censor Jared Mullen, “It's only entertainment - what's the harm?”[11]
The discussion begins with how parents
use their parental intuition instinctively to shield their young children from
harm and then explains that in their own recent survey 92% of New Zealanders
thought the classification guidelines were important and 60% of respondents thought
children less than 16 years old shouldn’t be watching movies rated for those 16
years old and over. The blog goes on to
cite research that shows that watching violence leads to a reduction in the
willingness to help others (Bushman and Anderson 2009), that the long-term
effects are stronger in young people than adults (Bushman and Huesmann 2006)
and that the impact of watching violence on children displaying aggressive
behaviour is nearly as strong as the link between smoking and lung cancer
(Strasburger et al 2010).
The research tells us there is a problem with the regular or
excessive viewing of violence, but the OFLC believes that 92% of parents, from
their survey, are on the right track by following the guidelines, without
questioning if the guidelines are wrong.
There is no question that violence in programs for adults is damaging
for children and few parents would allow their children to watch violent adult
programs, but many children’s programs are very violent and are rated as
‘General’ (G) being suitable for children by the OFLC, despite the known
effects, and many children’s programs have higher incidents of violent acts
than adult’s programs.
An analysis of violent acts on New Zealand’s three television
channels was carried out in 1991 by Massey University on behalf of the
Broadcasting Standards Authority, over a full week, Monday to Sunday, using a
modified definition of violence developed by Cumberbatch (1988):
…any violent image
or action of physical force or threat thereof, with or without a weapon,
against oneself or another person, animal or inanimate object, whether carried
through or merely attempted, and whether the action caused injury or not.
During the 336 hours of programming there were 3012 acts or
images of violence and they found the times television violence did not match
the guidelines occurred in times rated as General and was primarily due to
violence in cartoons. This was classed
as unrealistic fantasy violence and the study suggests the need to treat
television violence according to the genre in which it occurs therefore they
minimised the fantasy violence as not comparable with real violence.
Violence is more likely to occur in children’s cartoon
programming and Gunter and Harrison (1998) found that violent acts and violent
sequences were most likely to occur in general children’s programming. The incidents of violence occurring in
children’s programs are increasing. The
1975 cartoon movie “Bugs Bunny: Superstar”[12]
is one and a half hours long and has 55 violent acts. A single twenty-minute episode of the “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers”[13]
, a live action programme in 1993 has 49 violent acts and this program and is
marketed to children from 5 to 7 years old.
“The League of Super Evil”[14]
animated series, has a New Zealand rating of G, is currently playing on free to
air television[15]
and has 21 acts of violence or threats of violence in a single 22-minute
episode[16].
Children’s programs often feature higher rates of violence
than programs for adults (Strasburger et al 1990) and Wilson (2002) found
children’s programming featured 6.5 incidents of violence per hour compared
with 2.7 in adult’s programs and the violence was more likely to be
lethal. The basis of storytelling is
conflict between a protagonist and an opponent.
The OLFC should consider what purpose entertainment has for young
children, what the social outcomes are of young children watching characters
using violence to solve problems, rather than a triumph of intelligence, and
why adults are writing violent stories for young children rather than protecting
them from watching damaging violence.
The growing tolerance of violence in television viewing was
demonstrated in the qualitative research conducted by Bassett and Shuker (1994)
where participants watched and were asked to rate an example of on screen
violence. People aged over forty rated
the incident as more serious and did not believe that violence was good
entertainment while 62% of the younger group thought violence was good
entertainment and rated the example of screen violence as less serious. This study also found there were no clear
socioeconomic differences however Gaziano (2017) says that children at risk for
violent behaviour and aggression often face multiple-risk factors and this is
antecedent in social stratification and because media content filters through
the family and those with lower socioeconomic status have fewer options to
buffer children from harmful media content.
Lull (1980 cited in Gaziano 2017), found that poorer families watch more
television and often have it on in the background for companionship and Gaziano
(2017) concludes that children’s influence from media content is conditioned by
family childrearing patterns. While screen
violence is only one element in a complex social environment and we cannot
protect children from all harm and negative influence, parents should have
better information available as to the content of children’s television
viewing. The consensus view arising from
the collective body of research is that violence on television and film does
contribute to aggressive and violent behaviour in individuals and, in
particular, young children.
The OLFC is tasked with protecting young children from the
harm caused by watching violent programming on television and in film and they
do this with their classification system which rates children’s programs and
cartoons a ‘G’ for general audiences. The
New Zealand Law Commission, in its review of new media, states that children
should be protected as far as possible from access to unsuitable content and
there should be adequate protections against the dissemination of objectionable
content from which children should be protected. As demonstrated by the OLFC’s own survey 92%
of parents and caregivers use the classification system to choose what their
children watch. The OLFC is failing to
protect young children from violent programming on television and in films
because it there is no differentiation in the G rating between children’s
programs that contain violence and children’s programs that don’t. There is enough social research available to
show that children’s television violence has a detrimental effect on young
children’s behaviour for the OLFC to be taking the influences more seriously in
the way they restrict children’s television and film violence.
Decades of social research show that children under seven
years old are adversely affected by violence in television and films. The Classification Act made it mandatory for
the OLFC to consider social research when making classification decisions to
regulate and classify films, videos and publications in a way that balances the
need for freedom of expression with the need to protect society from harm. The OLFC is not considering social research
when it is classifying children’s violent television programs and films and
therefore failing in its obligation to protect children from the harm of
violent programming.
[1]
The full list of applicable Enactments repealed is available in The Films,
Videos, and Publications Act 1993.
[9]
Adren, J. (2012). Hansard for 23 August. Videos, and Publications Classification
Amendment Act. New Zealand Parliament.
[10]
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00127-015-1048-8
[11]
https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/blog/entertainment-whats-the-harm/
[12]
http://looneytunes.wikia.com/wiki/Bugs_Bunny:_Superstar
[13]
http://powerrangers.wikia.com/wiki/Mighty_Morphin_Power_Rangers
[14]
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WesternAnimation/LeagueOfSuperEvil
[15]
Prime Television. 6.30 am as part of
children’s early morning viewing also featuring “Kung Fu Panda”, “The Legend Of
Korra”, “Max Steel” and “Hank Zipzer” all G rated children’s programs with high
levels of violence.
[16]
Writers own research using Cumberbatch’s (2008) definition of violence on
television quoted above.
Susan Nicholson
Copyright
References
Bassett, G., & Shuker, R. (1994). Attitudes and Perceptions of Television
Violence. Broadcasting Standards
Authority.
Bushman, B.J.,
& Anderson, C.A. (2009). Comfortably
Numb: Desensitizing Effects of Violent
Media on Helping Others. Psychological Science. 20 (2), 273-277.
Bushman, B.J., & Huesmann, L.R. (2006).
Short-term and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in
children and adults. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent
Medicine. 160. 348-352.
Christakis, D.A., & Zimmerman, F.J. (2007).
Violent television viewing during preschool is associated with
antisocial behavior during school age. Pediatrics. 120(5):993-9.
Christakis, D.A., Garrison, M.M., Herrenkohl,
T., Haggerty, K., Rivara, F.P., Zhou, C., & Liekweg, K. (2013).
Modifying Media Content for Preschool Children: A Randomized Controlled
Trial. Pediatrics. 131(3): 431–438.
Colman, I., Kingsbury, M., Weeks, M.,
Ataullahjan, A., Bélair, M., Dykxhoorn, J., Hynes, K., Loro, A., Martin, M.S.,
Naicker, K., Pollock, N., Rusu, C., Kirkbride, J.B. (2014).
CARTOONS KILL: casualties in animated recreational theater in an
objective observational new study of kids’ introduction to loss of life. British
Medical Journal. Dec 16. 349:g7184.
Cumberbatch, G.
(1988). "Television Violence - Guilty or Not?" Broadcast, February 19, pp.201-203.
Ferguson, C.J., Kilburn, J. (2009).
The public health risks of media violence: a meta-analytic review. Journal
of Pediatrics. 154(5):759-63.
Gaziano, C. (2001). Toward a Broader Conceptual Framework for
Research on Social Stratification, Childrearing Patterns, and Media
Effects. Mass Communication & Society.
4(2), 219–244
Gunter, B., & Harrison, J. (1998).
Violence on Television: An Analysis of Amount, Nature, Location and
Origin of Violence in British Programmes.
Routledge. London.
Ivanusic-Vallee, P., Leblanc, D., & Ricq, P.
(2012). "Voltopia/Kickin' Boot"
The League of Super Evil. Season 3. Episode 1.
Nerd Corps Entertainment in association with YTV Canada Inc. Canada.
Livenews Publisher. (2016).
Have Your Say on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification
(Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill.
12 December.
Miller, R. (2012). 'Interest groups - Cause interest groups', Te
Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand.
Retrieved from http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/interest-groups/page-3 (accessed
7 October 2017)
Moynihan, C. (1995). A stand for decency: Patricia Bartlett &
the Society for Promotion of Community Standards. Wellington:
Society for Promotion of Community Standards (N.Z.)
Mullen, J.
(2016). It's only entertainment -
what's the harm? NZ Office of Film and Literature Classification. Retrieved from
https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/blog/entertainment-whats-the-harm/
(accessed 7 October 2017)
New Zealand Law Commission. (2013).
The news media meets 'new media':
Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in The Digital Age. E31 Report 128.
New Zealand Parliament. (1989).
Broadcasting Act, No. 25.
New Zealand Parliament. (1993).
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, No. 94.
New Zealand Parliament. (2005).
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Act, No. 2.
New Zealand Parliament. (2012).
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Amendment Act, No. 62.
New Zealand Parliament. (2012).
Films, Videos, And Publications Classification Amendment Bill
– Third Reading. Parliamentary Debates. Hansard.
23 August 2012. Volume 683. Page 4757.
New Zealand Parliament. (2015).
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Objectionable
Publications) Amendment Act, No. 42.
New Zealand Parliament. (2016).
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction
Order Classification) Amendment Bill No 205-2.
New Zealand Parliament. (2016).
Films, Videos, And Publications Classification (Interim Restriction
Order Classification) Amendment Bill – First Reading. Parliamentary Debates. Hansard For Wednesday 7 December 2016.
O’Neil, A. (2015). 150 Years of News: Wellington nun Patricia
Bartlett a pain in politicians' sides.
The Dominion Post. 20 April 2015.
Office of Film & Literature
Classification. (2014). Statement of Intent 2014 - 2018.
Office of Film & Literature
Classification. (2015). Attitudes towards classification labels -
2015. Retrieved from https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/News/Latest-News/Research-Attitudes-Towards-Classification-Labels-2015/#The-Results
(accessed 7 October 2017)
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994).
The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A
meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21 (4): 516-546.
Poulton, R., Moffitt, T.E., Silva, P.A. (2015).
The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study: overview of
the first 40 years, with an eye to the future.
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 50 (5): 679–693.
Robertson, L.A., McAnally, H.M., & Hancox,
R.J. (2013). Childhood and Adolescent Television Viewing
and Antisocial Behavior in Early Adulthood.
Pediatrics. 131(3): 439-46.
Sigman, A.
(2015). “WE NEED TO TALK – Screen
time in NZ, Media Use: An Emerging factor in child and adolescent health”. Report to Family First.
State Services Commission. (2014).
Statutory Crown Entities - A Guide for Ministers. New Zealand Government.
Strasburger, V.C., Jordan, A.B., &
Donnerstein, E. (2010). Health effects
of media on children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 125(4): 756-67.
Watson, C.A., Bassett, G.R., Lambourne, R.D.,
& Shuker, R.G. (1991). Television Violence: an Analysis of the
Portrayal of Violent Acts on the three New Zealand Broadcast Channels during
the week of 11 -17 February 1991.
Broadcasting Standards Authority.
Wellington. p.3.
Watson, C. & Shuker, R. (1998).
In the Public Good? Censorship in New Zealand. Dunmore Press. Palmerston North. pp.240.
Wilson, B.J., Smith, S.L., Potter, W.J., Kunkel,
D., Linz, D., Colvin, C.M., & Donnerstein, E. (2002).
Violence in children's television programming: Assessing the risks. Journal
of Communication, 52(1), 5-35.
Wilson, M.
(2000). Report of The
Attorney-General under The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Films,
Videos, And Publications Classification (Prohibition of Child Pornography)
Amendment Bill. By Order of The House of
Representatives. Wellington, New
Zealand.
Woodhouse, P., Cooke, J., Richardson, J.,
McMullin, J., & Somers, J.
(1986). Collector of Customs v Lawrence Publishing Co Ltd. New Zealand Law
Review (1) 404.
Yates, D. (Chairperson). (2003).
Inquiry into the operation of the Films, Videos, and Publications
Classification Act 1993 and related issues (I.5A). Report of the Government Administration
Committee. House of
Representatives. New Zealand Government.
Comments
Post a Comment