Seven in trouble with ABA for Olympic Cliffhanger

[Andy]

Just saw a report on Seven News that the Australian Broadcasting Authority has been investigating complaints about Home and Away's Olympic Cliffhanger in which 2 gunshots were fired.

The ABA ruled that the episode was too violent for its G classification.

Sorry I can't give anymore details as I wasn't really paying attention to the report and only just caught the end of it.

[Andy]

Found some more information:

The Australian Broadcasting Authority has found that Channel Seven breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004, by incorrectly classifying an episode of Home and Away as ?G? and by not supplying a consumer advice warning for a PG classified program.

On 27 October 2004, the ABA received a complaint concerning an episode of Home and Away that was broadcast on 13 August 2004 at 7 pm. The complainant alleged that the episode contained violence and adult themes that were inappropriate for a child audience.

The ABA found that the closing scene of the episode depicted a seriously mentally ill young woman intending to murder at least one of the other characters and the violence depicted in the episode was serious in impact and included the sound effects of gunshots and characters clearly terrified for their lives. The episode concluded with the inference that at least one character had been murdered

The ABA determined that Channel Seven:

? breached clause 2.4 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2004 (the code), by incorrectly classifying the episode of Home and Away broadcast on 13 August 2004 as G according to the Television Classification Guidelines

? breached clause 2.20.3 by not supplying a consumer advice warning for a PG classified program that contained material of a strength or intensity, which the licensee would have reasonably believed parents or guardians of young children may not expect and

? did not breach clause 2.1.2 of the code.

In this case, the program was classified as G, but broadcast in a PG time zone. The complainant alleged that the program was unsuitable for the PG classification zone.

The ABA found the content was inappropriate for the G timeslot and at the 'high end' of the PG classification. The licensee maintains that the program was suitable for G classification, although the episode ?was certainly at the borders of what is permissible in a G classified program?. The ABA notes that the licensee disputes that the episode was at the ?high end? of the PG classification. The licensee considers that the episode fell well within what is permissable in the PG classification zone, and was justified by the story line and program context.

The Home and Away series is generally classsified G, although two recent episodes were recently given a PG classification and contained a consumer advice. Other episodes may occasionally be classified PG in the future.

The episode in question was the final ?cliff-hanger? episode prior to the series breaking for a period of time. The episode depicted an unstable young woman called Sarah, who has the mistaken idea that one of the other Summer Bay residents had killed her boyfriend.

Sarah forced one of the characters, Scott, to drive her to the house where the other residents are present. She threatens to use her gun if he does not follow her orders. Scott?s girlfriend, Dani, is left behind, bound and gagged.

At the house, she gave the residents an ultimatum ? either they tell her who killed her boyfriend within 30 minutes or she would start shooting. When one of the men entered the house, she hit him on the head with the back of the gun. He fell to the floor, started convulsing and became unconscious.

As the episode progressed, the other characters became increasingly distressed and tearful and Sarah became more hysterical. She started to ?count down? the number of minutes left before she would start shooting.

Sarah had the gun in her hand throughout the scene. On at least three occasions, she pointed the gun directly at the other characters and it was shown briefly at this time.

Dani was eventually freed and drove to the house. As she arrived, she heard the sound of three gunshots and started screaming. No-one was shown being killed or injured as the viewer was left not knowing who the gunshots were aimed at.

Violence

The ABA acknowledges that the episode does not show violence to be acceptable or desirable and that the violence is largely depicted through verbal references (Sarah?s threats of shooting the other characters), rather than visual references. The results of the gunshots being fired are not shown and the violence depicted is largely psychological, rather than physical.

While there was limited physical violence, there was frequent psychological violence. Sarah used threatening and menacing language. She threatened to use her gun on the other characters on a number of occasions. The ABA disagrees with the licensee?s comments that the gun was not actually shown until the closing moments of the episode. The gun was shown briefly at least three times when Sarah pointed it directly at the other characters. The violence was sustained over the 30 minute episode, adding to its impact. The episode cut away to another scene, but the tension was maintained throughout. There were no scenes with a ?lighter? tone to provide relief.

The camera work showed several close-ups of the other characters becoming increasingly distressed as time ran out for them to ?confess? to the ?murder?. Sarah was portrayed as being ?on the edge? and dangerous ? screaming and laughing hysterically.

Some physical violence was depicted. One of the characters was knocked unconscious and was in need of medical attention. The character of Dani was bound and gagged.

The final scene must be viewed in the context of the whole episode. The purpose of the episode was to build suspense and tension over the duration. This added to the impact of the final scene, notwithstanding that the physical impact of the gunshot action was not shown.

More mature viewers would be able to recognise that the episode was deliberately ?melodramatic? and used the techniques of a ?cliff hanger? episode. Young children would not necessarily be able to make this distinction. For the program to fall within the G classification, it must be suitable for children to watch without supervision.

The ABA has some concerns about the intensity of the psychological violence and its sustained impact over the 30 minute episode. The ABA considered whether the episode was unsuitable for PG classification and was more suitable for M classification.

On balance, and for the reasons below, the ABA is satisfied that the visual depiction of violence fell within the PG classification for the following reasons:

? The impact of the gunshots being fired were not shown. There was the sound of gunshots and a woman screaming, but no visual images of the gun being fired or physical impact of the gunshot. No-one was shown being killed or injured. This more stylised depiction reduces the overall impact.

? In the scenes where Sarah pointed the gun at the other characters, the gun was shown only briefly.

? The violence was psychological, rather than physical and depicted largely through verbal references (Sarah?s threats to shoot the other characters), rather than visual images.

Adult Themes

The themes concern social conflict between Sarah and the other characters and Sarah?s disturbed psychological and emotional condition. The sense of threat or menace is heightened by the visible distress and tears of the other characters, Sarah?s hysterical state, her constant threats to use the gun, the time limit she gives the other characters before she starts shooting, and the camera work, music and lighting.

The ABA accepts that the purpose of the story line and program context was to build anticipation and to be a dramatic ?cliff hanger? episode. However, given the way in which the conflict and Sarah?s threats of violence were portrayed, the ABA considers that the treatment of the themes exceeded the standard of a ?very low sense of threat or menace to children?. The ABA?s view is that the program does not meet the G classification requirements under paragraph 2.6 of Appendix 4.

The ABA disagrees with the licensee?s submission that ?the tension of the concluding scenes was not heightened by overly stressful or dramatic music or other special effects?. The ABA is not satisfied that care was taken to minimise distress to children in relation to the music and camera work for the following reasons.

? The scenes where Sarah held the other characters hostage contained threatening and suspenseful music that was used to build tension. The music was present throughout these scenes.

? The camera work included several close-ups of Sarah in an hysterical and menacing state, and close-ups of the other characters appearing fearful and distressed.

? Close-up scenes were used throughout the episode. They were realistic and reasonably lengthy.

? Lighting were used to darken Sarah?s face as she threatened the other characters, thus enhancing the atmosphere of tension and fear.

The ABA?s view is that the program does not meet the G classification requirements under paragraph 2.8 of Appendix 4.

The ABA considers that the themes depicted in the episode ? an emotionally unstable young woman determined to take revenge on others ? are directed to a more mature audience. The ABA considered whether the episode was unsuitable for PG classification and was more suitable for M classification.

The ABA has some concerns about the emotional intensity with which these themes are depicted. On balance, however, the ABA is satisfied that the themes were carefully handled and suitably mild in impact to fall within the PG classification.

Conclusion

The ABA accepts that the purpose of the episode was to build anticipation and tension and to portray Sarah?s fragile mental and emotional state. The ABA accepts that the violence, themes and other elements were directed to this purpose and the soap opera genre of the program. However, the code also makes it clear that ?contextual factors do not permit the inclusion of material which exceeds a program?s classification?. In this case, the ABA considers that the material exceeded the program?s G classification in terms of violence, themes and other elements.

The licensee claims that the program is not targeted to very young children, but to teenagers and young adults. However, to be classified as G, the program ?must be very mild in impact and not contain any matter likely to be unsuitable for children to watch without supervision?.

The ABA is not satisfied that the program meets these requirements and therefore it does not meet the G classification guidelines. As the program was not correctly classified according to the Television Classification Guidelines, the ABA finds that the licensee breached clause 2.4 of the code.

The ABA notes that in response to the breach finding, the licensee has brought the findings to the attention of the network?s classifiers.

The ABA considers that the inappropriate classification of this episode was an isolated error and not part of a pattern of misjudgement or systemic failure. The ABA will continue to monitor the licensee?s performance against the relevant code provision.

[Di]

Just saw a report on Seven News that the Australian Broadcasting Authority has been investigating complaints about Home and Away's Olympic Cliffhanger in which 2 gunshots were fired.

The ABA ruled that the episode was too violent for its G classification.

Sorry I can't give anymore details as I wasn't really paying attention to the report and only just caught the end of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tut tut tut Valkyrie not paying attention Tut tut tut Channel Seven .? A slap on the wrist for you could they get fined as well? Valkyrie

[Andy]

The ABA has some concerns about the intensity of the psychological violence and its sustained impact over the 30 minute episode. The ABA considered whether the episode was unsuitable for PG classification and was more suitable for M classification. On balance, however, the ABA is satisfied that the themes were carefully handled and suitably mild in impact to fall within the PG classification.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Woah, they reckon it was close to M !

[Di]

The ABA has some concerns about the intensity of the psychological violence and its sustained impact over the 30 minute episode. The ABA considered whether the episode was unsuitable for PG classification and was more suitable for M classification. On balance, however, the ABA is satisfied that the themes were carefully handled and suitably mild in impact to fall within the PG classification.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

O.o M?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you think that's why they went ooooooott with the stalker e'ps The sightest bit of violence at it had PG stamped on it.

[Ryan]

You sometimes feel people go over the top sometimes, this happened a year ago, and I can't believe they were snowed under with mothers saying their children were now running around pretending to shoot people.

It's this type of nanny state I hate.

[joey-lee]

I wonder whether there were complaints when Sally got shot in the Diner ? he pointed the gun at everyone and the end of the episode implied Sally was either dead or seriously injured, lying unconscious.

[tessa305]

What does M/ G mean. in the uk we have:

U-suitable for all

12-for 12+

PG

15-for 15+

and 18

[beaus_babe04]

I wonder whether there were complaints when Sally got shot in the Diner ? he pointed the gun at everyone and the end of the episode implied Sally was either dead or seriously injured, lying unconscious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When was that???

[Big Ben]

What does M/ G mean. in the uk we have:

U-suitable for all

12-for 12+

PG

15-for 15+

and 18

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

M is for MATURE audiences, its usually after 9.00 pm

I didnt think theat episode warrnted a Pg never mind an M. We never saw anything. the psycho babale stuff will hav been above the rug rats heads, and the older kids will have loved it. They obviously havent watched any kids programmes lately.