Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1995-031
Members
- I W Gallaway (Chair)
- L M Loates
- W J Fraser
Dated
Complainant
- Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor (GOAL)
Number
1995-031
Programme
SportsnightBroadcaster
Television New Zealand LtdChannel/Station
TVNZ 1Standards
Summary
The decision of rugby player John Kirwan to join the Auckland Warriors rugby league
team was covered in an item on Sportsnight on TV1 at 10.40pm on 7 March.
Mr Turner, secretary of the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor (GOAL),
complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast
breached broadcasting standards on three accounts as the incidental promotion of
liquor was not minimised. First, Mr Kirwan was seen to hold aloft a Warriors' jersey
bearing a DB logo; secondly, a DB advertisement was seen on the wall to the side of
Mr Kirwan while he was being interviewed; and thirdly, the presenter was seen in
front of a backdrop promoting Dominion Breweries.
Upholding the second and third aspects of the complaint, TVNZ said the breaches had
been drawn to the attention of the appropriate staff who had been advised of the
seriousness with which such breaches were regarded. Dissatisfied both that the
complaint was not upheld in full and with the action taken by TVNZ on the aspects
upheld, Mr Turner, on behalf of GOAL referred his complaint to the Broadcasting
Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
For the following reasons, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.
Decision
The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read
the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority
has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.
The switch of rugby player John Kirwan to the Auckland Warriors rugby league team
was dealt with in an item on TV1's Sportsnight at 10.40pm on 7 March. On behalf of
GOAL, Mr Cliff Turner the secretary complained to TVNZ that there were three
breaches of the programme standards as the incidental promotion of liquor had not
been minimised.
The breaches occurred, first, when Mr Kirwan and another man held up a Warrior's
jersey bearing a large DB logo. Secondly, a DB advertisement was visible on the wall
for lengthy periods while Mr Kirwan was being interviewed. Thirdly, the presenter
was seen twice in front of a backdrop which promoted Dominion Breweries.
TVNZ assessed the complaint under the nominated standards which read:
A3 Broadcasters will ensure that the incidental promotion of liquor is
minimised.
A4 Broadcasters will ensure that backdrops and props for studio programmes
do not carry liquor promotions.
As for the aspect which showed Mr Kirwan and Mr Robson (manager of the
Warriors) unfurling a shirt carrying the sponsor's logo, TVNZ wrote:
We note that this shot was barely two seconds long, and was editorially
significant because it marked the definitive moment when one of New Zealand's
great rugby players exchanged his rugby union career for one in rugby league.
Had the shot been prolonged or in any way gratuitous, TVNZ would have beeninclined to agree with your objection. However, the brevity of the shot and its
relevance to the story has convinced us that this shot was not in breach of the
code.
Regarding the signage visible during the interview, TVNZ said that it could have been
eliminated by a small adjustment to the camera position without damaging the item's
content. That aspect was upheld as a breach of standard A3.
The third part of the complaint involved the presenter sitting in front of a "vidiwall"
on which DB sponsorship material was visible. TVNZ said some effort had been
made to eliminate the word "Bitter" by tightening the shot but as the appearance of
the DB logo was unacceptable, that aspect had been upheld as a breach of standard
A4.
TVNZ reported that the item's "flaws" raised in the second and third aspect of the
complaint had been recognised before the complaint had been received. Noting that
Sportsnight was a new programme which, like all new programmes, had had teething
troubles, TVNZ said Sportsnight staff had been spoken to about the breaches and the
seriousness with which they were viewed.
When he referred GOAL's complaint to the Authority, Mr Turner said that Mr
Kirwan's signature of the contract was the "definitive moment" of his transfer to
league and the shot of the jersey, although brief, was gratuitous.
With regard to the action taken, Mr Turner argued that the staff should have been
spoken to before the event, not afterwards. He continued:
The connection between sport and the liquor industry has been the source of
many complaints about incidental advertising and when this programme was
instituted staff should have been thoroughly briefed about the pitfalls inherent in
such a programme.
He concluded:
The news of Mr Kirwan's move to rugby league rang alarm bells for me and
caused me to tape Sportsnight. Similar bells should have been heard at TVNZ.
In its report to the Authority, TVNZ expressed the opinion that "contract signing"
was a visual cliche and the swapping of jerseys was more editorially noteworthy.
As for the aspects upheld, TVNZ maintained the "alarm bells" comment overlooked
the environment in which live programmes went to air. It observed:
We do not excuse the mistake – but neither do we claim infallibility.
Moreover, TVNZ reported, it had decided to include the revised liquor standards in
every journalist's manual as soon as possible so that they would be easily and readily
available.
In his final comment on GOAL's behalf, Mr Turner said that, in view of other
Authority decisions, brevity could not be a valid defence and he asked:
If the shirt had not been shown would the NZ public really have been deprived
of a moment of editorial significance?
He also questioned TVNZ's commitment in complying with the standards and he
referred to a recent Sportsnight item where an event was shown in front of a wall
covered with liquor advertising.
The Authority dealt first with the aspect of the complaint not upheld. It agreed with
GOAL that the DB logo was visible as the jersey was unfurled and it concurred with
TVNZ that the shot was brief. The decision to which GOAL referred in which
brevity was not considered an appropriate defence involved a shot in which the liquor
advertising was the feature of the shot and the person carrying the advertising turned
around to make it clearly visible to the camera. In other words, it was gratuitous. On
this occasion, the jersey and the two men unfurling it were the focus - not the logo.
Therefore, the Authority accepted that these factors – together with the shot's brevity
– were sufficient for it to decide that standard A3 had not been contravened.
As for the aspects upheld, the Authority agreed with, and endorsed, TVNZ's decision
to uphold them. The Authority also appreciated Mr Turner's concern that despite
TVNZ's efforts to comply with the standards, breaches continued to occur and,
consequently, he felt justified in questioning the degree of TVNZ's commitment to the
standards.
Whereas Mr Turner was sceptical about TVNZ's efforts, the Authority believed that
they do reflect a conscientious commitment to the standards. It agreed with Mr
Turner that, because of liquor company sponsorship of sport, breaches of the
standards concerned were more likely to occur during items of sports news or the
broadcast of sporting events. GOAL, TVNZ and the Authority, have a long and
extensive involvement in complaints involving the incidental promotion of liquor and
as a result have an appreciation of each others' points of view in these areas. Taking
into account this history and its belief that TVNZ over recent years has been
conscientious in complying with the standards, the Authority decided that TVNZ's
actions on this occasion were appropriate and sufficient. Whereas aspects of the item
broadcast on 7 March unquestionably breached the standards, the Authority is aware
that TVNZ is undoubtedly making an effort to comply with them.
Should the Authority decide that TVNZ's efforts to comply fall away, it will
unhesitatingly use its powers to impose penalties. However, while such efforts
remain conscientious (and breaches minimal), it will refrain from doing so.
For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint about the
aspect not upheld or that the action taken on the aspects upheld was
insufficient.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority.
Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
11 May 1995
Appendix
GOAL's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 8 March 1995
Mr Cliff Turner, secretary of the Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor (GOAL)
complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV1's
Sportsnight at 10.40pm on 7 March.
The item reported the switch of rugby player John Kirwan to the Auckland Warriors
league team and as the incidental promotion of liquor was not minimised, Mr Turner
wrote, it contained three breaches (of standards A3 and A4) of the recently revised
Programme Standards for the Promotion of Liquor.
First, Mr Turner said, Mr Kirwan and another man held up a Warriors' jersey
carrying a large DB logo. Secondly, while Mr Kirwan was being interviewed by Mr
Deaker a DB advertisement on a wall was seen for lengthy periods. Thirdly, twice
during the item presenter Jeremy Coney was seen in front of a backdrop which
promoted Dominion Breweries.
TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 30 March 1995
TVNZ said that the three aspects of the complaint had been assessed under the
nominated standards. It also noted that the item had been the subject of review and
action before the complaint was received.
As for the first aspect, Mr Kirwan and the Warriors' manager were seen unfurling a
shirt on which the sponsor's logo could be seen. TVNZ wrote:
We note that this shot was barely two seconds long, and was editorially
significant because it marked the definitive moment when one of New Zealand's
great rugby players exchanged his rugby union career for one in rugby league.
As the shot was brief and not in any way gratuitous, TVNZ declined to uphold that
aspect of the complaint.
As for the second aspect which focussed on the "DB Bitter" signage visible to the left
of the screen for a lengthy period, TVNZ agreed that the signage could have been
eliminated by a small adjustment to the camera position. That matter was upheld as a
breach of standard A3.
The third aspect referred to the studio component in which presenter Jeremy Coney
was seen sitting in front of a "vidiwall" on which DB sponsorship material was
visible. TVNZ reported:
Again, TVNZ agrees that - while there is some evidence that the producer made
an effort to remove the word "Bitter" by tightening the shot - the appearance of
the "DB" logo was not acceptable. Your complaint in this regard was upheld as
a breach of Standard A4.
In explanation of the breaches, TVNZ stated:
While in no way wishing to excuse the breach, we do note that "Sportsnight" is
a new programme and like all new programmes has undergone teething troubles.
A failure to adhere to the standards required concerning the promotion of liquor
has been one of those troubles.
It recorded that the following action had been taken:
TVNZ can assure you that the producer had been spoken to concerning this
matter - which has also been drawn to the attention of the Director of News and
Current Affairs.
The Chief Assistant to the Director of News and Current Affairs has spoken
directly to "Sportsnight" staff reaffirming the content of the liquor codes and the
seriousness with which TVNZ views breaches of them.
GOAL's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 3 April 1995
Dissatisfied both with the aspect not upheld and the action taken by TVNZ having
upheld parts of the complaint, on GOAL's behalf Mr Turner referred the complaint
to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act
1989.
As for the aspect not upheld, Mr Turner pointed out that the definitive moment of
Mr Kirwan's switch from rugby to league had occurred when he had signed the
contract. The shot which displayed the Warrior's jersey, Mr Turner added, although
brief was gratuitous.
With regard to the action taken by TVNZ on the aspects upheld, Mr Turner argued
that the time for talking to staff was before the event, not afterwards. He continued:
The connection between sport and the liquor industry has been the source of
many complaints about incidental advertising and when this programme was
instituted staff should have been thoroughly briefed about the pitfalls inherent in
such a programme.
The rule about studio backdrops is brief and should be easily understood. If, as
TVNZ claims, the "producer made an effort to remove the "Bitter" by
tightening the shot", he or she must have been aware of the rule. Instead of
"tightening the shot" he or she should have removed the vidiwall.
The news of Mr Kirwan's move to rugby league rang alarm bells for me and
caused me to tape Sportsnight. Similar bells should have been heard at TVNZ.
TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 12 April 1995
Dealing first with the aspect not upheld, TVNZ maintained that the shot of John
Kirwan and Ian Robson was not in breach taking into account its brevity and editorial
significance. Describing the "contract signing" as a visual cliche, TVNZ maintained
that the swapping of shirts was, editorially, a much more significant moment.
As for the aspects upheld, TVNZ emphasised that standards breaches were regarded
seriously and that efforts had been made to ensure that the standards were widely
known. It added:
We note Mr Turner's view that because the Kirwan move "rang alarm bells"
for him, similar "bells" should also have been heard by TVNZ. This remark
betrays ignorance of the environment in which live programmes go to air.
While exposure of liquor promotion is the one and only consideration Mr
Turner as a viewer had in mind as the broadcast went to air, the production
crew had literally to make hundreds of decisions on a wide variety of matters,
under extreme pressure. The item was written, shot and edited in a very short
space of time and had Mr Turner been in TVNZ's newsroom on that or any
other night he might have some inkling as to how mistakes can sometimes
occur.
Repeating the description of the action which had been taken as a consequence of the
breach, TVNZ noted that it had recently been decided that an enlarged section on the
revised liquor standards should be inserted into every journalist's manual which, in the
near future, would be available on computer disc.
GOAL's Final Comment to the Authority - 21 April 1955
Dealing first with the aspect not upheld, on GOAL's behalf Mr Turner referred to an
earlier decision (No: 123/94) when the Authority had declined to accept the brevity of
an appearance by a "DB can-man" as a valid defence. He added:
If the shirt had not been shown would the NZ public really have been deprived
of a moment of editorial significance?
Moreover, he noted, in response to TVNZ's comment that he was ignorant of the
environment in which live programmes went to air, TVNZ nevertheless acknowledged
that the item had been edited.
Insisting that alarm bells should have rung for TVNZ over the matter before the
broadcast, Mr Turner said that coverage of liquor-related sport events was a minefield
and that observing standards should have been TVNZ's first decision. As a way for
the Authority to assess TVNZ's assurances, he concluded by referring to a recent
item on Sportsnight which, although it originated in Australia, showed people in front
to a wall covered with advertising for Toohey's beer.