BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Decision 93 was the title of the special news programme broadcast on Television One

during the evening of 6 November 1993 to report the outcome of that day's general

election.

The Leader of the Christian Heritage Party (Rev Graham Capill) complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd that it had been excluded from most of the results broadcast during the

evening and that that lack of coverage continued the unfair treatment the Party had

received from TVNZ during the campaign.

Pointing out that news coverage on television involved editorial judgment about what

matters were important, TVNZ maintained that because the Party was unlikely to be

represented in Parliament the coverage given was appropriate. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's

decision, on the Party's behalf Mr Capill referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority, while declining to uphold the substance of the

complaint, upheld by a majority one aspect about TVNZ's presentation of the electorate

results on Decision 93.

Decision

Because of the length of Decision 93 (in excess of six hours), the members of the Authority

did not watch it while considering this complaint. However, all the members had watched

part or all of it when it was screened on 6 November last year and accepted, as the

complainant alleged, that only minimal mention was made of the Christian Heritage Party

during the programme. TVNZ did not dispute the complainant's points that the Party's

share of the vote was not shown when totals for each electorate were displayed or that the

Party received comparatively brief coverage during the build-up to the election when

compared with the four Parties who, before the election, held Parliamentary seats.

Although it has not reviewed the programme, the Authority has studied the

correspondence and has taken Decision No: 22/91 into account. That determination, to

which both the Party and TVNZ referred, recorded the Authority's decision not to uphold a

complaint from the Christian Heritage Party that TVNZ's coverage of the Party in Decision

90, following the general election in that year, was unbalanced.

The leader of the Christian Heritage Party (Rev Graham Capill) complained to TVNZ about

the lack of coverage the Party received during the 1993 election campaign and,

specifically, during the programme Decision 93 on 6 November 1993 which reported the

election results.

The Authority records at this point that the complaints procedure set out in the

Broadcasting Act is designed to deal with complaints about specific programmes.

Accordingly, it has accepted the referral on the basis that it is a complaint about the

broadcast of Decision 93. The other matters referred to by both the complainant and the

broadcaster will be considered by the Authority as background information to this specific

complaint.

In the complaint, Mr Capill accepted that TVNZ was justified in focusing on the four

parties selected but argued that the Christian Heritage Party, the fifth party, should have

been dealt with as an additional major party rather than being relegated to the status of a

minor party. Stressing the importance of television coverage to any party during a

campaign, Mr Capill said that TVNZ's treatment of the Christian Heritage Party had

breached the broadcasting standards requiring truth, accuracy, fairness and impartiality.

He wrote:

This year, voters dealt severely with politicians who had not been open and honest.

We would submit the public are entitled to the same reform amongst the media. It

is one thing for the public to reject our policy platform, but it is entirely unfair and

undemocratic not to allow that platform to be presented in an unbiased way so

that they can make up their own minds.

He concluded his complaint to TVNZ by pointing out that the Party's philosophy might be

at odds with the media's libertarian philosophy, but "surely free speech is of the essence in

any country under any philosophy".

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G1, G6 and G20 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The first two require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters,

current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

Standard G20 provides:

G20 No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested

parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present all

significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only by

judging every case on its merits.

Pointing out that its role during an election campaign was to reflect the dominant events

and issues, not act as a publicity machine for any organisation, TVNZ said the coverage

during the campaign and on Decision 93 had focussed on the parties which had a realistic

chance of forming the government or at least having representatives voted into

Parliament.

Decision 93, TVNZ continued, was a news programme with the prime purpose of

informing viewers which party had won each electorate, which seats had changed hands

and which party would form the next government. Because of the large number of

candidates, it had been both impracticable and undesirable to record them all. TVNZ

remarked that one of the programme's commentators had referred to Mr Capill's

performance in the Yaldhurst electorate and had described it as disappointing. During the

evening, the possibility of a "hung" Parliament had become the principal issue - an issue in

which the Christian Heritage Party was not involved as it did not win any electorates.

Taking into account the principles of news gathering and reporting and acknowledging

that coverage was something of a "chicken and egg" situation, TVNZ denied that Decision

93 had breached any of the standards.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Capill on the Party's behalf repeated

the points raised in the initial complaint to TVNZ. Explaining the Party's dissatisfaction

with TVNZ's decision, he pointed out that TVNZ had pre-selected the four parties whose

results in each electorate would be shown. The same four parties were shown on each

occasion although one of the four, New Zealand First, did not have candidates in each

electorate. It maintained that this procedure was a breach of standards G1 and G6.

Furthermore, the commentator's remarks about the Party's showing in the Yaldhurst

electorate were inaccurate and misleading.

In its response to the Authority, TVNZ questioned whether the commentator's remark was

an issue for the Authority to address as it had not been raised in the original complaint.

Overall, TVNZ wrote, the complaint involved an assessment of whether or not the

Christian Heritage Party had been treated fairly in news terms.

The Authority initially considered the issue of the whether or not the commentator's

remark should be assessed. Although the reference to a "passing" negative remark was not

the main focus of the first letter of complaint to TVNZ, it was a comment made during

Decision 93, the programme on which that complaint had focussed. Accordingly, the

Authority decided, it should be considered as an aspect of the initial complaint.

The comment complained about, the Authority noted, was the expression of an opinion

and did not amount to a substantive analysis of the Christian Heritage Party's

performance. Accordingly, the Authority concluded that the remark made by way of

passing comment did not amount to a breach of the standards requiring accuracy and

balance.

In the Authority's view, news coverage was the principal issue raised by this complaint. It

accepted TVNZ's argument that the matters which should be imparted to viewers was

which Party had won each electorate and which one was likely to form the government.

While these points had been taken into account before the broadcast and, consequently,

had been the reason for focussing on the Parties represented in Parliament, the possibility

of a "hung" Parliament was the issue which developed during the broadcast of Decision 93.

The Authority also concurred with TVNZ that an election campaign, especially for the

smaller parties, was a "chicken and egg" situation – in that publicity itself as much as the

Party's policies might generate support – and that TVNZ's role was not to act as a publicity

agent. It accepted TVNZ's explanation that the polls did not disclose a degree of support for

the Christian Heritage Party which justified it being treated as one of the major parties

contesting the 1993 election.

In view of these considerations about "news" priorities, the Authority concluded that

TVNZ's general approach to the Christian Heritage Party as contained in Decision 93 did

not breach the nominated broadcasting standards.

Nevertheless, there was one specific aspect of the complaint which the Authority

considered further. The results screened for each electorate listed four Parties – Alliance,

Labour, National and New Zealand First. They were listed as the four Parties which were

represented in Parliament and their selection could be justified by the "news value"

criterion applied by TVNZ.

However, as the Christian Heritage Party pointed out in the complaint, New Zealand First

did not advance a candidate in each electorate. The Authority understands that it was not

represented in 14 of the 99 seats. Nevertheless, the results screened by TVNZ listed these

four Parties only and, in 14 electorates where it did not field a candidate, recorded as zero

the number of votes received by New Zealand First.

If the broadcaster decided on a presentation which named four parties in each electorate,

then the majority of the Authority was of the view that the public should be entitled to

know the four leading parties. In those seats, the majority considered, it would have been

fairer to have shown the Party that actually filled one of the first four places, rather than

the party that was not a contender in the seat showing a zero.

While agreeing with TVNZ that the greater part of the complaint should not be upheld as

it accepted the broadcaster's logic in selecting the results shown, a majority of the

Authority considered that it might have been misleading to show a nil return for a Party

not represented in 14 specific electorates named when results from those electorates were

broadcast. The majority was also of the view that it was not unfair to a major degree nor

did it affect the overall impact of the programme. However, the majority concluded that

the broadcast breached standard G6 of the Television Code.

The minority of the Authority disagreed. It accepted the broadcaster's reasons for showing

the results in the format used and did not consider it to be unfair to the Christian Heritage

Party.

The Authority unanimously considered that this method of reporting results did not

breach the accuracy requirement in standard G1 or that the pre-selection of the parties to

be listed breached standard G20.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority upholds the

complaint that a minor part the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of

the programme Decision 93 breached standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. As explained in the decision, the Authority declined to uphold

what it considered to be the principle issue raised. The aspect upheld is not significant in

the context of the complaint and, accordingly, the Authority believed an order was not

appropriate.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
2 June 1994

Appendix

Christian Heritage Party's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited

In a letter dated 17 November 1993, the Leader of the Christian Heritage Party (Rev

Graham Capill) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd first about the Party's exclusion

from the main party category in news and current affairs programmes during the election

period. It contrasted its exclusion with the inclusion of the New Zealand First Party.

Secondly, it complained about the Party's exclusion from TVNZ's coverage of the election

results on Decision 93 broadcast on Television One from 7.00pm on 6 November until

after 1.00am next morning.

As a result of the inadequate and inappropriate coverage, the Party argued that TVNZ had

breached the broadcasting standards requiring truth, accuracy, fairness and impartiality.

Acknowledging that the leader of the New Zealand First Party commanded much personal

interest, Mr Capill listed six reasons why, despite not having the profile TVNZ had given

New Zealand First, the Christian Heritage Party was entitled to be regarded as the

country's fifth main party. Mr Capill wrote:

Despite these facts, TVNZ went out of its way to exclude us in Leader debates and in

news items, despite us having contacted TVNZ throughout the campaign, urging

more fair treatment. I was only interviewed twice on news items during the

campaign and was not mentioned at all in current affairs programmes, including

minor parties Leaders' debates!

He recorded that, despite a letter to TVNZ from the Party before the broadcast of Decision

93, it was mentioned only once ("in a very negative way") and was not featured in any

on-screen result even in the electorates where New Zealand First did not field a candidate.

Stating that the Broadcasting Standards Authority almost upheld the Party's complaint

about the absence of coverage in Decision 90, Mr Capill said that the problem with late

results which excused coverage in Decision 90 had not recurred on this occasion.

Mr Capill concluded:

We are exceedingly disappointed that this has happened again, as are our hundreds

of supporters who worked hard during the campaign.

This year, voters dealt severely with politicians who had not been open and honest.

We would submit the public are entitled to the same reform amongst the media. It

is one thing for the public to reject our policy platform, but it is entirely unfair and

undemocratic not to allow that platform to be presented in an unbiased way so

that they can make up their own minds.

I am sure I do not have to say that the media is extremely powerful and that, in

our opinion, election campaigns are fought and won on television coverage. For

this reason it is essential that all are given a real opportunity to present their

alternatives to the public. We do not want to be misunderstood: we are not saying

that NZ First should not have been given coverage and we should have. We are

simply saying that if NZ First is given the coverage they were, we believe it was

unfair to exclude ourselves. We cannot understand why we should be excluded

given TVNZ's decision to call NZ First a main party and include them in Leaders'

debates. While we appreciate our policy platform may be at odds with the

generally libertarian philosophy of the media, surely free speech is of the essence in

any country under any philosophy.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint

TVNZ advised the Party of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter dated 14

December 1993 when it reported that the complaint had been considered under standards

G1, G6 and G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It began by explaining that it believed TVNZ's news role during an election campaign was

to reflect the country's dominant "events and issues". It was not the role of the news media

"to act as a publicity machine for any organisation". During the build-up to an election,

the major parties were those which had a realistic chance of forming the government or

at least of having representatives voted in to Parliament. Continuing by pointing out the

pressure on television news time meant that the parties represented in Parliament received

most coverage, TVNZ said that small parties were mentioned nevertheless and received

coverage in programmes such as Counterpoint when it had focussed on the smaller

parties.

TVNZ added:

Had the polls reflected a sudden surge in support for your party, had public

discussion of your policies come to the fore, or had any one of your candidates

emerged as a realistic frontrunner in their electorate, it is likely such would have

been reported.

It is acknowledged that there is something of a "chicken and egg" situation here,

but the fact remains that it is not the role of the news media to generate news

where it does not exist. An event or institution has to become newsworthy before it

finds its way into news programmes.

Pointing out that Decision 93 was a news programme, TVNZ stated that its prime purpose

was to inform viewers which seats changed hands, who had won each electorate and who

would form the next government. Because of the large number of candidates, it was

neither practical nor desirable to record them all. The Party's main hope for

representation, TVNZ considered, was Mr Capill's candidacy in the Yaldhurst electorate

and, in a reference to that electorate, one of the programme's commentators had described

Mr Capill's performance as disappointing in view of the low proportion of votes he received

(about 2%). However, the issue which emerged during the evening was the possibility of a

"hung" Parliament in which the Christian Heritage Party was not in any way involved.

TVNZ then answered the six specific points raised in the Party's letter of complaint. To one,

it responded:

As far as the opinion polls are concerned it has been Television New Zealand's policy

not to report party figures which fall below the margin of error. Christian

Heritage support peaked at 2% during the campaign.

Declining to uphold the complaint under the standards nominated, TVNZ concluded:

The Committee was sorry that you were dismayed by the lack of coverage of

Christian Heritage activities and policies, and understood your frustration.

However, it believed the news and current affairs department had acted properly

throughout by keeping the focus on individuals, political parties and policies which

had a realistic chance of being represented in the new Parliament.

The Committee did not believe that pre-election coverage, or "Decision 93"

breached any rules of broadcasting.

Christian Heritage Party's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, in a letter dated 3 February 1994, the Party referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989. Full details of the referral were included in a letter dated 26 February 1994.

It began:

While we appreciate that the news media cannot act as a "publicity machine for

(just) any organisation", we would suggest that the media can influence the results

substantially during an election. Hence our concern.

Total coverage of the Party by TVNZ during the campaign, it continued, was two short

items. It had not been invited to send representatives to the Counterpoint programme

when concerns were raised with the leaders of the major parties.

The complaint referred to two specific matters. First, dealing with the electorate results

shown on Decision 93, the Party had not expected all the candidates to be listed. Rather, it

wanted the first four or five shown in each electorate. It added:

When Television New Zealand preselected four Parties to show results for, they

gave the impression that they had gained the top four places in each electorate.

This misleading impression is a breach of G1 and G6, especially when New Zealand

First did not even stand in some electorates.

Secondly:

The comments by Mr Nigel Roberts were also inaccurate. In 1990 we only had

.04% of the national vote, mainly because we had not contested every seat. The

average was bound to be reduced once we contested every seat, and yet it only

changed from about 3% to 2.2%. To have jumped from approximately 9000 votes

in 1990 to approximately 38000 votes in 1993 was, in our opinion, a healthy

gain. One could also imply from what Mr Roberts said that we were against MMP.

This was not the case.

Adding that Mr Roberts' comment was misleading, the Party concluded by complaining

that TVNZ had failed to deal with it fairly.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint. Its

letter is dated 28 February 1994 and TVNZ's reply, 23 March.

By way of clarification, TVNZ pointed out the Christian Heritage Party was given the

opportunity on a Counterpoint programme to ask questions of the leaders of the major

parties. It was not invited as a "platform guest".

TVNZ also maintained that the Party's claim about the alleged inaccuracy in

commentator's Nigel Roberts' remarks was not raised in the original complaint, and

accordingly, should not be part of the referral.

Noting, first, that there was no factual dispute between the Party and itself, and secondly,

the length of the programme, a VHS of the programme complained about was not sent to

the Authority.

Referring to the point that the complaint related only to its news and current affairs

output, TVNZ concluded:

The complaint comes down to an assessment of whether or not Christian Heritage

was fairly treated in news terms during this period.

Christian Heritage Party's Final Comment

When asked to comment on TVNZ's response, in a letter dated 2 April Mr Capill on the

Party's behalf maintained that it was not invited to participate in the Counterpoint

programme. As for Mr Roberts' "inaccurate opinion", Mr Capill pointed out that it was

alluded to in the original complaint.

In conclusion, he repeated the members' annoyance at the absence of coverage received by

a nationally organised Party. The Party's pre-selected omission from the results presented

on election night, it added, was unfair. It finished:

We would urge the Authority to find in our favour especially due to the sensitive

nature of the election process that goes to the heart of democracy itself.