BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

News items on One Network News and PrimeTime covered issues concerning the

Selwyn by-election campaign in the month prior to the by-election on 11 August

1994.

The Leader of the Opposition, Rt Hon Helen Clark, complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that its coverage of the by-election campaign from mid-

July lacked accuracy, objectivity and impartiality, and she cited instances in items

broadcast on 19, 20 and 25 July and 2 August where she alleged editorial comment,

unsourced gossip and mischievous remarks were made. In addition, Ms Clark argued

that the use of any statement with no factual basis breached the requirement that news

sources have reliability and integrity.

TVNZ accepted that its interpretation of the Heylen poll results on 2 August was

inaccurate. It upheld this aspect of the complaint and broadcast a correction.

However it maintained that the political correspondent's interpretation of the impact

of the poll results on Labour was a fair summary of the Labour party's standing in the

by-election and denied that the by-election coverage was either unfair or inaccurate.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, the Leader of the Opposition 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 upheld the complaint that three aspects of

the items broadcast were in breach of standard G14.

The Authority declined to determine two aspects of the complaint which alleged that

standards G14 and G15 were breached.

It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the items 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.

Aspects of the Selwyn by-election campaign in the month prior to polling day on 11

August 1994 were covered in various news broadcasts on Television One. An item on

One Network News on 19 July which referred to the suggestion that Labour and the

Alliance present a joint candidate stated that Labour had "failed in its efforts to sew

up a deal with the Alliance". On 20 July, a report on PrimeTime included comment

that Labour's campaign had had a "slow start" since it had only finalised its campaign

launch date that day. In an analysis by TVNZ's political reporter of the campaign, it

was reported on 25 July in both One Network News and PrimeTime that Ms Helen

Clark's leadership of the Labour Party was on one year's notice. A report of a

campaign meeting at a factory included footage which showed a handwritten comment

about the leadership scrawled on a whiteboard. That footage was broadcast on 25

July on One Network News and was repeated on both One Network News and

PrimeTime on 2 August. The presentation of the results of a Heylen poll, also

broadcast on 2 August on One Network News included a comment that the Labour

party had suffered an historic setback in being overtaken by the Alliance. It was also

stated, with reference to the Alliance's strong showing that "if it seems Labour can do

nothing right, the Alliance can do nothing wrong".

A formal complaint from Rt Hon Helen Clark, the Leader of the Opposition, described

these news items as examples of the "trail of editorialising, unsourced gossip and

mischievous remarks" which she maintained were in breach of TVNZ's obligation to

be objective and impartial in its news coverage. She claimed that TVNZ was turning

the election campaign into a test for the leadership of the Labour party and cited a

number of examples from the news coverage of the weeks prior to the by-election to

support her view.

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under the standards of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice nominated by Ms Clark, which state:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G15 The standards of integrity and reliability of news sources should be

kept under constant review.

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that

the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original

event or the overall views expressed.

TVNZ apologised for the error in its interpretation of the Heylen poll results when it

stated that this was the first time Labour had been squeezed into third place, and

advised that a correction had been broadcast on One Network News on 7 August. It

added that it would redouble its efforts to check facts arising from Heylen poll data,

noting that procedures were being put into place to ensure that Heylen representatives

were available to check the interpretation of the figures. With respect to the other

aspects of the complaint, TVNZ explained that the role of the political correspondent

was not only to report developments but also to provide analysis (based on hard fact

or on well-informed comment from a variety of sources) and considered that the

observations made by its political correspondent were well within the requirements

imposed by the broadcasting standards.

The Authority's findings on each of the submissions made by the parties are set out

below. It was of the view that standard G19 did not apply to these items, noting that

in previous decisions it has interpreted the standard narrowly to refer to fraudulent or

dishonest techniques which have been employed to distort the facts. Accordingly it

has considered the complaint under standards G14 and G15 only.

19 July Item – A deal with the Alliance

Ms Clark maintained that it was a misrepresentation of events to claim, as TVNZ did

on One Network News on 19 July, that Labour had failed to "sew up a deal" with the

Alliance. This referred to a proposal put by Mr Ken Douglas, President of the

Council of Trade Unions, that Labour and the Alliance put forward a joint candidate in

the by-election. Ms Clark suggested that the failure to reach an agreement on a joint

candidate proposal could equally have been described as a failure by the Alliance to

accept Labour's proposal.

TVNZ agreed that there was no deal between the parties but denied that it had

reported that there was. It referred to an item screened on 18 July which provided a

chronology of the offer to put forward a single candidate.

The Authority referred to the transcript of the 19 July item where, in the context of an

analysis of the "less than promising start" made by Labour in the campaign, it was

reported that Labour had "failed in its efforts to sew up a deal with the Alliance". The

Authority considered that the report was an acceptable shorthand reference to a

proposal which had received considerable publicity and declined to uphold the

complaint that the statement was in breach of standard G14.

20 July Item – Campaign launch date

The Leader of the Opposition complained about the report on 20 July on PrimeTime

where the reporter remarked that Labour had been slow to start in the campaign

because it had only that day set its campaign launch date. Ms Clark argued that that

was factually incorrect, advising that in fact the date for the launch had been set the

previous day, for a date six days later.

TVNZ reported that its parliamentary office had made requests of all of the major

parties for dates and times of their campaign launches and that it had been repeatedly

told by Labour that no date had been set. In comparison, it advised that the other

parties had been very willing to reveal their launch dates, in order to ensure that they

received television coverage. It added that that was not the only justification for

observing that Labour was off to a slow start, noting that Labour headquarters were

still standing vacant when both the Alliance and National had fully operational

headquarters. This, plus the fact that the Alliance had banks of telephone canvassers

calling at least three days ahead of Labour, TVNZ considered amounted to tangible

evidence that Labour was falling behind its rivals.

While the Authority accepted that it was justified to extrapolate from the facts that

Labour was behind its rivals, it agreed with Ms Clark that the report that Labour had

only decided its campaign launch date on 20 July was in breach of the requirement for

accuracy. Although it upheld the complaint that standard G14 was breached, the

Authority noted that the inaccuracy extended to only one day and in the context was

not significant.

25 July Item

i) The Leadership

The Leader of the Opposition alleged that the political correspondent distorted and

misrepresented a remark made by the Party president about the leadership when she

said, on both One Network News and PrimeTime on 25 July, that Ms Helen Clark's

leadership was "on notice". Ms Clark maintained that the statement had no factual

basis and that the repeated use of this unsourced remark was a breach of standard G15

because, since it had no publicly stated source, it was impossible for viewers to judge

its reliability.

In response, TVNZ asserted that its political correspondent had been advised by the

Party president that Ms Helen Clark's leadership was on a year's notice and further,

that this had been confirmed by members of the Labour caucus. It suggested that it

would have been factually incorrect to state that there was no concern among Labour

MPs about Ms Clark's role as leader.

In the Authority's view, the phrase "on notice", because of its connotations in an

employment context, implied that some form of formal arrangement between Ms

Clark and the Party officers and caucus existed by which her leadership would be

challenged if agreed goals were not attained within a specified time frame. It believed

that the evidence which TVNZ relied on to support its statement did not suggest that

any such formal arrangement existed. Furthermore, while the Authority acknowledged

that it was legitimate to report speculation on potential changes in the leadership, it

considered that such speculation which included the comment "she has until the end of

the year to prove herself" should have been attributed to its source. In this instance,

because it was not, the suggestion was presented as fact, which the Authority decided

was both inaccurate and not objective. It upheld the complaint that the statement that

the leadership was on notice was in breach of standard G14.

Turning to the standard G15 aspect of the complaint, the Authority decided that

because of the dispute between the parties about what transpired at the meeting

between the political correspondent and the Party president, it could not make any

determination on the integrity and reliability of the news sources and so declined to

determine that aspect of the complaint.

ii) Mike Moore graffiti

Ms Clark stated that the broadcast of a scene from a campaign meeting on 25 July at a

fellmongery, where a message on a whiteboard indicated that there was support for Rt

Hon Mike Moore as leader, appeared to support the political correspondent's theory

that the by-election was a referendum on the leadership. She pointed out that the

message was incidental to a wide range of issues which were raised at the meeting,

none of which was covered. Ms Clark objected to the original broadcast and also to

the repeated use of the footage by TVNZ. She alleged that the political

correspondent's obsession with the leadership issue distorted the coverage of the by-

election campaign.

TVNZ described its use of the footage as fairly and accurately representing a low

point for Labour, adding that it believed the campaign meeting at the fellmongery was

a pivotal point in the campaign. It noted that it had been used three times, once in the

original item and twice in items dealing with Labour's decline in the polls.

The Authority considered the repeated use of the footage to illustrate a point was not

gratuitous and in the context of the election coverage did highlight an important aspect

of the campaign. It declined to uphold the complaint that the repeated broadcast of

the scenes in the smoko room at the fellmongery was in breach of standard G14.

iii) The candidate was "on the defensive"

The Leader of the Opposition argued that in the PrimeTime item screened on 25 July,

it was inaccurate to interpret the Labour Party candidate's support of her leadership

as being "on the defensive". She pointed out that Ms Hobbs' remarks were simply an

endorsement of the leadership. She argued that TVNZ's interpretation was consistent

with the theme advanced by the political reporters that the by-election was a

referendum on the leadership, and that such an interpretation was entirely inaccurate.

TVNZ maintained that its interpretation was fair and accurate, arguing that in the

context of the events of that week, the reporter legitimately saw Ms Hobbs' remarks

as more than an endorsement.

The Authority decided that it was neither impartial nor objective to describe Ms

Hobbs as being "on the defensive" even in light of the previous week's occurrences.

The brief clip shown did not support that conclusion. It showed Ms Hobbs

acknowledging what she described as the excellent leadership of Ms Clark and her

comments were accompanied by applause. Accordingly, the Authority upheld the

complaint that the description constituted a breach of standard G14.

2 August Item

i) Labour overtaken as main opposition for first time

When the results of the Heylen poll were reported on 2 August, it was stated that this

was the first time a party had overtaken Labour as the main opposition. Ms Clark

argued that this was inaccurate, pointing out that it had occurred before, in December

1993.

In response, TVNZ apologised for stating, incorrectly, that this was the first time

Labour had trailed the Alliance in an opinion poll, and noted that a correction had been

broadcast on One Network News on 7 August. It explained that the error occurred

because the reporter had been unable to check her interpretation of the figures and

advised that new procedures had been implemented to ensure that this would not

recur.

Ms Clark, in her referral to the Authority, expressed her dissatisfaction with TVNZ's

response, noting that this was the second time in five months that it had admitted a

mistake in its coverage of its own polls. She stated that she had no confidence that the

systems which it promised to put in place would ensure that mistakes did not happen

again.

While the Authority noted that this was the second time the Leader of the Opposition

had identified an error in TVNZ's reporting of poll results, it accepted TVNZ's

assurance that it had now set in place systems to ensure that representatives from

Heylen would always be available to interpret the results in the future. It noted that a

correction had been broadcast and considered, in the circumstances, that TVNZ's

action in both initiating a system and broadcasting a correction, was appropriate.

ii) "Another blow for Labour"

Ms Clark was critical of what she described as extraordinarily emotive language in the

reporter's presentation and analysis of the poll results and suggested that this did not

amount to a balanced presentation of the news. She cited examples, where the

reporter described the poll results as "an historic setback", and "another blow for

Labour".

TVNZ explained that its political correspondent was assigned not only to report the

facts but also to provide analysis. It believed that its description appeared to be

supported by the facts, and cited a number of incidents which it considered indicated

that Labour had suffered a string of misfortunes. It rejected the Leader of the

Opposition's claim that the report of the poll results was a distortion, and that the

political correspondent had been "extraordinarily emotive" in her reporting. TVNZ

considered that it was accurate to refer to the poll result as "bad news" and asserted

that interpretation was borne out by other factors, including the fact that two

candidates had withdrawn. The first choice candidate had withdrawn, it continued, as

had another who accused the party of rigging the selection process. In addition, Ms

Hobbs, the candidate finally selected, had drawn criticism in the press for her past

membership of the Communist party and was also responsible for an outburst when

she swore and spoke of Labour's leadership problems. TVNZ maintained that it was

difficult to describe the poll result as other than "another blow".

The Authority considered that TVNZ's interpretation was supported by the facts. It

noted that there had been a number of events which combined to undermine Labour's

efforts to launch its campaign and that it was reasonable to interpret them as being

detrimental to Labour's image. Accordingly it declined to uphold the complaint that

the descriptions used were inaccurate and in breach of standard G14.

iii) The margin of error

Ms Clark maintained that it was inaccurate, on the basis of a decline of two points in

one poll, for TVNZ to describe the result as an historic setback and "another blow for

Labour" because the decline in support was within the margin of error for the Heylen

poll. She observed that opinion polls had a major role in politics and casual and

sloppy use of the data was highly damaging to all political parties.

TVNZ's view was that since similar margins of error occurred in all Heylen polls, it

was not unfair to compare figures calculated in a like manner month by month. It

added that it was sure that had the level of support increased by the same amount,

Labour would have wished that to have been reported, even if it remained within the

margin of error.

The Authority accepted that while the two point fall in support was within the

margin of error, such a fall was relative to earlier polls taken with the same margin of

error and that the change in support was merely reflecting a trend. It also noted that

other polls taken at the same time supported the trend as described by TVNZ. It

declined to uphold the complaint that the report of the poll results was inaccurate and

in breach of standard G14.

iv) Comparison of Labour with the Alliance

Ms Clark complained that the political reporter's statement "And if it seems Labour

can do nothing right, the Alliance can do nothing wrong" on One Network News on 2

August was inaccurate. She suggested that Labour was right in raising legitimate issues

of public concern in the campaign but that TVNZ had failed to include them in its

coverage because it was obsessed with the leadership issue.

Pointing to the words "if it seems", TVNZ responded that election campaigns were

about perceptions, adding that the series of setbacks had appeared to make Labour

look wrong-footed while by comparison, the Alliance had run a "seamless" campaign.

The Authority did not doubt that Labour had known what the election issues were

and had covered them extensively in its campaign. However, it believed it was fair for

TVNZ to comment, in the context of the remark from the Labour candidate where she

appeared to suggest that the previous week had been difficult and in the light of

nationwide polls which suggested a decline in support for Labour, that Labour had had

a troubled week. In comparison, it was obvious from the poll results that the Alliance

was garnering wide support and that level of support was increasing. The Authority

decided it was not inaccurate to compare Labour with the Alliance in this context, and

did not believe that the interpretation given by TVNZ was inaccurate and in breach of

standard G14. It declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

General – The real issues in the campaign

Ms Clark argued that because of its obsession with the leadership, TVNZ failed to

portray the real issues of the campaign. She suggested that there was an attempt by

the political correspondent to set the agenda for the reporting of the campaign.

TVNZ denied that it had said that Ms Clark's leadership was an issue, and maintained

that the references to the leadership were made in the context of the Labour Party's

standing in Selwyn and the race between the Alliance and Labour. It asserted that it

could not ignore the fact that the future of the Party was an emerging issue, pointing to

comment from Labour politicians Mr Peter Dunne and Rt Hon David Lange which

indicated that members of the Party were unsure of its direction. Noting that it had

identified the key issues as health, education and welfare, TVNZ pointed out that it

had covered those issues during the campaign, adding that an item which identified

health and jobs as potentially the deciding factors in the race had been broadcast even

before the polls revealed what the main issues were. TVNZ also noted that it had

covered a detailed debate about local hospitals, National's spending on Darfield High

School and an item which focussed on the special nature of the electorate.

While the Authority accepted that the broadcasts which were the subject of this

complaint emphasised the leadership, and suggested that it was one of the key issues

of the campaign, it recalled that the by-election was the theme of many news

broadcasts over the month leading up to the election and that other issues, including

health, unemployment and education were also dealt with. Since the Authority has

not been asked to consider all of the news broadcasts during that month-long period, it

has been unable to decide whether or not the interest in the leadership question so

dominated TVNZ's coverage that it failed to portray accurately, impartially and

objectively the other campaign issues. Accordingly the Authority declined to

determine this aspect of the complaint.

Conclusion

In addition to the matters addressed above, this complaint has raised an issue about

the role of a political correspondent in news analysis. While it accepted that the

political correspondent should provide analysis, in the Authority's view there should

be a clear distinction between what is news and what is the correspondent's

interpretation of the news. It believes this can be achieved by always sourcing factual

matters and clearly attributing opinion. In addition the political correspondent's

analysis should be clearly identified as such so that there will be no possibility that

viewers would be confused about what is fact, what is opinion and what is analysis.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

report broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on 20 July that Labour had

launched its campaign that day was inaccurate and in breach of standard G14 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, that the report on 25 July that

the leadership was "on notice" was not objective and was in breach of standard

G14 and that to describe Ms Hobbs as being "on the defensive" in the broadcast

on 2 August was neither impartial nor objective and was in breach of standard

G14.

The Authority declines to determine the complaint that Television New

Zealand Ltd has failed to ensure reliability and integrity of its news sources

and thus breached standard G15 and that because of its obsession with the

leadership, it failed to portray adequately the other issues of the campaign and

thus breached standard G14.

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

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. It does not intend to do so on this occasion because, of the

three aspects of the complaint which were upheld, one was a small factual mistake and

the other two aspects upheld do not support the complainant's serious allegations

about the broadcaster's coverage of the Selwyn by-election.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
15 December 1994

Appendix

The Leader of the Opposition's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 4

August 1994

The Rt Hon Helen Clark, Leader of the Opposition, complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd that its coverage on One Network News on 2 August 1994 of the results

of a recent Heylen poll was inaccurate and lacking in balance. In addition, she cited

numerous instances of news coverage of the Selwyn by-election which she maintained

were inaccurate, partial and lacking in objectivity.

Referring to the coverage of the results of the Heylen poll, the Leader of the

Opposition pointed out that the statement that the poll showed that Labour had

suffered an historic setback in being overtaken by the Alliance as the main opposition

party was factually incorrect and a breach of standard G14. She pointed out that

Labour had fallen only two points in one poll and that such a fall was within the 3.2%

margin of error for polls. Referring to a previous complaint to TVNZ in which she

had complained about the sloppy use of polling data, the Leader of the Opposition

lamented that it had had no effect on TVNZ's coverage of the polls and that the

stories were still slanted in such a way as to lead to distortions. She commented on

the extraordinarily emotive language used in the item and argued that it was far from

being a balanced presentation of news. She rejected the suggestion that the poll result

was "another blow for Labour" as the reporter claimed.

In addition, the Leader of the Opposition argued that TVNZ's coverage of the Selwyn

by-election since mid-July breached the requirement to be objective and impartial. In

particular, she pointed to the

trail of editorialising, unsourced gossip, and mischievous remarks by Television

New Zealand's political editor in her coverage of the by-election...

She challenged TVNZ to point to a single poll which showed that the leadership or the

future of the Labour Party was an issue in the Selwyn by-election. She cited the

following examples which she claimed showed the political correspondent applying

her own agenda to TVNZ's coverage:

1. The political correspondent continued to insist that "Helen Clark's leadership

is on one year's notice." The Leader of the Opposition maintained that this statement

had no factual basis and that the political correspondent knew that it did not. She

claimed that the repeated use of this unsourced statement was a breach of standard

G15, which requires that sources of news are kept under constant review and that

they must have reliability and integrity.

2. The repeated use in video clips of a scrawled message on a factory whiteboard

appeared to support the political correspondent's thesis that the by-election was a

referendum on Labour's leadership and, according to the Leader of the Opposition,

resulted in a distorted coverage of the election campaign.

3. A PrimeTime story on 25 July on the theme of the leadership of the party

being under threat was, in the Leader of the Opposition's view, compounded by

remarks by the reporter that Labour's candidate had "defended" Ms Clark at a public

meeting. Pointing out that she was present at that meeting, the Leader of the

Opposition observed that the remarks were in no way a defence, but were an

endorsement.

4. A report on One Network News on 2 August stated that Labour had failed "in

its efforts to sew up a deal with the Alliance..." The Leader of the Opposition said

this was factually inaccurate and maintained that Labour did not fail in its attempt to

sew up a deal at all. She noted that she had endorsed a suggestion for a joint

opposition candidate but that was rebuffed by the Alliance. She suggested that could

equally have been portrayed as a failure by the Alliance to accept Labour's proposal.

5. In similar vein, the Leader of the Opposition continued, was the assertion

made on 2 August: "And if it seems Labour can do nothing right, the Alliance can do

nothing wrong." She argued that Labour had raised legitimate issues of public interest

during the campaign, but no credit was given by TVNZ to Labour for this in the

coverage of the campaign. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the reporter

had been obsessed with the issue of leadership and alleged problems for Labour and

this had crowded out coverage of debate on the issues.

6. Referring to the PrimeTime report on 20 July where the reporter stated that

Labour had gotten off to a slow start on the campaign and had only finalised the date

of its launch that day, the Leader of the Opposition stated that in fact the date of the

campaign launch had been decided the previous day for a date six days later. She

argued that there was nothing unusual about setting the date six days before it was due

to take place and asked why it was that Labour was treated differently from the other

parties and whether TVNZ had attempted to find out when they set the dates of their

campaign launches.

The Leader of the Opposition concluded that the series of assertions, mainly made by

TVNZ's political reporter, added up to an attempt by her to set the agenda for

reporting the campaign. As a result, she argued, TVNZ failed to portray the issues

which were really at stake in Selwyn. She urged TVNZ to take immediate action over

these breaches in standards.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 10 August 1994

In its response, TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint in the context of

standards G14, G15 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Referring first to the Heylen poll result, TVNZ acknowledged that it erred in stating

that it was the first time Labour had been squeezed into third place. It noted that a

correction had been broadcast in One Network News on 7 August and apologised for

the error and reported that it would redouble its efforts to check facts arising from

Heylen poll data. TVNZ explained that on this occasion the error occurred because

there was no representative from the Heylen Research organisation to check the

interpretation of the results. It added that new procedures were put in place to ensure

that Heylen representatives were available whenever required. TVNZ upheld this part

of the complaint as a breach of the accuracy requirement of standard G14.

Referring to the claim that the fall in support was within the margin of error, TVNZ

noted that since similar margins of error occurred in all Heylen polls, it was legitimate

to compare figures calculated in a like manner month by month. It refuted the

suggestion that the decline in Labour's showing had only occurred in one poll, noting

that three other polling organisations indicated a similar result.

With respect to the reporter's description of the poll result being "another blow for

Labour", TVNZ outlined the role it saw of the political correspondent in the news

gathering process. It explained that the political correspondent was assigned not only

to report factual developments but also to provide analysis. It believed that the

phrase "another blow for Labour" was supported by the facts . It wrote:

Labour had suffered a run of misfortune. By the time the poll was taken, first

choice candidate, Ron Marks had withdrawn, Another potential candidate

withdrew as well, accusing Labour of rigging the selection process. Marion

Hobbs, the selected candidate for Selwyn, had drawn criticism in the print

media for her past membership of the Communist Party (an issue TVNZ has

not become involved in). Ms Hobbs was also responsible for an outburst

during the campaign when she swore and spoke of Labour's leadership woes.

TVNZ rejected the suggestion that the report of the poll results was a distortion as

alleged and did not share the view that the political correspondent had been

"extraordinarily emotive" in her reporting of the poll result. TVNZ observed that

Labour was clearly struggling in the polls, noting that Dr Cullen had conceded that

Labour had had a bad week and admitted that Labour had problems in the Selwyn by-

election.

TVNZ argued that the reference to bad news was accurate. The poll in Selwyn was

followed by a nation-wide poll which revealed more bad news for Labour.

Referring to the political correspondent's observation "if it seems that Labour can do

nothing right, the Alliance can do nothing wrong", TVNZ emphasised that the key

words were "if it seems". It argued that election campaigns were about perceptions

and that Labour looked wrong-footed whereas the Alliance had appeared to run an

almost seamless campaign. TVNZ suggested that such observations were expected of

a political correspondent, were fair and were within the broadcasting standards.

TVNZ refuted the allegation of a "trail of editorialising, unsourced gossip, and

mischievous remarks". It maintained that all comment was made on the basis of hard

fact or on the basis of well-informed comment from reliable sources. It denied that

TVNZ had said that Ms Clark's leadership was an issue in the campaign. It stated

that any references to her leadership were made in the context of the party's standing

in Selwyn and the larger issue of the race between Labour and the Alliance.

TVNZ agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that the key issues in the campaign

were health, unemployment and education and observed that it had covered those

issues. However, it argued, it could not ignore the fact that the future of the Labour

party was emerging as an issue during the campaign. It believed it was legitimate for

its political correspondent to identify such a story.

Referring to the allegation that the political correspondent had her own agenda and was

insisting that the Leader of the Opposition was on "one year's notice", TVNZ

explained that before Easter Ms Street, the Labour Party president had told the

political correspondent that while Ms Clark's leadership was safe, it would be

reviewed before the end of the year. According to TVNZ this had been confirmed by

other members of the Labour caucus.

TVNZ noted that its political correspondent believed Ms Clark had the support of the

majority of the Labour caucus and would not be replaced in the foreseeable future.

However, it believed it was incorrect to state that there was no concern among Labour

MPs about her role as leader.

With respect to the "bring back Mike" graffiti, TVNZ noted that this material had

been used three times, once in the original item and twice in items dealing with

Labour's decline in the opinion polls. It believed those images, plus the meeting in the

fellmonger's smoko room were pivotal in the campaign and fairly and accurately

represented Labour's low point. It denied the pictures were used gratuitously.

Turning to the coverage of the Labour-Alliance deal, TVNZ reported that the political

correspondent knew of the deal the Saturday before the broadcast and had agreed with

Ms Street not to run it until Monday. It considered the item was fair and accurate.

TVNZ then considered the issue of the start date of the campaign. It noted that it had

requested information about the start dates of the campaign and had been told by the

Labour office that no final date had been set. If the date had been chosen six days

before the launch, that had not been communicated to the reporter.

TVNZ concluded that the coverage of both the opinion polls and developments in the

Selwyn by-election had been both objective and impartial. It considered the sources

used by the political correspondent were impeccable. It rejected the suggestion that

news had been distorted by the editing process and believed that its coverage had

conveyed an accurate reflection of the political reality.

It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint except for the matter of the

inaccurate conclusion from the Heylen poll.

The Leader of the Opposition's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority - 25 August 1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, the Leader of the Opposition referred her

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

Act 1989.

First, the Leader of the Opposition addressed the aspect of the complaint which

TVNZ upheld. She noted that this was the second time in five months that TVNZ

had admitted a mistake in its coverage of its own polls. After the first occasion, in

May, it advised Ms Clark that procedures had been put in place to prevent a

recurrence of the mistake. She observed that she had no confidence in such procedures

when the mistake happened again. She noted that opinion polls had a major role in

New Zealand politics and argued that such casual and sloppy use of the data by

TVNZ was damaging.

The Leader of the Opposition then turned to TVNZ's response to the rest of her

complaint. She described TVNZ's argument that election campaigns were all about

"perceptions" as an extraordinary admission about its journalism, and pointed out that

TVNZ, as the largest television broadcaster in New Zealand, was largely responsible

for the perceptions of the public. She argued that for TVNZ to claim that it reported

"perceptions" was tantamount to saying that it perpetuated its own images and

spurious claims. She wrote:

TVNZ is arguing that it can defend any type of inaccurate and misleading

report as long as the report includes the words "it seems". I am sorry to hear

that TVNZ News is more interested in "perceptions" than it is in news or

facts.

Pointing to the report on 2 August, the Leader of the Opposition cited phrases which

she described as "damaging" and which she asserted were all based on TVNZ's

perception of what was happening in Selwyn. As an example, she asked, what

evidence did TVNZ have that Labour's candidate was putting on a "brave face"?

Ms Clark accused TVNZ of not addressing her concern about the phrase "and if it

seems that Labour can do nothing right, the Alliance can do nothing wrong". She

maintained that Labour was right in raising legitimate issues of public concern in the

campaign and that TVNZ chose not to cover those issues.

She also claimed that TVNZ failed to address her complaint about its PrimeTime story

in which it claimed that the Labour candidate had defended Ms Clark's leadership.

She repeated that the candidate actually endorsed her leadership in her speech. She

accused TVNZ of having made up its mind and reporting the campaign to suit its

perceptions.

Ms Clark described TVNZ's claim that it never said her leadership was an issue as an

"outrageous and totally untrue comment on the part of TVNZ". She noted that

throughout the campaign, the political correspondent had insisted that Ms Clark's

leadership was "on notice" despite having been told by senior party officials that that

was wrong. Referring to the alleged source of this information - the conversation

between Ms Street and the political correspondent - Ms Clark noted that Ms Street

denied that such a conversation ever occurred and that the political correspondent had

since agreed that that was not the content of the conversation they had at Easter. Ms

Clark maintained that TVNZ tried to make her leadership an issue in the campaign,

asking how else could it justify the use of the footage from the fellmongery three times

during the campaign (including twice on one night, a week after it was shot). Ms Clark

categorically rejected TVNZ's argument that the repeated use of the footage was

acceptable.

The Leader of the Opposition advised that Ms Street had told her in writing that she

did not discuss any "deal" between Labour and the Alliance over a single candidate for

the by-election with TVNZ's political reporter. She added that the point was that

there was no deal. The initiative had been floated and was endorsed by the Leader of

the Opposition but rejected by the Alliance.

Referring to TVNZ's remarks about the setting of the date of the campaign launch, Ms

Clark described them as an example of TVNZ's ability to jump to conclusions without

checking the facts. She noted that the fact that TVNZ did not know the date did not

mean that no date had been set. She added that the fact that the date was set six days

in advance was not evidence of the campaign getting off to a slow start. She described

this report as another example of TVNZ creating its own perceptions.

In conclusion, Ms Clark wrote:

TVNZ's letter of response reveals several more worrying aspects of its

approach to covering the affairs of the Labour Party. I urge the Broadcasting

Standards Authority to closely examine TVNZ's response to my complaint in

the light of the television channel's own requirements to observe standards of

accuracy, and standards of integrity and reliability with regard to sources when

reporting news, and to uphold my complaint that TVNZ's coverage of Labour

during the period of the Selwyn by-election campaign was a clear breach of

TVNZ's codes G14, G15 and G19.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 12 September 1994

As is its practice, the Authority referred the complaint to the broadcaster. TVNZ

repeated that, as Ms Clark acknowledged, it had upheld her complaint in one respect

and broadcast a correction. It acknowledged that it was its responsibility to interpret

polls fairly and agreed that mistakes should not have occurred. It advised that

procedures it had put in place should prevent any such occurrence in the future.

While it maintained that the role of the political correspondent was not only to report

factual developments but also to provide analyses of them, TVNZ explained that it

did not suggest that any kind of inaccurate misleading report could be broadcast by a

political correspondent.

It denied Ms Clark's interpretation of the words "it seems" when the report was

introduced, pointing out that any use of the phrase would only follow a carefully

considered interpretation of events. It denied that it meant that TVNZ was more

interested in perceptions than in news or facts.

TVNZ's view was that it was the responsibility of the political reporter to base their

analysis on the views of a wide range of different sources. It emphasised that all such

analyses were based on experience and on off-the-record or background briefings and a

gleaning or understanding of context as well as content.

Referring to the phrase "another blow for Labour", TVNZ pointed to its full response

in its letter of 10 August.

Turning to the comments about the Labour candidate, TVNZ noted that Ms Clark

referred to the fact that Ms Hobbs was described by most political commentators as

the strongest individual candidate in the by-election, but that there was a belief that

her efforts were being undermined by the fractiousness within the Labour Party. It

noted that when it was reported that she was putting on "a brave face", it was clear

that in spite of Ms Hobbs insisting that all was well within Labour, it obviously was

not. TVNZ referred to briefings given to political reporters from two different camps

within the party and maintained when seen in that light, it was legitimate to report

that Ms Hobbs was putting on "a brave face".

With respect to the comment on PrimeTime that Ms Hobbs was on the defensive on

behalf of Ms Clark, TVNZ maintained that was fair and accurate. Pointing to her

warm support of Ms Clark's leadership at the end of a week when she "had been

under scrutiny", TVNZ suggested that it was legitimate for the reporter to interpret

the remarks as more than an "endorsement".

Turning to the assertion that TVNZ made Ms Clark's leadership an issue, TVNZ

repeated that it only mentioned Ms Clark's leadership twice.

Responding to the disputed recollection of Linda Clark's conversation with Maryan

Street, TVNZ stated that it was clear that the differences between Ms Clark's

recollection of the conversation and Ms Street's seemed irreconcilable. However it

made the point that TVNZ did not broadcast any reference to Helen Clark's

leadership being on notice until the political correspondent had obtained further

information from Labour MPs.

TVNZ expressed its view that there was no contradiction reporting that Ms Clark's

leadership was on notice yet that she had the support of the majority of her caucus. It

added that if a majority of the caucus believed her leadership was jeopardising their

survival, they would certainly oust her.

Regarding the shots used at the fellmonger's meeting, TVNZ contended that it was

entirely legitimate to re-use the footage in the context of Labour's falling support.

TVNZ challenged the Leader of the Opposition's comments over the coverage of the

proposed deal between Labour and the Alliance for a single candidate to be put

forward. It noted that its political correspondent was advised of this possibility at the

Party's regional conference on 16 July in a conversation with Maryan Street. TVNZ

expressed surprise that Ms Street had told the Leader of the Opposition that no such

conversation took place. It noted that its correspondent agreed with Ms Street that

the story would not run that day, and added that not only did Ms Street provide the

background but also undertook to make details of the final proposal available to the

political correspondent.

TVNZ agreed that there was no deal, but added that it did not report that there was.

It observed that the item screened on 18 July gave a chronology of the proposal and

the Alliance's rejection of it.

With regard to the launch date of the campaign, TVNZ rejected Ms Clark's accusation

that it leapt to conclusions without checking the facts, pointing out that its staff

repeatedly checked the facts. It reported that calls were made over a period of days

and its staff were advised that no decision on the launch date had been made. It added

that each of the other parties were keen to let TVNZ know of the dates of their

launches to ensure they got television coverage. It continued:

This was not the only justification for the observation that Labour was "off to

a slow start". The Labour headquarters, for example, were still standing vacant

when both the Alliance and National had full operational headquarters. The

Alliance had banks of telephone canvassers often calling at least three days

ahead of Labour. TVNZ certainly did not "create its own perceptions". What

was seen was tangible evidence of a Party lagging behind its rivals.

In conclusion, TVNZ wrote:

In particular we firmly reject the Opposition Leader's claim that our coverage

of the by-election "included a trail of editorialising, unsourced gossip and

mischievous remarks about the Labour Party and its leadership". We have no

reason to believe that these allegations can be substantiated.

The Leader of the Opposition's Final Comment - 29 September 1994

Repeating that TVNZ's coverage of Labour in the by-election should be viewed in its

entirety, the Leader of the Opposition maintained that TVNZ was determined to set

the agenda for the by-election and to focus negatively on Labour. She reported that

countless numbers of people believed that TVNZ's coverage was unfair to Labour and

failed to represent the political issues which were really at stake in Selwyn.

Ms Clark noted that TVNZ claimed its political correspondent was entitled to

editorialise having made a carefully considered interpretation of events. However, in

Ms Clark's view, the political correspondent did not base her editorialising on such

careful considerations. She pointed to the examples in her complaint to TVNZ where

the political correspondent was told she was wrong but nevertheless continued to

broadcast the same opinions.

Turning to the story in which it was reported that candidate Marion Hobbs had

defended Ms Clark's leadership, Ms Clark said it was ridiculous to interpret her

remarks as a defence of the leadership. She added that Ms Hobbs' strong endorsement

had been made at the campaign opening and that she Ms Clark had endorsed Ms

Hobbs as candidate and she had endorsed her as leader, as was normal in such

circumstances.

Commenting on TVNZ's claim that it had mentioned Ms Clark's leadership only

twice in its by-election coverage, Ms Clark noted that TVNZ omitted to mention the

repeated use of the fellmongery video. She added that she believed had she not lodged

a formal complaint about the use of that footage on 4 August, it would have been used

right up to the polling day on 11 August.

The Leader of the Opposition described as "demonstrably untrue" TVNZ's claim that

it never reported a deal between Labour and the Alliance to stand one candidate. She

reported that the One Network News story of 19 July revealed that TVNZ's reporter

said "Labour...(had) failed in its efforts to sew up a deal with the Alliance". Ms Clark

repeated that Labour made no proposal for such a deal, adding that while the party

president did have a conversation with the political reporter about the prospects of

one candidate standing, the issue was not discussed in the context of a "deal".

Finally, Ms Clark urged the Authority to examine TVNZ's coverage of the Selwyn

by-election as a whole and to assess its overall impact on Labour. It concluded that

Labour no longer had faith in the political reporter's ability to report Labour's affairs

fairly.

TVNZ's Response - 10 October 1994

In response to Ms Clark's request that the by-election coverage be viewed in its

entirety, TVNZ drew the Authority's attention to its 10 August letter where that

allegation was specifically addressed.

It pointed out that in order to assess its coverage, it was necessary to also look at

Holmes and Fraser which looked at both the personalities and politics involved in the

campaign.

Referring to Ms Clark's accusation that the political correspondent repeated a

"perception" about the leadership, in spite of being told she was wrong, TVNZ

advised that its political correspondent's source for this information was the Party

President, Ms Maryan Street and that it did not broadcast the assertion until the

information was corroborated by members of the Labour Party caucus. TVNZ added

that it was puzzled that Ms Clark apparently refused to accept that this checking and

cross-checking took place.

With reference to the remark that the candidate had "defended" Ms Clark's leadership,

TVNZ explained that, while in normal circumstances a successful candidate's

endorsement of their leader would be seen as simply that, in the context of the days of

tension within the Labour party and when the current and former leaders were

perceived to be at odds, Ms Hobbs' endorsement of Ms Clark was significant.

Turning to the report of the deal between Labour and the Alliance to stand one

candidate, TVNZ maintained that it was merely an argument over semantics. It

suggested that had the Alliance and New Zealand First agreed to allow one candidate

to stand in return for a guarantee that certain policy changes would be made, that

would have amounted to a "deal". Since no agreement was struck, no deal was made.

TVNZ maintained that its coverage was fair and accurate.

TVNZ, in commenting on Ms Clark's criticism of its political correspondent, recorded

its confidence in her and its admiration for her diligence and dedication in such a

demanding sphere of work. It also noted that she did not work alone, and that the

content of the news items reflected the work of a team of experienced journalists

trained to ensure that news coverage was at all times fair and balanced. It added that it

was sorry that Ms Clark had chosen to make a personal attack on a member of its

staff.

The Leader of the Opposition's Response - 28 October 1994

Ms Clark wrote that she found remarkable TVNZ's comments regarding Ms Hobbs'

endorsement of her leadership. She added that it would have been unusual if there had

not been such an endorsement and to report it as being "defensive" was extraordinary.

She then reviewed TVNZ's arguments about the use of the tape of the meeting at the

fellmongery. She suggested that the use of the tape was another example of TVNZ

perpetuating its own perceptions. Ms Clark argued that one of the reasons Labour's

support suffered in the early stages of the campaign was because the tape was

broadcast three times by TVNZ. She noted that TVNZ had never responded to her

point that no other material from the fellmongery meeting had been used despite the

fact that the meeting highlighted some of the genuine political issues which were at

stake.

In addition, Ms Clark argued that TVNZ had not answered her point that the tape was

used to support the spurious thesis that the by-election was a test of her leadership,

and pointed to the transcript which demonstrated that the story on July 25 was not

about Labour and the by-election, but about her leadership and the leadership

changeover eight months earlier.

Referring to the correspondent's claim that the leadership was "on notice", Ms Clark

observed that she had been assured by party president Maryan Street that there was

no such conversation with the political correspondent. Ms Clark added that it may

well be that other sources had been similarly misrepresented.

Ms Clark described as worrying that TVNZ claimed that its reporter based her reports

and commentaries on a careful assessment of facts, noting that TVNZ had proved

unable to get key facts right. She observed that twice it had made mistakes in

reporting its own polls and that recently it had upheld a complaint lodged by her

about a factual error, adding:

Given that TVNZ cannot get the basic facts right (even on its own polls) what

faith is the Labour Party to have in TVNZ's reporting of much more political

issues where the sources of TVNZ's "facts" are unknown.

Finally, Ms Clark registered with "considerable sadness" her concern about the lapse

of journalistic standards at TVNZ. She added that she was concerned that TVNZ had

not been prepared to concede that its coverage of Labour in the period leading up to

the by-election was not accurate, objective and impartial and that it had not reviewed

the sources of its news to ensure their reliability and integrity. She concluded:

It is one thing for the company to stand by its employee, the political

correspondent. It is quite another to proclaim her infallibility as TVNZ's

responses to my complaint have consistently done.

TVNZ's Response to the Second Final Comment - 9 November 1994

Beginning by noting that it did not wish to comment further on either the matter of the

candidate's endorsement or the fellmongery footage, TVNZ wrote that it did not

believe support for Labour in the early stages of the campaign suffered through the re-

screening of the material. It added that the choice of material and its subsequent use

was strictly an editorial matter and that it believed the meeting was carefully and

properly covered by its political reporter and the correct news angle identified.

TVNZ then vigorously challenged what it described as the continued implication that

its political correspondent was either careless or disingenuous with her facts. Giving

as an example the matter of the conversation with Party president Maryann Street,

TVNZ referred to Ms Clark's letter in which she stated that Ms Street recalled a very

different conversation than the one their political correspondent recalled. It objected

to MS Clark leaping to what it called an "unjustified and unsupported assertion" when

she wrote that "it may well be that other sources have been similarly misrepresented."

Acknowledging the errors in the Heylen poll, TVNZ repeated that it had identified an

internal problem in relation to the checking of facts with Heylen and had acted to

ensure that difficulty did not arise again. It continued:

No organisation is infallible. TVNZ does not, as Ms Clark seems to imply in

her closing paragraph, claim infallibility for itself. However, when challenged

on our confidence concerning information obtained from careful examination of

controversial statements or facts, TVNZ will not back down from what it

believes to be the true position.

It concluding by observing that at no time had it blindly stood by its political

correspondent and advised that throughout its investigation it had gone back over the

facts and issues and had examined each area. It believed there was no evidence that

what was broadcast on 2 August was either inaccurate (excepting the matter of the

Heylen poll referred to above), lacking objectivity or demonstrating partiality on a

controversial matter.

Ms Clark's Response - 18 November 1994

When asked to comment on TVNZ's response, Ms Clark wrote that she found

TVNZ's intransigence an extraordinary attitude for a public broadcaster because it had

refused to admit that its coverage of the by-election was prejudiced against the Labour

Party in any respect. Further, she objected to the fact that TVNZ was unwilling to

admit the fallibility of its senior political reporter.

Responding to TVNZ's remarks about the use of the fellmongery video, Ms Clark

described as incredible TVNZ's belief that its use of the footage had not impacted on

Labour's support. She maintained that the power of the medium required that

broadcasters act responsibly to choose its editorial material, especially during a

campaign. She claimed that TVNZ had failed to do so with respect to the repeated use

of the fellmongery video and the result was that Labour's support in the early stages

of the campaign suffered.

Ms Clark added that the question about Mr Moore at the fellmongery was not

characteristic of the questions from the workers who had asked many questions about

policy. She suggested that TVNZ had distorted its coverage of the meeting by

reference to the leadership question, adding:

TVNZ has the cheek to refer to this distorted report as "the correct news angle

identified" in its latest letter to the Authority.