BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The possibility of a nationwide strike by primary school teachers was a topic

reported in the media during February 1995 as was the strike itself on the 1st and 2nd

March.

Mr England complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the news broadcast on 1

March at 10.30pm on TV2, Newsnight, omitted any reference to the strike. He noted,

however, the broadcast included an item about an overweight pig in the United States.

He considered the omission to be a misrepresentation of the day's news and,

therefore, in breach of the broadcasting standards.

Questioning whether the complaint involved broadcasting standards, TVNZ explained

that Newsnight was targetted at a young adult audience which was not committed to

watching news programmes. Maintaining that the strike had been dealt with

extensively the previous evening and that the story had not developed during the day,

and that the items on Newsnight were chosen by professional journalists, TVNZ

declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr England

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to determine the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed Newsnight to which the complaint relates

and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice,

the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

A nation-wide strike by primary school teachers took place on the 1st and 2nd March

1995. It was not dealt with on TV2's Newsnight broadcast at 10.30pm on 1 March

1995. The news programme began with an item on the search for drugs in one

secondary school and included one about an overweight pig in the United States.

Mr England complained to TVNZ that the programme's omission of the day's "single

most important item of news" breached the broadcasting standards. When he referred

his complaint to the Authority, he argued that TVNZ, by omitting news about the

teacher's strike, had misled the public.

TVNZ questioned whether the complaint raised a matter of broadcasting standards. It

expressed the opinion that the issue was one of a viewer's preference to which the

statutory complaint's process did not apply. Nevertheless, "to demonstrate good

faith and a recognition of your genuinely-held concerns", TVNZ assessed Mr

England's complaint under standard G7 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice. It requires broadcasters:

G7  To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice which takes

advantage of the confidence viewers have in the integrity of broadcasters.

Noting that it employed professional journalists to decide what were the significant

news events each day, TVNZ said consideration also had to be given to the special

nature of Newsnight:

"Newsnight" is specifically aimed at the young adult audience – an audience with

wide eclectic tastes, but not necessarily committed to the regular watching of

news programmes. The programme has to woo these viewers into watching

serious news material by presenting it in a manner which is likely to attract their

attention.

As for Newsnight on 1 March, TVNZ explained that the strike had been dealt with as

an important story on Newsnight the previous evening and that it had not "moved"

significantly in the following 24 hours. As for the item on the overweight pig:

... TVNZ notes that all news media outlets carry material which, while of little

consequence in the global sense, is nonetheless interesting or at least a curiosity

piece. Without such material news programmes (and newspapers too!) would

quickly become bland and repetitive. The tale of the overweight pig comes into

the category of the "fancy that" story – a good picture story and intriguing too.

TVNZ also pointed out that the serious late night news watcher would have been able

to view One Network News: Late Edition at 11.00pm on TV1. It declined to uphold

the complaint.

The Authority's first task was to decide whether the complaint raised a matter of

broadcasting standards. Under s.6(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, people may

complain formally to a broadcaster about:

... any programme broadcast by it where the complaint constitutes, in respect of

that programme, an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with

section 4 of this Act;

The provision was considered by the Authority in one of its earlier decisions (No:

18/90, 5.10.90) when it wrote:

The fact is that it is only in rare circumstances that the non-broadcast of a

programme or an item within a programme will give rise to a breach of the

Standards included in the Television Programme Codes

What might amount to "rare circumstances" was discussed in Decision No: 112/93

(8.9.93) where the Authority stated:

The Authority accepts that, usually, the non-broadcast of an event is not a

matter to which the complaints process in the Broadcasting Act is applicable.

Furthermore, it accepts that in most cases it is a matter of editorial discretion

whether an item is considered to be worthy of broadcast as a news item by the

broadcaster. Section 4(1)(d) provides the principal exception to the approach as

it requires that reasonable efforts are made or reasonable opportunities are given

to present significant points of view on controversial matters within the period

of current interest.

The current complaint was concerned about the total omission on Newsnight on 1

March of any reference to the primary school teachers' strike. It was not alleged that

the matter had been discussed but a significant point of view had been omitted.

Accordingly, following its earlier decisions, the Authority considered that the

complaint about the non-broadcast of a particular news item did not raise an issue of

broadcasting standards. Therefore, it declined to determine the complaint.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to determine the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
11 May 1995

Appendix

R J England's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 2 March 1995

Mr England of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about

Newsnight on 1 March broadcast on TV2 at 10.30pm. Broadcasting standards, he

wrote, were breached as the programme did not honestly represent the day's events in

New Zealand.

Mr England said that the teacher's strike was the day's "single most important item

of news" but Newsnight not only had omitted any reference to the strike but had

broadcast an item about an overweight pig in the United States.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 17 March 1995

In its response, TVNZ expressed doubt as to whether the matter was appropriate for

the formal complaints process. While it was of the opinion that the complaint

reflected Mr England's programming preference, to demonstrate good faith it said that

it intended to respond to the letter as a formal complaint which alleged a breach of

standard G7 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Commenting that every viewer had an opinion about the day's most significant news

event, TVNZ explained that it used experienced professional journalists to produce its

news broadcasts. It also emphasised the nature of Newsnight which, it said, was

specifically aimed at young adult viewers who were not committed to watching news

programmes regularly. Newsnight, it continued:

... has to woo these viewers into watching serious news material by presenting it

in a manner which is likely to attract their attention.

As for Mr England's specific concern, TVNZ argued that there had been no significant

developments that day about the strike, unlike the previous day when it had been the

lead item.

The item that led Newsnight on 1 March, TVNZ added, involved a controversy at a

secondary school where children had been strip searched for drugs. That story, it

said, was of considerable interest to the target audience as it dealt with an issue which

was keenly debated among young adults.

TVNZ also pointed out that all news outlets carried "curiosity pieces" and the story

about the overweight pig was such - a "fancy that" item - "a good picture story and

intriguing too".

In response to Mr England's point about a hypothetical viewer who relied on late

evening television news, TVNZ commented that One Network News: Late Edition at

11.00pm on TV One was the well-known mainstream news programme.

Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ concluded:

It is TVNZ's view that "Newsnight" has become well-established as a news

programme with a specific target audience which has different tastes from that

which watches "mainstream" news and current affairs. In the context of

"Newsnight", TVNZ is satisfied that the line-up on 1 March was not in any

way deceptive, and that therefore Standard G7 was not breached.

Mr England's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20 March

1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, in a lengthy letter Mr England referred his

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Maintaining that the teachers' strike was the news story of the day, Mr England

argued that TVNZ justified its decision by defining "news" so liberally that it even

included an item about an overweight pig in the United States. He wrote:

I believe, by omission TVNZ has misled the viewing public. If TVNZ is able to

screen an item on an overweight pig in the US (which has nothing whatsoever to

do with NZ) then it is BOUND to screen an item on a major event affecting

many New Zealanders!

He commented on a number of the points made by TVNZ in its letter to him and

insisted that the quality of Newsnight on 1 March was deficient.

Indicating that his later comments were not specifically associated with his complaint,

Mr England questioned aspects of the impartiality of TVNZ's news service and

expressed the opinion that Shortland Street was being used for "social engineering"

purposes.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 30 March 1995

Noting that it had questioned in its response to Mr England whether he had raised a

matter of broadcasting standards, TVNZ argued initially that the Authority should

decline to determine the complaint on the basis that it did not raise a matter of

standards.

Should the Authority decide to determine the complaint, TVNZ said it was entitled to

target a news programme at a particular audience. It wrote:

Mr England seems to question TVNZ's right to target a news programme at a

specific audience. He seems particularly upset that a programme which carries

the title "Newsnight" should omit what he considered the most significant news

event of the day (even though there was no movement in the story that day).

We believe that an effort to "woo" those who are perhaps reluctant viewers of

mainstream news programmes must include items which are of particular

interest to that target audience.

Acknowledging that what the items should be was a matter of editorial judgment,

TVNZ pointed out that it employed trained professional journalists to make those

decisions.

Mr England's Final Comment - 6 April 1955

In a brief comment, Mr England stated that he had already provided the Authority

with the relevant information.