Evans and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1995-080
Members
- J M Potter (Chair)
- L M Loates
- R McLeod
- W J Fraser
Dated
Complainant
- L C Evans
Number
1995-080
Programme
Money showBroadcaster
Television New Zealand LtdChannel/Station
TVNZ 1Summary
Lotto was discussed in an item on TV1's Money programme broadcast at 8.00pm on
28 April. The item included an interview with the Chief Executive of the New
Zealand Lotteries Commission (David Bale) who stated that the chances of winning
any prize was in Lotto was about 1 in 20.
Mr Evans complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the comment, while it
might have been broadcast in good faith, was incorrect as he understood the chances of
winning any prize in Lotto were about 1 in 200.
Explaining that it had shown the Chief Executive reporting the odds, TVNZ said it had
fulfilled its responsibility as messenger by broadcasting information from a qualified
source. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, Mr Evans 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 uphold the complaint.
Decision
The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read
the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority
has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.
When Lotto was discussed on the Money show, the Chief Executive of the Lotteries
Commission (David Bale) stated that the chances of winning any prize in Lotto were
about 1 in 20. On the basis of information from other sources that the chances of
winning any prize were in fact 1 in 200, Mr Evans complained to TVNZ that the
statement which was broadcast was inaccurate and misleading.
After correspondence with Mr Evans, TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards
G1, G14 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first requires
broadcasters:
G1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.
The other two state:
G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.
G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that theextracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event
or the overall views expressed.
TVNZ accepted that Mr Bale had suggested that the chances of winning any prize
were 1 in 20 but, if the figure was inaccurate, it suggested to Mr Evans that his
argument was with Mr Bale. TVNZ had fulfilled its responsibilities, it wrote, by
broadcasting the comments of an acknowledged expert. Its reporters were not
required, it added, to be experts in every area about which they asked questions. It
continued:
Turning to the standards, and to G1, the committee observed that as a
broadcaster TVNZ was not guilty of any error. An individual appearing on the
programme (Mr Bale) may or may not have been guilty of error. However he
was seen to make the statement in his role as Chief Executive of the Lotteries
Commission and, as another programme standard states, "individuals are
allowed to express their own opinions". Had the reporter (unattributed) made
the statement to which you object, and had it later been found to be inaccurate,
you would have had a case under G1. As it is the broadcaster is not in breach
of the standard.
As Money was not a news programme, TVNZ stated that standard G14 was
inapplicable, and as Mr Bale's comments were not distorted through editing, it
concluded that standard G19 did not apply.
When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Evans repeated his contention
that Mr Bale's comments were neither accurate nor made in good faith and, in
addition, were not in the public interest.
In its report to the Authority, TVNZ argued that Mr Evans was failing to distinguish
between the message and the messenger.
In its assessment of the complaint, the Authority agreed at the outset with TVNZ
that standards G14 and G19 were not applicable for the reasons advanced.
Standard G1, it noted, does not distinguish between the broadcaster's role as the
bearer of a message and the accuracy of that message reported. It states clearly that
broadcasters are required to be truthful and accurate on points of fact.
Nevertheless, the Authority, like TVNZ, has not approached the complaint by
ascertaining just what are the odds of winning any prize in Lotto. Rather, the
Authority has asked what are the responsibilities of a broadcaster in ensuring that it
complies with the requirement in standard G1 for factual accuracy.
In dealing with this matter, it accepted TVNZ's point that it was a broadcaster's task
to use reporters to seek facts from the experts rather than to employ reporters who
were themselves experts. However, the Authority did not accept that the
broadcaster's obligation under standard G1 was simply to be that of the messenger.
The Authority considered that it was reasonable to expect reporters to have at least
some knowledge of the topic about which they were seeking information. The
Authority noted that the use of reporters' rounds was one process used by
broadcasters and other news gatherers to enable reporters to acquire such knowledge.
Following on from its expectation about the level of knowledge which could be
expected of reporters, the Authority decided that standard G1 would be complied
with only when reporters made use of their role as well-informed non-experts to
ensure that obvious inaccuracies were not broadcast. The standard, however, would
not be contravened should the expert be incorrect on a matter which required expert
knowledge.
The Authority then considered the complaint about the comment made by the Chief
Executive of the NZ Lotteries Commission and broadcast in an item about Lotto. As
the odds of winning a prize in Lotto was a matter on which he was undoubtedly an
expert, and as his reply would not automatically have been questioned by a well-
informed lay person, the Authority decided that standard G1 had not been
contravened.
For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 July 1995
Appendix
Mr Evans' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 15 May 1995
Mr L C Evans of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item
on the first episode of TV1's Money programme broadcast on 28 April at 8.00pm.
Referring to the segment of the programme which discussed Lotto, Mr Evans
maintained that the head of the Lotteries Commission (Mr David Bale) made an
incorrect statement when he stated that the chances of winning any Lotto prize was
about 1 in 20. Expressing the belief that the chances of winning any prize in any
particular draw was about 1 in 200, Mr Evans said TVNZ might have acted in good
faith but it was unacceptable for a senior person to offer misinformation deliberately.
Advertising of Lotto on Sunday evenings, he added, was also unacceptable to many
viewers.
TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 2 June 1995
After correspondence with Mr Evans, TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards
G1, G14 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.
TVNZ reported to Mr Evans that the Chief Executive of the Lotteries Commission
(Mr David Bale) had suggested that the chances of winning a prize in Lotto was about
1 in 20. It continued:
While recognising that you believe this figure to be inaccurate, the [complaints]
committee felt that your argument is not really with TVNZ, but with Mr Bale.
A moment's reflection will show that it is not possible for a broadcaster or its
reporters to be more expert in every conceivable subject than those who are
employed to be the experts. If a reporter is doing a story about nuclear physics
he asks questions of a nuclear scientist and generally accepts the answers at face
value. If he does a story about heart illness he will similarly take the word of a
cardiac surgeon. In covering The Budget released last night, reporters had to
accept that figures given to them by Treasury were correct.
It continued:
With respect to you, the committee believed that in your complaint you may be
confusing the message and the messenger. The message was Mr Bale's
comment, the messenger was TVNZ which simply relayed that comment in
good faith.
As Mr Bale made the statement in his role as Chief Executive, TVNZ maintained that
standard G1 had not been contravened. Neither G14 nor G19, it argued, were
applicable and. it concluded:
While TVNZ is sorry that you found fault with Mr Bale's comments, it believes
your argument is with him rather than with a broadcaster who accepted in good
faith comments from him dealing with his specific area of expertise.
Taking everything into account, TVNZ has been unable to find any breach of the
programme standards.
Mr Evans' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 14 June 1995
Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Evans referred his complaint to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
Mr Evans persisted in his belief that the statement made by Mr Bale was neither
accurate nor made in good faith. The chances of winning a prize in any draw, he
repeated, were 1 in 200 rather than 1 in 20.
He concluded:
A satisfactory outcome in my opinion, would be for the Crown Solicitor to be
instructed to draw up prosecution charges against the Lotteries Commission,
presumably under the Fair Trading Act.
TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 20 June 1995
In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said it had nothing to add apart from repeating
its comments that Mr Evans seemed to be failing to distinguish between the message
and the messenger.
Mr Evans' Final Comment - 25 June 1995
Acknowledging that it was the "message" which was the cause of the problem, Mr
Evans stated that Mr Bale had presented inaccurate and misleading information. He
referred to the information contained in a National Radio broadcast for the
Correspondence School and wrote:
It is in the public interest that the misunderstanding created by David Bale be
cleaned up, irrespective or otherwise, of any breach of the television programme
standards.
This would be a commonsense and sensible solution.