BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The series New Zealand at War examined the participation of New Zealanders and the

New Zealand armed forces in World War II.

Both complainants were concerned about the first three episodes broadcast at 8.30pm

on 9, 16 and 23 May 1995. Ms Jeffs complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that

the title of the second episode "Pommy Bastards/Bloody Shambles" reflected

adversely on the British and that the commentary was unbalanced in carrying the

opinions and criticisms of the commentator (Neil Roberts). Mr Brown also

complained about the title of episode two and alleged that vindictive anti-British

commentary was both unbalanced and untrue.

Explaining that the title of episode two referred only to the British leadership – not to

the ordinary British person – and that the script was the result of extensive research,

TVNZ declined to uphold both complaints. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response,

both complainants referred their 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the episodes complained about and have

read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the

Authority has determined the complaints without a formal hearing.

The series New Zealand at War was broadcast on TV1 at 8.30pm on successive

Tuesdays. The second episode, broadcast on 16 May, was titled "Pommy

Bastards/Bloody Shambles". Both Ms Jeffs and Mr Brown objected to the title. Ms

Jeffs maintained that it breached the requirement for good taste and Mr Brown stated

that, in addition to being offensive, it was also insulting and highly derogatory.

As well, Ms Jeffs complained that the commentary, narrated by Neil Roberts, was

presented as an accurate history of the war but that viewers were not given an

opportunity to respond to the opinions expressed.

What he described as the "deliberately and vindictive anti-British" tone of the

broadcasts, was also the subject of Mr Brown's complaint. He mentioned in

particular the programme's allegations that the New Zealand forces in Crete were

"cannon-fodder" and that the British failed to adapt to modern warfare.

TVNZ assessed the complaints under standards G1, G6 and G13 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice which 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.

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the

community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status,

sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political

belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of

material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs

programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

Outlining the extensive research undertaken in the preparation of the series, TVNZ

said that the commentary was not the commentator's personal opinion but "the work

of three writers". As for the title of the second episode, TVNZ said that it reflected,

"in a pungent street level way", the bitterness felt by many New Zealand servicemen

towards the British military and political leadership. TVNZ emphasised that the

series made clear that the bitterness was directed at the British leadership and not at

the British people and, it added, "No slight against the British generally is ever

implied".

TVNZ then dealt with the complaint that the anti-British comments inaccurately

represented the events in Singapore, Greece, Crete and North Africa and wrote:

TVNZ believes that "New Zealand at War" is a meticulously researched

historical document which presents the period, free of propaganda and jingoism

which inevitably (and probably incorrectly) has accompanied every major

conflict in history. It is a view of wartime from the perspective of the New

Zealand man-in-the-street who was called up to fight.

When she referred her complaint to the Authority, Ms Jeffs explained that she was

not offended by the genuinely-held opinions expressed by people interviewed but by

the snide and sarcastic remarks in the commentary. She also maintained that the title

of episode two was unsuitable for a serious documentary and added that the actions of

leaders of whatever nationality could be interpreted in different ways.

In his referral, Mr Brown also repeated his contention that the title of episode two

was offensive, insulting and derogatory and argued that TVNZ had not justified the

programme's anti-British tone.

In its report to the Authority on the complaints, TVNZ acknowledged the

"deliberately provocative" use of the phrase "Pommy Bastards" as the title of episode

two but insisted that it reflected the attitude of the ordinary New Zealander at the

time to British leadership. TVNZ also advised that the deputy director of history

with the New Zealand Defence Force had been closely involved with the series.

In reply, Mrs Jeffs argued that the "deliberately provocative" title had purposefully

incited denigration of one section of the community. Referring to the importance of

reporting the experiences of those, like her, who had lived through the war, she

maintained that, overall, the programmes were not balanced, accurate or fair.

In its assessment of the complaint, the Authority noted first the overall title of the

series which was New Zealand at War. In other words, the programmes put a New

Zealand perspective to the second World War. The Authority kept this point in mind

when considering each of the specific complaints.

Dealing first with the title of episode two – "Pommy Bastards/Bloody Shambles" – the

Authority considered that it was a colloquial term of questionable taste. Both

complainants had maintained that the title of episode two and the broadcasts had been

derogatory towards the British – especially servicemen and servicewomen. Should the

programmes have proposed that perspective, the Authority could well have upheld

that aspect of the complaints. However, in view of the commentary, the Authority

accepted the broadcaster's argument that the critical comments about the British – as

with the title of episode two – were directed at the British leadership.

As for the aspect of the complaints focussing on the item's "sarcastic" tone or its lack

of balance, which was alleged to amount to a breach of standards G6, the Authority

again considered the commentary and took into account the item's overall thrust

apparent in the title of the series. It accepted that the series involved considerable

research and, while not devoid of jingoism as TVNZ claimed, it decided that the series

adequately explained the conflict from the New Zealand point of view. Accordingly,

it concluded, standard G6 had not been contravened.

For the above reason, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
24 August 1995

Appendix 1

Ms Jeff's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 27 May 1995

Ms Jill Jeffs of Orewa complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about aspects of

the series New Zealand at War broadcast at 8.30pm on Tuesdays starting on 9 May.

As the two reasons for her complaint, she alleged first that the title of the second

episode, "Pommy Bastards", breached the good taste standard, and, secondly, that no

one was given the opportunity to respond to the comments and opinions made by the

series narrator (Neil Roberts). The commentary, she continued, was presented as if an

accurate history of the war.

Ms Jeffs enclosed a copy of her letter of complaint to the Race Relations Conciliator

that the term, "Pommy Bastards", was offensive and insulting to the British people.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 June 1995

TVNZ assessed the complaint about the first three episodes of New Zealand at War

(screened on 9, 16 and 23 May) under standards G6 and G13 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ began by explaining that the series did not represent the view of a single

person. Rather:

The series has involved a year's research by ten researchers, as well as

interviews with historians and almost a thousand people, 170 of whom were

recorded on videotape. The final script was the work of three writers.

The perspectives on New Zealand's involvement in the war are thus not

"personal opinions by Neil Roberts" but the fruits of properly conducted

research and analysis according to the best academic tradition.

The title of the second episode, TVNZ continued, set out the view of the ordinary

New Zealanders - especially those in the armed forces, observing:

The theme of the second episode was the bitterness felt by many New Zealand

servicemen towards the British military and political leadership, and the title

"Pommy Bastards/Bloody Shambles" expresses those feelings in a pungent,

street level way.

The series has made it perfectly clear that the bitterness was aimed at the

leadership in Britain and not the British people collectively. No slight against

the British generally is ever implied.

The bitterness felt was reflected in the interviews shown about the events in

Singapore, Greece, Crete and the Desert and, TVNZ recorded:

TVNZ believes that "New Zealand at War" is a meticulously researched

historical document which presents the period, free of the propaganda and

jingoism which inevitably (and probably correctly) has accompanied every

major conflict in history. It is a view of wartime from the perspective of the

New Zealand man-in-the-street who was called up to fight.

With regard to the standards cited, TVNZ said the programme reflected the research

carried out and the comment about the British was directed at their military and

political leadership. Moreover, standard G13 was not contravened given the

exemptions in G13 (i) and (ii).

Ms Jeffs' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 19 June 1995

Noting her positions as a Rodney District Councillor, President of the British

Pensioners Association (NZ), and Vice President of Hibiscus Coast Grey Power, Ms

Jeffs enclosed some press clippings reporting how the comments about the British in

the programme had offended her and some other people.

She also commented:

I think this 50th anniversary of VE and VJ days has brought back many painful

memories to many people, without the offensive and upsetting remarks made by

Neil Roberts in his narrations to make it more so.

Attached to the referral was a letter Ms Jeffs had written to TVNZ as President of the

British Pensioners Association (NZ) in which she explained that she was not offended

by the comments made by the people interviewed, as they were genuinely-held

opinions, but by the snide sarcastic remarks included in the commentary. The title of

episode two, she added, was unsuitable for a serious television documentary. Pointing

out how the actions of leaders - of whatever nationality - could be interpreted in

different ways, she wrote:

The New Zealand at War series was overloaded with propaganda from an

extremely biased commentary with remarks such as "Our boys went off to fight

Britain's war". It was actually a World War and is normally referred to as such.

The very repetitive excuses made in your letter and the distortion of truth have

in no way satisfied my complaint.

I also lay a further complaint against Neil Roberts for publicly stating that I am

a "hysterical councillor", when he has never met me and when I am within my

rights to lay an official complaint against a public broadcasting station which

states that "this programme was made with the help of your licence fee". I shall

therefore refer this matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 30 June 1995

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said that the correspondence revealed a personal

animosity between the complainant and the narrator (Neil Roberts) which should be

put to one side.

On the first aspect of the complaint - that the title "Pommy Bastards" reflected badly

on the British - TVNZ acknowledged that it was deliberately provocative. However,

it also reflected the indignation of the ordinary New Zealander and their belief that

British leadership placed our armed forces in untenable positions. Referring to the

losses suffered, TVNZ continued:

In this regard we observe that "New Zealand at War" was a work of historical

scholarship, produced with the benefit of a historical perspective that can only

be gained by viewing a series of events after a period of time has elapsed - in this

case 50 years. The hyperbole and disinformation of the war years and in the

period immediately afterwards has been stripped away and the New Zealand

involvement in the conflict examined with a view to discovering the truth of the

matter. ...

We submit that the title taken in the context of the series referred to the British

military leadership and nobody else.

As for balance, TVNZ repeated that the documentary was made by a large and skilful

team. A deputy director of history with the New Zealand Defence Force had been

closely involved and, TVNZ concluded:

TVNZ submits that "New Zealand at War" successfully distilled from a vast

array of information and research material a final product which reflected

accurately in a balanced fashion current historical thinking on the role of New

Zealanders in World War II.

Ms Jeffs' Final Comment -8 July 1995

In her response to TVNZ, Ms Jeffs said that she had never spoken to Neil Roberts

and that her complaint did not contain any evidence of personal animosity. Rather

she was concerned about the title of episode two and the unbalanced nature of the

commentary. The provocative comments were included in the narration and, in breach

of the requirement for balance, there were no opportunities given for corrections.

Ms Jeffs acknowledged that there had been mistakes in the conduct of the war but

blame, she wrote, could not be placed on one section or group of people. Extensive

research did not guarantee that the producer would ensure an accurate and balanced

commentary. In conclusion, she wrote:

Many good folk have been angered and insulted, and deserve an apology from

someone who obviously seized the opportunity to show extreme bias.

Appendix II

R Brown's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 29 May 1995

Mr R Brown of Otorohanga complained to Television New Zealand Ltd "in the

strongest possible terms" at being labelled a "Pommy Bastard". The title of episode

two of New Zealand at War broadcast at 8.35pm on May 16, he said, by using the

term "bastards", referred to all British citizens and ex servicemen and women. As a

British citizen who was also an ex-serviceman, Mr Brown said the term was

"insulting, offensive in the extreme and highly derogatory".

In addition Mr Brown complained about the deliberately vindictive anti-British tone

of the first three episodes. He expressed particular concern at the claim that the

British had deliberately placed New Zealand servicemen in a position where they

could be killed and he contested two specific incidents noted in the text.

Nominating the standards under which he complained, Mr Brown said that he

expected both a personal and public apology.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 June 1995

TVNZ's response to Mr Brown was identical to its reply to Ms Jeffs (see Appendix

I) except that it assessed the complaint under standard G1 (in addition to standards

G6 and G13). In response to that aspect of the complaint, TVNZ said that it was

unable to detect any inaccuracies in a programme which had undertaken extensive

historical research.

Mr Brown's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 28 June 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Brown referred his complaint to the

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

Repeating his contention that the term "Pommy Bastards" was offensive, insulting

and derogatory, he maintained that TVNZ's response had neither justified the use of

the term nor the deliberate anti-British tone of the programme.

Mr Brown also said that TVNZ had not responded to his complaint that the

broadcast - by insulting a group of people - had breached the Human Rights Act.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 1 August 1995

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ referred to its reply to Ms Jeffs (see Appendix

I) and averred that the term "Pommy Bastards" was directed towards the British

military and political leadership and not to the British people as a whole. It added:

There is in addition no evidence that the use of the term was likely to discourage

(sic) discrimination against British immigrants in this country.

TVNZ concluded:

New Zealand television viewers over the years have seen many British made

documentaries, which have looked at events in which New Zealand has played a

part, from a British perspective. The opportunity was taken on this occasion,

50 years after the end of World War II to attempt to look at New Zealand's

involvement from a New Zealand viewpoint. Not unexpectedly the series upset

some people. This does not mean to say the series. and in particular, the three

episodes referred to by Mr Brown were in breach of any standard of the Free-

to- Air television programme code.

Mr Brown's Final Comment - 15 August 1995

In his final comment, Mr Brown maintained that at no time had TVNZ legally

justified the programme's anti-British content or the use of the term "Pommy

Bastards". The Human Rights Act, he continued, did not distinguish between military

and civilian personnel.

Mr Brown expressed the opinion that had the programme been about the New

Zealand land wars, in no way would TVNZ have used the term "Maori Bastards".