BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Stuart Scott, the author of a book entitled "The Travesty of Waitangi" was interviewed

on 60 Minutes which was broadcast on TV2 on 24 September 1995 at 7.30pm.

Mr Allen and Mr Wane complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster,

that the interview was an unbalanced, unfair representation of the author's views, in

particular his views about the Irish people.

TVNZ did not consider that the interview was an inaccurate or unfair portrayal of Mr

Scott's views. It noted that his views about the Irish were given as an example of his

thinking and helped to explain why he wrote the book. Further, he was given an

opportunity to air his opinions and to respond to his critics. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's

decision not to uphold the complaints, Mr Allen and Mr Wane referred them to the

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the

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

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.|

An interview with Stuart Scott, the author of a book entitled "The Travesty of

Waitangi", was broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on 60 Minutes on TV2 on 24

September 1996 at 7.30pm. During the interview, Mr Scott was invited to discuss the

theories espoused in his book and was given an opportunity to respond to accusations

that he held racist views.

Both Mr Allen and Mr Wane complained that the treatment of Mr Scott was unfair

because it did not properly represent his views and that the interview was unbalanced

because it focused unduly on some of his more controversial opinions. Mr Wane

alleged that the interview was conducted in a patronising and sneering manner and Mr

Allen suggested that the interviewer sought to denigrate Mr Scott with the suggestion he

was a bigot and a racist. In particular, the complainants objected to the emphasis given

to Mr Scott's views about the Irish. Mr Wane maintained that had those remarks been

in context, it would have been clear that Mr Scott was arguing that there had been a

number of instances where nations had abandoned rational thinking and embarked on a

course of action without encountering any effective opposition. Mr Wane pointed out

that Mr Scott's point was to question whether New Zealand, in respect of the Maori

question, had gone a little mad itself.

Responding to Mr Allen, TVNZ advised that it had considered his complaint under

standards G6 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those

standards require broadcasters:

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, occupation

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.

Mr Wane's complaint was assessed by TVNZ under the following standards. The first

three require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G3  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

G4 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

The others read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

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 maintained that the theme of the item was an examination of the controversial

claims in Mr Scott's book. In that context, it continued, it was legitimate to challenge

him on his views about the Irish. The exchange between the interviewer and Mr Scott

included the following:

After Mr Scott said that "The Irish are undoubtedly mad", the reporter asks:

         "Are you serious, the Irish are mad?"

Mr Scott:      "Deadly serious".

Interviewer:  "Every Irish person in our audience is going to say that that is

          nonsense, that's offensive, that's insulting."

Mr Scott:      "Ah, I'm not saying that to offend the Irish, but I am simply saying

          that their behaviour has been mad and I think it almost certainly is inbreeding."

TVNZ contended that this example showed that the author had made a sweeping

generalisation about a racial group, which included unsubstantiated statements, and that

it was included in the interview because it was a way of illustrating Mr Scott's views

and beliefs and the approach taken in his book. It did not agree that by singling out this

one example to illustrate Mr Scott's theories that it had breached the balance

requirement. In fact, it maintained, Mr Scott was given every opportunity to expand on

the views outlined in his book and to respond to those who criticised his beliefs. It

rejected the complaint that the item was in breach of standard G6 because it lacked

balance or was partial.

The Authority considers that the interview adequately presented the views held by Mr

Scott and that the Irish example effectively illustrated that his views were contentious.

It does not believe that the focus on the Irish example constituted a breach of the balance

requirement since it was used, in part, to explain his theory that unless policies and dicta

were challenged, nations might be accused of being a little mad. It observes that Mr

Scott was given adequate opportunity to respond to the accusations from his critics that

he espoused racist views and that he was also given the opportunity to express the ideas

which were the catalyst for the book. It declines to uphold the complaint that the item

was unbalanced.

Next, TVNZ examined Mr Allen's claim that Mr Scott was denigrated in the item

because he was represented as being racist and bigoted, and that his medical condition

had no relevance to the issues. TVNZ pointed out that the claims of bigotry and racism

had been made by critics of the book and had been put directly to Mr Scott for his

reaction. TVNZ observed that in his response to those criticisms, Mr Scott was

relaxed, open and forthright, and the atmosphere throughout the interview was cordial.

Responding to the complaint that it was irrelevant to mention that Mr Scott had a life-

threatening illness, TVNZ argued that it gave an added poignancy to the story and

provided another important reason why the author had financed the publication of the

book himself. It declined to uphold the complaint that standard G13 was breached,

finding no support for the claim that Mr Scott was denigrated. Furthermore, it pointed

out, the standard contained an exemption which permitted the broadcast of material

which was factual.

The Authority observes that standard G13 protects "any section of the community"

against being portrayed in a manner which represents them as inherently inferior or is

likely to encourage discrimination against them. The standard does not apply to an

individual. It notes that the concerns raised under this standard are dealt with under

standard G4, which is considered below.

Replying to Mr Wane's complaint that standard G1 was breached, TVNZ maintained

that there was no evidence of any inaccuracy in the facts presented in the programme,

and accordingly considered there was no breach of the standard.

Likewise the Authority considers that no evidence was provided to support the

contention that standard G1 was breached and declines to uphold this aspect of the

complaint.

TVNZ rejected the allegation that it failed to acknowledge the rights of individuals to

express their opinions and thus breached standard G3. It pointed out that Mr Scott was

given the opportunity to give his opinions during the programme, as was Mr Richard

Parata on behalf of the local runanga of the Ngai Tahu.

The Authority agrees with TVNZ that Mr Scott was given the right to express his

opinions during the programme. It recognises that it was not possible in the 60 Minutes

time-frame to cover in detail all of the views expressed in his book. However, it

considers that he was given adequate opportunity to respond to the interviewer's

questions and to elaborate on issues about which he was challenged. It also notes that

Mr Parata was given the opportunity to put the views of the local runanga. Accordingly

it declines to uphold the complaint that standard G3 was breached.

Next TVNZ considered Mr Wane's allegation that the programme breached standard G4

because it was unfair in its treatment of Mr Scott, and that the interviewer's approach

was patronising and his manner sneering. As an example, Mr Wane cited the remark

that while Mr Scott had written a number of songs, they were all in the same key. He

also objected to the programme's failure to detail Mr Scott's arguments about what the

Treaty means and the fairness of Maori tactics.

TVNZ rejected the allegation that the interview was conducted in a patronising and

sneering manner. It described Mr Scott as open and forthright, and reported that it

understood that overall he was quite happy with the interview and did not feel that the

programme had done him an injustice. With respect to Mr Scott's musical skills, TVNZ

observed that the comment was included to lighten the interview and to provide another

insight into his character. In response to the complaint that the item failed to discuss the

problems that have resulted from there being two versions of the Treaty, TVNZ noted

that Mr Scott was not the first to point this out, it having been a major part of the leading

work on the Treaty by Dr Claudia Orange. It added that the fact that there was no

discussion of this aspect did not mean that the item was unbalanced.

TVNZ also commented on Mr Wane's opinion that since the results of the telephone

poll conducted after the item proved that 11 to 1 viewers supported Mr Scott's views, it

was unfair to imply that Mr Scott's views were aberrant. It noted that the selection of

letters which were read out the following week included three which were critical and

three which were supportive of Mr Scott. It did not accept that the reporting of the poll

or quoting from those letters was unfair to Mr Scott.

The Authority observes that the interview provided Mr Scott with an opportunity to

present views which are regarded by many to be controversial. He explained why he

had written the book and elaborated on some of his theories The Authority considers

that the discussion about his musical compositions was of interest because it gave

viewers another dimension to his personality and interests. It does not believe that the

interview was unfair to Mr Scott or that it unfairly represented his views. Although it

realises that only a few aspects of the book were referred to, it observes that the

interview, while including a summary of the points made in the book, primarily

attempted to understand the personality and beliefs of its author. With reference to the

allegation that the reporting of the poll results and the selection of letters was unfair to

Mr Scott, the Authority does not believe that the reporting of the poll results was unfair

since it reported that the great majority of respondents supported Mr Scott. The letters

reflected a variety of opinions but, in the Authority's view, did not amount to unfair

treatment. Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that standard G4

was breached.

TVNZ rejected the complaint that standard G14 – accuracy and impartiality in news –

was breached, pointing out that the standard was inapplicable since this was not a news

programme. The Authority agrees that the standard was inapplicable. The points made

by Mr Wane are dealt with under other standards.

Finally, TVNZ rejected the complaint that its editing of the programme distorted the

views of Mr Scott and thus breached standard G19. It considered that the item was

handled sensitively, respectfully and with great care by the producer and reporter and

asserted that there was no evidence that the programme was edited in such a way as to

distort the views expressed.

The Authority notes that in the past it has applied this standard to editing techniques

which have misled viewers because they have not reflected the true situation. While it

accepts that the item focused on certain aspects of the book (for example, Mr Scott's

views about the Irish), the views presented were Mr Scott's own views and he was

permitted to explain and comment on those views when asked by the interviewer. As it

pointed out above, the Authority realises it was impossible in the context of a short

interview to present every one of the views expressed in the book, and it accepts that the

broadcaster retains editorial discretion as to what is included so long as the views are

not distorted. As it considers that this did not occur, the Authority declines to uphold

this aspect of the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
29 February 1996

Appendix I

Winton Allen's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 6 November 1995

Mr Allen of Lower Hutt complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about its broadcast

of an item on 60 Minutes screened on TV2 on 24 September 1995 at 7.30pm. The item

featured an interview with Stuart Scott, the author of a book entitled "The Travesty of

Waitangi".

Mr Allen complained that far from being a fair and balanced discussion with Mr Scott

about the main points of his book, the interview sought to discredit his views by

focussing on his opinion about the Irish people. Mr Allen wrote:

The interviewer sought to denigrate Mr Scott with the suggestion he was a

bigot and or a racist. At the same time he gave full credence to the opinions

of another gentleman whose claim to being a Maori is tenuous. The interviewer

also suggested Mr Scott was in a hurry to publish his book

because he knew he was dying. What relevance has that to the issues?

In Mr Allen's view, the programme did nothing for race relations in New Zealand. He

added that in his view, proven injustices should be addressed and compensated and

wild, unsubstantiated claims should be discarded.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 5 December 1995

TVNZ responded to Mr Allen's comment that the programme appeared to discuss "ad

nauseam" the sanity or otherwise of the Irish with the view that the item's theme was an

examination of the wider controversial claims in the book. Part of that examination, it

continued, was a discussion of the reason why Mr Scott wrote his book, which was

that local Maori planned to establish a taipore near his home on the Otago coast.

With respect to his views on the Irish, TVNZ responded that they were included

because of what they said about Mr Scott himself. It wrote:

We were examining why he wrote the book. These remarks are a pointer to

the man and his own attitudes and beliefs. The author was making a sweeping

generalisation (which included unsubstantiated statements) about another

racial group. TVNZ thought it was fair to include the exchange to illustrate Mr

Scott's approach.

TVNZ then looked at your claim that the interviewer sought to denigrate Mr

Scott with suggestions that he was a bigot and racist. They found that Mr Scott

had been challenged in some reviews of his book. Those critics had suggested

he was racist. The reporter put those criticisms directly to the author. He was

given an opportunity to respond, and took that opportunity. Mr Scott was

relaxed, open and forthright with no apparent unease. In fact, the atmosphere

throughout the item was cordial.

In response to Mr Allen's query about the relevance of Mr Scott's medical condition,

TVNZ responded that it was relevant as an added poignancy and another important

reason for the author to finance the publication of his book to assert his views. It

reported that Mr Scott himself had no problems with that approach. TVNZ did not

consider that the item was unfair or unbalanced. It believed it gave Mr Scott an

opportunity to expand on the views outlined in his book and to respond to the critics

and also gave both sides in the Maori taipore dispute an opportunity to air their views.

In response to the claim that standard G13 was breached, TVNZ responded that the

requirement did not apply to material which was factual. Furthermore it did not believe

that Mr Scott was denigrated or that he was represented as a bigot or racist. It

considered that the item had been handled sensitively and respectfully and in compliance

with the Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

Mr Allen's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20

December 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold the complaint, Mr Allen referred it to

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

He repeated that in his view the 60 Minutes programme was unbalanced and was

designed to portray Mr Scott and a bigot and/or a racist. Mr Allen considered that an

injustice had been done to Mr Scott.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 17 January 1996

In its brief response, TVNZ denied the charge that 60 Minutes was designed to show

author Stuart Scott as a bigot and racist. It believed that it was valid to report that he

had been so described by others and to ask the questions that would allow viewers to

reach their own conclusion. It added that Mr Scott himself knew that his views were

controversial.

Mr Allen's Final Comment - 23 January 1996

When asked to make a brief final comment to the Authority, Mr Allen repeated that he

believed the programme was unfair and unbalanced. He regarded the interviewer's ploy

of dwelling on the shortcomings of the Irish was a deliberate attempt to show Mr Scott

as a racist.

He concluded:

I think it relevant to remember that Mr Scott is a novice when it comes to TV

interviews, Mr Stevens [the reporter] on the other hand, is a very experienced

player.

Appendix II

AGT Wane's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 25 September

1995

Mr Wane of Warkworth complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that its broadcast of

an interview on TV2 on 24 September 1995 on 60 Minutes at 7.30pm breached

broadcasting standards. The interview was with Stuart Scott, the author of a book titled

"The Travesty of Waitangi".

In Mr Wane's view, the whole interview was conducted in a patronising and sneering

manner. He objected to the reference to Mr Scott's opinion in the book "that the Irish

people have been accused of being mad in slaughtering so many people for so long

Ôpossibly a consequence of inbreeding'". Mr Wane wrote:

In that context the author was referring to a number of cases when nations have

abandoned rational thinking at control level and courses of action lacking any

sane level of justification have been embarked on without encountering effective

opposition or resistance from the populace. He instanced (inter alia) the French

Terror, the American Civil War, the Russian purges, the Irish and the German

killings. He went on to ask if New Zealand, in respect of the Maori question,

had gone a little mad itself. To single out just one race for the programme seems

to me quite unfair.

Further, Mr Wane argued, throughout the programme the interviewer spoke of the

author in a patronising, sneering tone, adding:

He even felt it necessary to sneer at the fact that while Scott has written a

number of songs they were all in the same key. I cannot see what relevance

that had to the issues.

According to Mr Wane many sensible New Zealanders, including himself, agreed with

Mr Scott's view on what the Treaty means and the fairness of Maori tactics. He cited

the fact that the allegation that Parikaha Maoris were sent to work on a causeway at Port

Chalmers where many perished was shown to be untruthful.

Mr Wane then referred to two points which were raised by Mr Scott which he

considered to be of great moral and legal value. The first was that the different

viewpoints currently expressed by Maori were so far apart from the English version that

it could not be said that the parties were "ad idem". Secondly, he asserted that Article 2

of the Treaty could only have been intended to cover protection of the possessions and

treasures held by the Maori at the time of the Treaty. In Mr Wane's view, these two

points are vitally important principles for the nation and yet were not touched upon in

the programme. He concluded:

The interview was unbalanced, unfair, sneering and unhelpful. It was a

Travesty of an Interview.

Finally Mr Wane noted that nothing in his letter was designed to prevent proven

injustices suffered by Maori to be redressed or compensated for as fairly as possible.

In a second letter dated 1 October, Mr Wane referred to the broadcast the following

week of the results of a telephone poll conducted after the interview in which viewers

were invited to state whether they agreed or disagreed with the views of Mr Scott. He

noted that the results of the poll were 11 to 1 in favour of Mr Scott, yet the broadcaster

summarised that by saying "it seems Mr Scott has some support". Then in a parting

shot, excerpts from letters were published including two which described Mr Scott as a

bigot of the worst kind.

Mr Wane believed that in fairness to Mr Scott and his supporters, TVNZ should

acknowledge the meanminded injustice of its programme. He considered that Mr Scott

would have good grounds in an action for libel.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 22 December 1995

TVNZ began by apologising for its delay in responding to Mr Wane's complaint. It

then responded to his comments about the results of the telephone poll which asked

whether people agreed with the views of Mr Scott which were broadcast the following

week. It advised that the result of the poll was reported as follows:

The results show that Mr Scott has his supporters. Nearly 10,000 people voted

and an overwhelming 91 per cent voted yes.

It then quoted from six letters, three of which were critical of the programme and three

critical of Mr Scott. It did not accept that the reporting of the poll or quoting from those

letters was unfair to Mr Scott.

To the allegation that the interview was conducted in a patronising manner, TVNZ

responded that Mr Scott was open and forthright throughout the interview and that his

honesty and self-belief were respected. It understood that Mr Scott had been quite

happy with the interview and did not believe the programme had done him an injustice.

Referring to Mr Scott's views on the Irish, TVNZ advised that they were given as an

example of Mr Scott's thinking. He was of the opinion that Ireland and other nations

had "abandoned rational thinking at control level". TVNZ did not consider that it was

unfair to single out just one race for the programme. It believed his remarks said a good

deal about Mr Scott and his own attitudes and included the exchange to illustrate Mr

Scott's approach.

With respect to the comment that Mr Scott had written a number of songs which were

all in the same key, TVNZ observed that that comment was included to lighten the

interview and to provide another insight into Mr Scott.

Referring to the problems which have arisen as a result of there being two versions of

the Treaty, TVNZ noted that Mr Scott was not the first person to point this out because

it had been part of the work on the Treaty by Dr Claudia Orange. It added:

The fact that there was no discussion on this aspect in the interview, does not

mean in our view that it was unbalanced.

TVNZ then turned to the specific standards raised. With respect to standard G1, it

maintained that there was no evidence that there was any inaccuracy in the facts

presented. As far as standard G3 was concerned, it considered that both Mr Scott and

Mr Parata (on behalf of the local runanga) expressed their opinions. It did not believe

the programme was unfair or unbalanced because it gave Mr Scott the opportunity to

expand on the views given in his book and to respond to his critics. TVNZ advised that

standard G14 was inapplicable since the programme was not a news one. Finally

TVNZ advised that there was no evidence that the programme was edited in such a

manner that it distorted Mr Scott's views and breached standard G19.

Mr Wane's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 27

December 1995

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

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

Responding to TVNZ's assertion that Mr Scott did not feel the programme had done

him an injustice, Mr Wane referred to a published letter written by Mr Scott (a copy of

which was included with his referral) in which he expressed concern at the extent to

which the programme had dwelt on the shortcomings of the Irish and that it had taken

some of his remarks out of context. Mr Wane wrote:

This seems to me to portray him in a very different light. A thorough and

misguided bigot such as Scott is spoken of in the letter [by TVNZ] would

never write in this way. You will recall that one of the letters chosen by

TVNZ to broadcast after the poll of 11 to 1 in his favour stated that he was

a bigot of the worst kind.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 31 January 1996

Commenting first on the letter to a newspaper written by Mr Scott and included with Mr

Wane's referral, TVNZ maintained that its reporter had spoken to Mr Scott since the

broadcast and had received no indication that he was in any way dismayed by the

interview. It accepted that Mr Scott and the complainant may have felt the programme

dwelt too much on the Irish angle, but it believed that when a provocative remark such

as "the Irish are undoubtedly mad" was made, it should be challenged.

In TVNZ's view, Mr Wane was expressing an opinion about the programme, to which

he was entitled, but that was not a sufficient ground to find a breach of programme

standards.

Mr Wane's Final Comment - 9 February 1996

Mr Wane acknowledged that opinion of viewers was not one of the criteria for the

Authority to apply, but asserted that it did helpt to show that a great number of people

did not believe that Mr Scott was dealt with fairly and justly, or accurately and without

distortion of his views.

He considered standard G1 was breached (by implication, rather than assertion),

arguing:

Nor was there any investigation into Scott's allegation (as demonstrated by a

photo in his book), that it has been false to say that Parihaka prisoners arrested

on 5/11/1881 were confined in caves while working on the Anderson Bay

causeway, built in 1871/2 (see pp 114-117 of Scott's book).

Mr Wane suggested that this fact should have been investigated and referred to as a

matter of accuracy and fairness, particularly when he believed that the interviewer was

doing his best to denigrate Mr Scott's views.

Mr Wane appended a newspaper article which recorded that about 5000 calls were

fielded by TVNZ in two hours after the broadcast of the item.