BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Speculation about the future of free-to-air television coverage of rugby games was

reported on One Network News and Holmes on 9 February 1996 while rugby rights

were being negotiatied by New Zealand networks. The reports also referred to

legislation in Britain and Australia which ensured sports coverage remained on free-to-

air television.

Mr Frewen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the reports were

unbalanced and partial and, judging by the public's reaction, caused unnecessary alarm.

He suggested that the reporting of the public's negative reaction to the proposal

benefited the broadcaster by allowing it to obtain a favourable deal on the free-to-air

rights to the games.

Accepting that it was in error when it reported that in Britain there were laws

protecting the free-to-air broadcast of sport, TVNZ upheld the complaint that that

statement breached the standard requiring accuracy. It considered that the reporting of

speculation about the rugby rights going to Sky, and the government's intention

should that occur, was fair and impartial, and denied it attempted to influence the

outcome. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Frewen 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 upholds the complaint that the items were

not objective.

Decision

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

the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The future of rugby coverage on free-to-air television was the subject of speculation in

items on One Network News and Holmes broadcast on 9 February 1996. It was

reported that there was a possibility that all rugby would be shown only on pay

television, and reaction to that proposal was shown. The suggestion was also made

that the government might intervene and introduce legislation, such as existed in

Britain and Australia, to ensure that New Zealanders retained their right to watch

rugby on free-to-air channels.

The Complaint

Mr Frewen complained to TVNZ that the reports lacked objectivity, impartiality and

accuracy. He pointed out that the assertion made in the introduction to the item on

One Network News that Britain had laws protecting free-to-air sport coverage was

incorrect, as the proposed legislative change had not, at that time, become law. In

addition, he complained that it was unfair to create the impression there was a

possibility that all rugby would be shown only on pay television and, having created

that impression, then to canvass the views of the public on the possibility becoming

reality.

Mr Frewen suggested that the use of phrases such as "speculation" and "talk" as

sources for the story disguised TVNZ's dual interest as a participant as well as an

observer. Given its role as a participant in the negotiations, Mr Frewen argued that

TVNZ had an obligation to be seen to be impartial. He also noted that the reports

failed to disclose TVNZ's interest in Sky.

In addition, Mr Frewen argued, the reports created unnecessary panic and alarm

among viewers, as evidenced by the increase in numbers of new subscribers to Sky,

and thus breached standard G16 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. He

suggested that the public reaction shown could only be described as displaying alarm,

and postulated that it could strengthen the hand of politicians and thus increase the

pressure on the negotiations to ensure a satisfactory deal on free-to-air television.

Finally, Mr Frewen observed, the responsibility of a broadcaster to provide fair,

balanced, impartial information of the highest quality was a primary objective of the

broadcasting legislation. He considered the subject of the sale of the rights to rugby

provided an interesting test because it brought together all of the main participants in

New Zealand television broadcasting – the government, the broadcasters and the

viewers. He noted that the government's role was both political and commercial, since

it had the power to pass legislation to keep rugby free-to-air, and was also owner of

two of the three free-to-air VHF channels. He also pointed out that the cultural

standing of rugby as New Zealand's national sport was one of the elements which

made the sale of the television rights controversial. The other element, he maintained,

was the public expectation that games would be screened on a free-to-air channel. In

that context, he asserted, the notion of exclusivity of coverage was critical, and the

prospect that rugby coverage was about to go to pay television was the basis for the

proposition that political intervention would be sought to ensure that New Zealanders

retained the right to watch rugby on a free-to-air channel.

TVNZ's Response

In its response, TVNZ first outlined its procedures for dealing with formal

complaints, emphasising the independence of its Complaints Committee. It then

recorded that the rugby rights story had been introduced the previous day (8

February), and the items broadcast on 9 February updated the previous evening's

broadcast. In the 8 February item on Holmes, it reported, the question was asked

whether legislation should be introduced to ensure that the big games were broadcast

on the free-to-air channels and the topic was debated by Steve Maharey, who

supported the idea of introducing such legislation, and Nate Smith of Sky television.

Having established the context of the 9 February items, TVNZ examined the

complaint under the standards nominated by Mr Frewen. Standard G1 requires

broadcasters:

G1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

The other standards read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G16 News, current affairs and documentaries should not be presented in

such a way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

TVNZ responded first to the complaint that it was inaccurate to state that legislation

existed in Britain to protect viewers' rights to watch sport for free. It acknowledged

that the legislation had not been enacted and upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Next it responded to the charge that the opening statement of the 9 February news

item was inaccurate when it said:

First tonight, speculation the government may play referee amid talk rugby is

about to go exclusively to Pay TV.

TVNZ emphasised that the introduction did not say that all rugby would go to pay

television, but that there was talk about such a move. It maintained that it was an

accurate report of the feeling on the day and that there was no doubt that there was

widespread speculation both about the rugby rights going to Sky, and the

government's intentions should that occur. TVNZ rejected the accusation that its

report was partial, stating categorically that its journalists in the news and current

affairs department did not discuss the matter with staff outside the news department.

The stories, it continued, were based solely on the information gleaned by reporters

that day and reflected accurately the reactions of viewers to the proposal.

Defending its decision to include comment on Holmes from Taranaki viewers about

exclusive Sky coverage, TVNZ noted that the decision to canvass that group was

because they could not receive Sky coverage in the region. It denied that its reporter

avoided comments from those in Taranaki who might have favoured the switch to pay

television and noted that similar views to those broadcast were expressed in stories in

major newspapers that day.

With respect to the complaint that it failed to declare its interest in the outcome of the

negotiations, TVNZ responded that as a major broadcaster of live sport it considered

its interest was well known and further, that as it was only a 16% stakeholder in Sky,

it was in no position to control Sky's activities.

TVNZ concluded that the items were handled in an objective and impartial manner and

declined to uphold the standard G14 aspect of the complaint.

Turning to the complaint that the reports caused unnecessary panic or alarm and thus

breached standard G16, TVNZ advised that it did not consider the standard applicable

to the facts. Its view was that the standard applied to such situations as false

predictions of economic calamity or misleading information about the outbreak of war,

and not to the removal of rights to rugby games on free-to-air television. Accordingly,

it declined to uphold the complaint that standard G16 was contravened.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority observes first that TVNZ's news item about the rights to screen rugby

possibly becoming exclusively the domain of pay television was premised on an

assumption that not only did Sky have the exclusive rights to live rugby, but also the

exclusive delayed rights, and as a consequence, major rugby games would not be

shown on free-to-air television. "Talk" and "speculation" based on that assumption

was the basis for the items. Certainly, the Authority acknowledges, at the time there

was considerable apprehension and concern in the community that significant changes

to the broadcast of live sport, particularly rugby, were presaged. It was generally

understood that the introduction of professionalism into rugby made it inevitable that

rights would be sold to the highest bidder. However, in the Authority's view, it was

only one of several possibilities that an exclusive arrangement with Sky would result

in non subscribers being denied the opportunity to watch the games.

The Authority notes that the question of exclusive coverage of rugby on pay

television was presented as being a serious likelihood which could only be prevented

by the introduction of legislation, such as exists in Australia.

However, the Authority observes, both the news item and the Holmes item neglected

to emphasise that the sale of the rights to provide delayed coverage on free-to-air

television was a possible outcome of the negotiations. Instead, the items focused on

speculation that rugby would only be available on Sky television, with the result that

viewers who were non subscribers would be denied the opportunity to watch the

games at all.

In its assessment of whether balance was achieved, the Authority examines the

construction of the items. First, it notes that the introduction to the One Network

News item established the theme of speculation that the government would be required

to enter the negotiations because of "talk" that rugby was about to go exclusively to

pay television. After public opinion was canvassed on the issue of exclusivity and the

negative reactions to that proposal were reported, the possible deal involving delayed

free-to-air broadcasts was referred to. The Authority agrees with the complainant that

because the item emphasised speculation on the possibility of an exclusive pay

television deal and invited comment only on that possibility – and not on the

possibility of a deal involving delayed coverage, or any other option – the item lacked

balance. Although the possibility of a deal allowing free-to-air delayed coverage was

reported, it was, as the complainant noted, "buried" at the end of the item, and no

reaction to that proposal was sought from the public. In fact, the significance of the

proposal was negated by what preceded it. Had the possibility of delayed coverage

been emphasised as a main point of the item, public reaction would undoubtedly have

been more muted. The Authority also notes the placement of the news item as the

lead story in the evening bulletin which, it considers, gave the story a prominence

which necessitated investigation of other possible outcomes.

Next, the Authority examines the item on Holmes which followed. The item was

introduced by stating that the negotiations had not been completed and although the

situation was still unclear, it was suggested by one source that Sky had the rights to a

five year deal. Sky, however, reportedly refused to confirm that information and

maintained that no deal had been completed.

The theme in the Holmes item was thus premised on an assumption that there was a

likelihood that rugby would no longer be seen on free-to-air television. Regions such

as Taranaki would be unable to watch the games because there is no Sky coverage

there. A reporter who spoke to rugby enthusiasts in Taranaki conveyed their sense of

dissatisfaction with the proposal to cover rugby only on pay television. That report

was followed by a debate between a rugby commentator in Auckland and a radio

personality in Christchurch. The Authority notes that only one of the speakers in the

debate emphasised the prospect of delayed coverage, while the other argued on the

basis that if free-to-air rugby coverage was not available live, rugby fans would miss

out on the games.

While the Authority acknowledges the prospect of delayed coverage was raised in the

Holmes item, the emphasis continued to be on the prospect that only pay television

viewers would be able to watch the games. Since Holmes is a current affairs and

commentary programme rather than a news programme, it has more latitude than a

news programme to deal with reactions to topical matters. However, the Authority

considers the juxtaposition of the Holmes item directly after the news reinforced the

impression given in the news item that rugby coverage would be only available to Sky

viewers.

With respect to the accusation that the prospect of exclusivity for pay television was

used to evoke the potential for political intervention, the Authority makes no finding,

as it does not have available to it the factual background to the decision-making

process. Similarly, the Authority does not comment on the suggestion that the threat

of political intervention was evidence that TVNZ was being manipulated by

politicians to ensure that Sky's negotiations included a deal for the free-to-air rights.

The Authority is also unable to comment on the suggestion that public consternation

put pressure on the negotiations when they were at the stage of determining how

much time lapse there would be between the live and delayed coverage of the games.

Consequently, it declines to determine these aspects of the complaint.

Next the Authority considers the complaint that the items caused unnecessary panic

and alarm among viewers, as evidenced by the large number of new subscribers to Sky.

It notes that TVNZ declined to assess the complaint under that standard on the basis

that it was inapplicable. The Authority accepts that the news of the negotiations

resulting in coverage being available only to pay television viewers would cause some

concern and anxiety among rugby followers throughout the country.

The Authority agrees with TVNZ that standard G16 is not applicable in these

circumstances and confirms that it is a standard which it has applied when dealing

with the types of situations with more serious consequences, including such matters

as false predictions of calamitous disasters or threat of war and economic ruin.

Whereas the 9 February items would have raised the ire of many viewers, it would be

an exaggeration to describe the reaction as one of panic, alarm or distress. The

Authority concludes that standard G16 is inapplicable. Nevertheless it takes into

account the impact on viewers of an unsourced assumption conveyed particularly by

the news item, when it examines the complaint that the items were unbalanced and

partial.

Conclusion

The Authority concludes that overall, the items lacked objectivity because they were

premised on an unsourced assumption that rugby games would only be carried on pay

television. Reaction to that proposal - understandably negative – was reported, but no

reaction was sought to the possibility of providing delayed coverage or any other

option. Options were omitted totally from the news item, and were not pursued in

the story on Holmes, although at least one was advanced by one of the interviewees.

In the Authority's view, the construction of the items on a purely unsubstantiated

speculative premise breached standard G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice. Matters raised under standard G6 are subsumed under standard G14. The

Authority declines to uphold the complaint that standard G16 was breached.

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

broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on One Network News and Holmes on 9

February 1996 breached standard G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

It 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. The Authority has given careful consideration to the question

of penalties in its consideration as to whether an order should be made. On balance, it

decides not to make an order because the episode from which the complaint arose has

now passed and it considers it would serve little purpose.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
15 August 1996

Appendix

Mr Frewen's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 7 March 1996

Tom Frewen of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that its

coverage of the story concerning the rights to broadcasting rugby games, on One

Network News and Holmes on 9 February 1996, broadcast between 6.00-7.00pm and

7.00-7.30pm respectively, breached broadcasting standards.

First, he referred to the introduction to the item on One Network News which stated

that Britain had "laws protecting free-to-air sport". Mr Frewen pointed out that that

was not correct. He noted that there was legislation before the House of Lords, but

that the Bill had not been before the House of Commons and had not become law.

In addition, he maintained that the story about rugby rights created the impression

that there was a possibility that all rugby would be shown on pay TV and nowhere

else. He added:

After creating that impression with the introduction, headlines and reporter's

commentary, the programmes then sought public reaction to that possibility

becoming reality. No public reaction was shown that was favourable to that

outcome, nor was there any reaction to the outcome described by the reporter

as "a new kind of deal where the big games will still be shown free to air,

though maybe with a delay."

He maintained that the extreme example of the unbalanced and partial approach to the

story was evidenced in a Holmes story about Taranaki. He suggested that the reporter

had not only led all the opinion to one conclusion, but she did not canvass any other

opinion nor was any information provided about the potential provision of the Sky

service to Taranaki. In Mr Frewen's view, TVNZ had an obligation to be seen to be

impartial because of its commercial interest in the outcome of talks. He noted that the

item did not disclose that the talks only involved TVNZ and Sky, or that TVNZ had a

16% shareholding in Sky.

Mr Frewen also complained that the story breached the requirement that news should

not be presented in such a way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress. He

suggested that evidence of the unnecessary alarm created was found in the surge of

new subscribers to the Sky service before the deal was revealed the following week. In

his view:

Without evidence of alarm there was no justification for the story which was,

basically: here is a threat and here are people who are alarmed about it. Public

reaction contained within the item could only be described as displaying

"alarm" and was presumably shown for that reason and to reinforce the

credibility of the story. No favourable or disinterested reaction was shown.

He suggested that public alarm at the prospect of all rugby going exclusively to pay

TV could only strengthen the hand of politicians and in turn increase the pressure on

the negotiations.

Concluding, he wrote:

In my opinion, these alleged breaches of the standards are particularly serious

in this instance in which the broadcaster could be seen to benefit in two ways

from its treatment of the story - commercially (by obtaining a favourable deal

on the free-to-air rights and as a 16% shareholder in the pay-tv operator) and

politically (by giving additional credence to the government threat to intervene

while avoiding the political embarrassment of passing legislation).

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 April 1996

TVNZ began by outlining the company's procedures for dealing with formal

complaints, emphasising the independence of the Complaints Committee.

TVNZ then pointed out that the rugby rights story was introduced on Holmes on 8

February when reference was made to the debate in Britain about whether sports

broadcasts should be made free-to-air by legislation. Its reporters made enquiries to

find out whether such legislation was contemplated in New Zealand and suggested that

unlike in Australia and Britain, there was nothing in New Zealand to prevent sports

being covered only on pay TV.

Referring first to the report which stated that legislation existed in Britain to protect

free-to-air sport, TVNZ accepted that it was in error as the legislation had not at that

stage been passed. Accordingly it upheld the complaint as a breach of standard G1.

It then commented on the introductory remarks which speculated on the possibility of

rugby going to pay TV. TVNZ drew attention to the fact that the item stated there

was talk of such a move, and maintained that that was an accurate summary of the

facts at the time. It noted there was widespread speculation about the rugby rights

going to Sky, and the government's intentions should that occur.

To the accusations about partiality, TVNZ responded that its journalists did not

discuss the item with its staff outside the news department. Its stories were based

solely on the information gleaned by reporters on the day. It considered the reactions

they discovered were fairly reported and not manipulated in any way. With respect

to the item about the response in Taranaki, TVNZ pointed out that the province was

selected as an illustration of an area of New Zealand which did not receive Sky. Those

interviewed were, it contended, representative of viewers there.

It then turned to the issue of the obligation of news media outlets to declare their

interest in any aspect of a story being reported. TVNZ suggested that its interest in

broadcasting sport was known to viewers. It pointed out that as a 16% shareholder in

Sky, it was in no position to control its activities. It concluded that the items were

handled in an objective and impartial manner and did not uphold the standard G14

complaint.

Finally it turned to standard G16, suggesting that in its experience the standard was

intended to prevent the broadcast of such things as false predictions. It did not believe

the standard was applicable in this instance.

In conclusion, TVNZ noted that it had drawn to the attention of its journalists the

error in reporting the passing of legislation in Britain, and advised they had been

warned to take more care when dealing with verifiable matters of detail.

Mr Frewen's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 6 May 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold the balance aspects of his

complaint, Mr Frewen referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

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

Mr Frewen argued that the subject of his complaint - the sale of the rugby television

rights - was an interesting test of TVNZ's obligation to provide fair, balanced and

impartial journalism at the same time as providing information of the highest quality.

It was interesting, he wrote, because:

...it brings together all the main participants in New Zealand television

broadcasting: the Government, the broadcasters and the viewers. The

Government's involvement is both political, as the elected representatives with

the power to pass legislation keeping rugby free-to-air, and commercial, as the

owners of two of the three free-to-air VHF television channels. The sale of the

rugby rights involves all the television broadcasters, both free-to-air and pay

TV. And the viewers, as well as being consumers of televised rugby, are also

voters who elect the politicians who can decide whether or not they will have

to pay to watch their game.

Mr Frewen also noted the cultural standing of the country's national sport and the

public expectation that games would be broadcast free-to-air. In that context, he

argued, the critical factor was exclusivity of coverage. He noted that TVNZ's story

was based on the premise that rugby "was about to go exclusively to pay TV" and

that that prospect was then used to evoke the potential for political intervention to

maintain New Zealanders' rights to watch for free.

Mr Frewen pointed out that both TVNZ and TV3 were bidding for the free-to-air

rights. He argued:

The outcome depended on complex negotiations to find a formula that would

provide the free-to-air broadcaster with a commercially viable product while

leaving the pay TV company with sufficient exclusivity to increase its

subscription base - the reason that News Corp bought the rights in the first

place.

Given this background, Mr Frewen maintained that TVNZ should have established

some distance in order to provide viewers with an objective and balanced account. In

his view, it had failed to do so.

Mr Frewen suggested that TVNZ's insistence that there was no collusion between its

journalists and the negotiators indicated that it had misunderstood his complaint. He

denied that he had alleged TVNZ was manipulating the news to commercial advantage.

He suggested that perception would not have arisen had the presentation of the story

been more balanced and less sensational. He also suggested that the threat of political

intervention was stated more strongly on TVNZ than in other media.

Next, referring to the words of the introduction, which stated "First tonight,

speculation the government may play referee amid talk rugby is about to go

exclusively to pay TV" - he asked, if TVNZ did not mean all rugby, what did it mean?

If only some rugby would be exclusive to pay TV, why did TVNZ not say so? Mr

Frewen also noted that the speculation arose from talk which was based on the

previous night's Holmes programme.

Mr Frewen maintained that TVNZ was mistaken in its inference that his complaint

alleged that the Holmes item deliberately avoided comments from those who might

favour the switch to rugby on pay TV. He explained that his complaint was that the

reporter did not canvass any alternative opinion and suggested that the reaction was a

response to the questions asked. In this case, he noted, the reactions were in response

to the proposition that viewers in Taranaki would not see the rugby because there

would be no signal. There was no reaction to the prospect of seeing the rugby but

having to pay for it which, he argued, was the more likely outcome.

Finally, Mr Frewen repeated that in his view the items were not balanced and failed

the tests of objectivity and impartiality required under standard G14.

Further, in referring the complaint under standard G16 he added that he hoped to give

the Authority the opportunity to comment on TVNZ's interpretation of the meaning

of the standard. He suggested that one could only speculate on the effect the story

had on the rush to buy Sky subscriptions.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 10 June 1996

TVNZ first responded to Mr Frewen's insistence that it had misunderstood the nature

of his complaint. It pointed to his original complaint in which he had suggested that

TVNZ was manipulating a news story to its commercial advantage and maintained

that it was entitled to refute that allegation.

To Mr Frewen's suggestion that its editors and news executives should have

established some distance from the report in order to provide viewers with a balanced

and objective account of the deal, TVNZ responded that its staff had taken care to

ensure that the coverage was objective.

It repeated that its staff had no knowledge of the timing of any talks and that

information which could be verified was included in the items. Pointing to the

requirement in s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that broadcasters had an

obligation to present significant points of view either in the same programme or within

the period of current interest, TVNZ submitted that the coverage of an on-going

matter such as the rugby rights could not be fairly judged on the output of one day.

TVNZ emphasised that both One Network News and Holmes carried material based on

information available at the time. It noted that it was not possible to canvass every

possible source of information, or to include everything in a rapidly moving story. It

added that it was legitimate for journalists to select what information they carried in

their stories.

It concluded:

For the record we advise that eventually the entire rights to rugby were sold by

the New Zealand Rugby Football Union to Sky Television. Sky then retained

the pay-TV rights, and then sold the free-to-air rights with very specific

conditions attached. We remind the Authority that Sky could have chosen not

to sell the free-to-air rights at all, ensuring that rugby would only be seen on

pay-TV. That "unknown" was in the air on 9 February.

Mr Frewen's Final Comment - 20 June 1996

In his final comment, Mr Frewen drew the Authority's attention to a number of

points. First he submitted, because TVNZ persisted with its interpretation of his

complaint as an allegation of deliberate bias, it failed to address the possibility that its

coverage was unbalanced, partial and inaccurate.

Secondly, he suggested that TVNZ's failure to distinguish between (possibly

deliberate) bias and (possibly careless) imbalance, was apparent in its claim that he

had not provided examples of the bias. Mr Frewen noted that it was impossible to

provide concrete examples of an abstract, but stated that his complaint was based

mainly on the construction and language of the news item and the Holmes report from

Taranaki.

To TVNZ's claim that it had no knowledge of the timing of any talks, Mr Frewen

suggested that comments made by both Paul Holmes and Linda Clark made clear they

were relying on inside information. He suggested that the heart of the story - that a

deal involving delayed broadcasts might be reached - was buried in its tail, where its

import was swamped by the sensational and emotional language preceding it. A more

balanced story, he asserted, would have included the final two sentences in the

introduction.

Next Mr Frewen referred to TVNZ's argument that broadcasters must present

significant points of view within the period of current interest. He noted that TVNZ

had not included any additional material broadcast between 9 February and 12

February when the deal was announced.

Regarding TVNZ's distinction between objectivity and balance in justifying selective

use of information, Mr Frewen acknowledged that all news was selective. However,

he argued, objectivity was lost if one point of view was exaggerated at the expense of

others.

To TVNZ's advice that the entire rights to rugby were sold to Sky, Mr Frewen

responded that that was incorrect and the rights had been sold to News Corp which

sold them to Sky which then invited bids for the free-to-air rights from TVNZ and

TV3.

Finally, to TVNZ's point that Sky could have chosen not to sell the free-to-air rights

at all, Mr Frewen responded that was never an option. He noted that Sky needed a

free- to-air broadcaster to carry rugby to the 300,000 homes which cannot receive Sky

and to those who did not choose to subscribe. He suggested the reason why the free-

to-air deal covered only 3 of the 5 years for which Sky owned the rights was because

it intended to expand its coverage to include many of those homes. Not only would

retention of all the rights have harmed Sky's image, but it would have ensured political

intervention. He wrote:

If anyone was manipulating the news it was the politicians. The Prime

Minister and his Minister of Broadcasting didnÕt want the embarrassment of

introducing legislation they had scorned when it was suggested by the

Opposition, the problems of compensation for Sky and the appearance of

intervening in the market on behalf of their state-owned broadcaster. Given the

coincidence of political and commercial interests in the outcome of the

negotiations, it is amazing that TVNZ did not take greater care to avoid the

appearance of collusion by providing more objective coverage.