BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A Civil Aviation Authority directive which ordered the grounding of helicopters with

imported parts from one supplier, and the disclosure of confidential police information

regarding the South Auckland serial rape inquiry, were two of the news items on

Tonight broadcast on TV One on 16 May 1996 at 9.30pm.

Mr Clements complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the items breached

broadcasting standards. He maintained that the report on the helicopter grounding was

factually incorrect, and the disclosure about the progress of the serial rapist inquiry,

which might have affected the outcome of the inquiry, prejudiced the maintenance of

law and order.

In its response, TVNZ emphasised that the report on the grounding of helicopters

made it clear that the directive only applied to those helicopters with parts imported

from a Californian company. As for the serial rapist inquiry, it maintained that it was

in the public interest to advise viewers that the police were about to make an arrest. It

declined to uphold the complaints. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Clements

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Decision

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

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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

One of the items included on the mid-evening news programme Tonight broadcast on

TV One on 16 May 1996 at 9.30pm concerned a CAA directive ordering helicopters

with specific imported parts to be grounded, while another item updated progress on

the South Auckland serial rape inquiry and disclosed that an arrest was imminent.

Mr Clements complained to TVNZ that the report on the helicopter grounding was

factually incorrect and unbalanced. He suggested that because reports about air safety

were disturbing to lay people, the broadcaster had an obligation to ensure that the

report made clear that the directive applied to only a few helicopter owners.

Emphasising that the directive had had no impact on the operations of reputable

helicopter organisations, Mr Clements repeated that it was not correct to say that all

helicopters in New Zealand were grounded. He suggested that TVNZ should have

contacted operators with the imported parts to ascertain what the effects of the

directive were. In that way, he continued, viewers could have seen for themselves that

very few operators were affected.

The second item, in which TVNZ disclosed the content of a confidential internal

police memo was, in Mr Clements' view, in breach of broadcasting standards because

it had the potential to compromise the police investigation and to impede the course of

justice. He maintained that there was no useful purpose to be served by pre-empting

the announcement in the news conference the following day.

Reporting first on its investigation of the complaint about the helicopter grounding,

TVNZ advised that the complaint was considered in the context of standard G14 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which reads:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

TVNZ pointed out first that the CAA document was a directive, rather than an alert,

which applied to all helicopter owners whose machines contained components from a

particular manufacturer in California. It maintained that it was accurate to conclude

that those helicopters containing the suspect parts were grounded, because they were

not permitted to fly until the parts had been replaced. It added that it understood that

those operators with a good maintenance record were able to replace the parts quite

quickly, while others had found compliance difficult and had sought an extension of

the compliance date. TVNZ concluded that there was no breach of standard G14.

With respect to the report about the South Auckland serial rape inquiry, TVNZ

emphasised that its reporter, through diligent research and using his close contacts

within the police, had learned that the police were about to make an arrest and that an

announcement was to be made the following day. TVNZ advised that it considered

the information was in the public interest, and noted that through its role of keeping

the public informed, a steady flow of information from the public to the police ensued.

TVNZ rejected Mr Clements' suggestion that the flow of information to the media

should be controlled by the police, noting that while it cooperated with the police in

matters where there were genuine and immediate threats to human life, it did not

accept that the lines of information should be controlled by the police – or any other

authority – in a free and democratic society. It declined to uphold the complaint that

standard G14 was breached by this item.

The Authority considers first the report that helicopters were grounded. It notes that

the item made clear that the directive applied only to those helicopters which

contained the parts imported from a named Californian company. While it was not

clear how many helicopters were affected, the Authority does not believe the

announcement would have caused viewers to conclude that all New Zealand

helicopters were grounded. Accordingly it declines to uphold this aspect of the

complaint.

Next the Authority considers the complaint that the item about a recent development

in the South Auckland serial rape inquiry breached the requirement for broadcasters to

observe the principles of law and order, as set out in s.4(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act:

s.4 (1) Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its

programmes, and their presentation, standards which are consistent

with –

..

(b) The maintenance of law and order;

While it noted Mr Clements' concern that the report might have jeopardised the

successful completion of the police inquiry, the Authority recognises that this is an

area where editorial judgment dictates the propriety of using the information gathered.

The responsibility lies with the editor to decide if confidential information should be

released and in what form. The Authority understands that enquiries were made

which ascertained that the suspect was under police surveillance and it concludes that

TVNZ was entitled to assume that it was appropriate to release the information to the

public.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 September 1996

Appendix

John Clements' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 16 May 1996

Mr Clements of Orewa complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about two news

items broadcast on 16 May 1996 on Tonight at 9.30pm. His letter was dealt with

informally by a member of the newsroom staff. After correspondence with TVNZ

and with the Broadcasting Standards Authority he identified a letter dated 30 June as a

formal complaint, and asked TVNZ to deal with it as such even though the 20 working

day time limit had passed.

The first item concerned a report that helicopters in New Zealand were grounded. Mr

Clements argued that this statement was factually incorrect. He suggested that

because people were easily disturbed by such reports, the media should be more

careful in how it portrayed events such as the "Airworthiness Alert" put out by the

Civil Aviation Authority.

During the same bulletin, the contents of a confidential internal police memo were

disclosed about the progress of the serial rapist inquiry in South Auckland. Mr

Clements wrote:

Surely if the police did not want it known that they were close to a result it

serves no useful purpose for TVNZ to blab about it outside the very police

station where things were coming to a conclusion.

In Mr Clements' opinion, that disclosure could have affected the outcome of the

inquiry and might have prejudiced the maintenance of law and order.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 11 July 1996

TVNZ reported that the first item concerned a directive issued by the CAA requiring

operators of helicopters in New Zealand to replace any components supplied by a

Californian company. It noted that Mr Clements objected to the word "grounded"

being used.

TVNZ noted first that the CAA release was a directive (not an Airworthiness Alert)

and used the word "mandatory" when describing the requirement to replace the

suspect components. It believed it took some time to check the parts. Not being an

expert on the subject, TVNZ advised that it discussed the matter with the Deputy

Director of the CAA and ascertained that those operators with good maintenance

records had been able to replace the parts relatively quickly, while others had found

compliance difficult and had sought an extension of the compliance date. TVNZ

understood that helicopters containing the suspect parts were not permitted to fly

until the directive was complied with, which it believed amounted to "grounding".

TVNZ referred to the dictionary definition of "grounding" which is "prevent from

flying". It therefore concluded there was no inaccuracy in that part of the item.

It then turned to the complaint about the serial rape inquiry. It reported that diligent

work by its police reporter convinced him that the police were about to make an arrest

and would announce that at a news conference the next day. TVNZ advised that it

considered the information was in the public interest and decided to broadcast it after

it had checked that there was no chance the suspect would elude the police. It added:

While noting your objection, we observe that TVNZ played a very active role

in keeping the public informed on this story. It is a role which inevitably led

to

a steady flow of information from the public to the police involved in the

enquiry.

It took issue with Mr Clements' claim that the broadcast served no useful purpose,

arguing that by making the announcement it kept faith with its viewers, who expected

the news to be current, and provided encouraging news for those awaiting the outcome

of the enquiry.

TVNZ advised that while it cooperated closely with the police in matters where there

were immediate threats to human life, it did not accept that the police - or any other

authority - should control the lines of information in a free and democratic society.

For the record, TVNZ added that it enjoyed a very good professional relationship

with the police and that it was a professional relationship in which each recognised the

professional obligations of the other and treated those obligations with respect.

Mr Clements' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 17 July 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold his complaints, Mr Clements

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Helicopter Grounding

Mr Clements advised that he had contacted all the major helicopter operators and

seven private owners in the Auckland region and asked them for how long the

Airworthiness Alert had grounded them. He reported that none had been grounded at

all.

He emphasised that no reputable helicopter organisation imported parts from other

than aircraft manufacturers or bona fide spares agencies. He suggested that the item

had given the impression that operators would have had to check their maintenance

manuals to check where their parts had come from. This, he advised, was not the case.

Therefore, he concluded, it was incorrect to say that all helicopters in New Zealand

were grounded.

In Mr Clements' view, news reporting should be accurate and objective rather than

emotive or sensation seeking. He suggested that all that should have been said was

that helicopters with parts from the Californian company must replace them. Then,

he went on, TVNZ could have contacted some operators to see what effect the

directive had on them. He wrote:

That would have provided viewers with the full picture instead of being left

with the impression that all NZ helicopters were "grounded".

Mr Clements considered there were negative flow-on effects for the aviation industry

from the reports, leading people to believe that standards of servicing were poor, that

helicopters were not safe, and that the industry was unable to self-regulate.

South Auckland Rape Inquiry

To TVNZ's point that its reporters had developed a network of contacts with the

police, Mr Clements argued that did not give them the right to disclose confidential

information contained in a confidential internal police memorandum. Further, he

continued, if the police were going to announce the news the following day, it was

neither necessary nor appropriate to pre-empt it.

Mr Clements advised that on the evening in question he telephoned the Otahuhu

Police station and the duty officer said that the police would have preferred not to

have had the information made public. He added:

And as I pointed out to TVNZ (but they seem unable to comprehend) it

served

no useful "news" purpose and may, indeed, have impeded the course of justice

had, for example, the suspect in custody not been the serial rapist.

In Mr Clements' view, the broader question was whether TVNZ considered it was

appropriate to reveal all the "confidential" material it received, or only selected bits.

Mr Clements concluded by noting that TVNZ had assessed his complaint only under

standard G14 and he had asked that it be dealt with under the "maintenance of law and

order" standard. He sought the Authority's view on this.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 25 July 1996

Referring first to the helicopter item, TVNZ denied the charge that the item left the

impression that all New Zealand helicopters were grounded. It referred to the

introduction to the item which stated that the order was to:

...ground New Zealand helicopters containing parts supplied by a California

company.

TVNZ repeated that there was no suggestion that all New Zealand helicopters were

grounded. Acknowledging that while companies known to Mr Clements were able to

comply quickly with the directive, not all operators of helicopters were able to do so

and requests were made to the CAA for an extension of the compliance date.

It enclosed a copy of the CAA directive which led to the story and suggested that its

content supported the contention that the helicopters containing parts supplied by the

Californian company were indeed "grounded" until those parts were replaced.

TVNZ advised that it had no further comments on the rape story. It considered that

Mr Clements appeared not to understand the role of the news media in such

situations.

Mr Clements' Final Comment - 1 August 1996

In a brief final comment, Mr Clements commented first that he believed TVNZ was

shifting its position with respect to the item about the helicopter grounding. He

repeated that the statement made in the news item was factually incorrect. He

believed that had he not sent TVNZ a copy of the CAA directive, it would have had

no idea what the directive said. He suggested that TVNZ did not know at the time of

the news item what the directive stated.

He noted that TVNZ stated that companies known to him were able to comply

quickly. However, he argued, the point was that no Auckland companies were

"grounded". From that, he continued, it was reasonably logical to conclude that few

companies anywhere in New Zealand were adversely affected. Those which sought an

extension to the compliance date were companies which had recently imported

helicopters. Consequently, the checking process in those cases took longer.

With respect to the South Auckland rape inquiry, Mr Clements considered the media

should be accurate and responsible. He believed the Authority would have guidelines

about what "confidential" material it was acceptable for the media to release.

Further Correspondence

In a brief letter dated 7 August, TVNZ responded to Mr Clements' assertion that had

he not supplied TVNZ with the CAA directive, it would not have known what it said.

It refuted the "quite astonishing" statement, asking where Mr Clements thought it got

its information from. It pointed out that the story could not have been produced had

the news staff not seen the directive.