BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The occupation by students of the Auckland University Registry, as part of their protest

against fee increases, was dealt with in a item on Holmes, broadcast between

7.00–7.30pm on 17 September 1996.

Mr Clarkson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item

was unbalanced and lacked objectivity, as it ridiculed the students while accepting the

University's position.

Explaining that fee increases were an ongoing story, and that balance could be achieved

during the period of current interest, TVNZ maintained that the reporter on this occasion

had appropriately adopted the role of the "devil's advocate". It declined to uphold the

complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Clarkson referred his 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 complaint.

Decision

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

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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item on Holmes broadcast between 7.00–7.30pm on 17 September 1996 on TV

One, focussed on the occupation by University students of the Auckland University

Registry, as a protest against a proposed increase in student fees. The reporter, Paul

Holmes, introduced the item in the studio, then footage was shown of his visit to the

occupied Registry where the student Campaign Co-ordinator was interviewed. The

reporter then interviewed the Vice Chancellor of the University, following which he

returned to the Registry to interview the Acting President of the Auckland Students'

Association. The item was wrapped up in the studio and at the end of the Holmes

programme final comment was made.

Mr Clarkson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the Holmes item breached

requirements for balance, fairness, and objectivity. He said that it failed to take account

of the Government's role in the fee dispute, that it favoured the University's position on

the issue of an operating surplus for the University, and that it ridiculed the students'

arguments.

TVNZ considered the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

and standard G14 which states that:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

TVNZ advised Mr Clarkson that it was unable to find anything in the item which

showed that the reporter was unfair to the parties in the issue.

In relation to the issue of balance, TVNZ referred to section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting

Act, which it said makes clear that balance in a topic of ongoing controversy could be

achieved over a period of time, and was not required within each item. It pointed out

that debate over the level of student fees in New Zealand had been a dominant story for

a number of weeks and had been dealt with by TVNZ on a number of occasions. The

item itself, it said, added extra voice to the already varied views canvassed around the

country in earlier items in news and current affairs programmes. Mr Holmes, TVNZ

said, adopted the role of "devil's advocate" which it said was at the heart of much news

and current affairs reporting. It said that he was not ridiculing the students but simply

putting to them for their response a community perspective on their protest.

TVNZ declined to uphold Mr Clarkson's complaint.

In referring the matter to the Authority, Mr Clarkson reiterated his views that the item

was unfair to the students and did not deal with the Government's role in the issue.

The Authority is unable to find anything in the item at issue which breached standards

G6 or G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It acknowledges that the

level of student fees has been an ongoing story and that viewers would have had the

opportunity during the recent months to acquire a good knowledge of the issues

involved. In view of this background, the Authority's view is that the item in question

about the protests at Auckland University was neither unbalanced nor partial, and the

reporter in the item did not breach the standards when questioning the participants.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
23 January 1997

Appendix

Mr Clarkson's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 15 October 1996

Robert Clarkson of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an

item on Holmes, broadcast between 7.00-7.30pm on 17 September 1996, which dealt

with the protest by students at the increase of fees at Auckland University.

Mr Clarkson considered that the item breached the requirements for balance, accuracy

and objectivity (standards G6 and G14), as it ridiculed the students' arguments while

accepting the Government's arguments.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 30 October 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ said the item was one

of a number which had dealt with student dissatisfaction with fee increases. The focus

in this case had been on the student occupation of the Auckland University Registry.

TVNZ began:

We must confess that we have had some difficulty in identifying quite where

your concerns lie.

While suggesting that the programme lacked balance you seem on the one hand

to imply that the item should have reflected more fully the government's position

on fee increases, while on the other you suggest that the arguments of the

students were ridiculed.

Maintaining that the item was not unfair, TVNZ explained that the standards required

that balance be achieved over the period of current interest. The item in question had

focussed on the student occupation of the Registry at Auckland University and had

reported the students' anger at both the University administration and the government.

TVNZ said that its reporter, Paul Holmes, had "quite properly" adopted the "devil's

advocate" style, and contended:

Paul Holmes was not ridiculing the students; he was simply putting to them

community perspective on their protest and inviting them to respond.

Pointing out that the answers from the students were heard clearly, TVNZ said that, in

the absence of specifics, it did not uphold either aspect of the complaint.

Mr Clarkson's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 21

November 1996

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

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

Mr Clarkson maintained that that item was not balanced as the reporter had not adopted

a "devil's advocate" approach when interviewing representatives from the University

administration. He wrote:

His conciliatory approach, in direct contrast to that adopted towards the

students, and his agreement with the administrator's assertion that the $5 million

at issue should be retained as surplus, did not show balance, impartiality and

fairness.

Mr Clarkson maintained that the reporter's closing remarks in the studio were also

critical of the students.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 26 November 1996

TVNZ advised that it did not wish to comment further.