BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Firearms control was discussed during an interview with the wife of one of the Port

Arthur victims on the news programme Midday on TV One on 18 October 1996.

Mr Aitchison of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the

interview failed to present both sides of the firearms debate in a fair and equitable

manner because no attempt was made to balance what he described as the less than

objective and emotive views of the interviewee. Furthermore, he complained, the

interviewer strongly sympathised with the interviewee's point of view.

Acknowledging that the issue was a controversial one, TVNZ emphasised that both

sides of the debate had been reflected in its news and current affairs programming over

a period of time. With respect to the interview complained about, it denied that it was

designed to promote the views of the anti-gun lobby. Dissatisfied with that response,

Mr Aitchison 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 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.

A call for tighter controls on guns was made by the widow of one of the Port Arthur

victims when she was interviewed on Midday on TV One on 18 October 1996. Along

with the partner of the policeman killed recently in Hawkes Bay, she was launching a

campaign to tighten gun ownership regulations. Referring to a current review on gun

laws, she urged viewers to make submissions to the review body.

Mr Aitchison complained that because the issue of firearms control was highly topical,

and its issues emotive and controversial, TVNZ was obliged to present both sides of the

debate in a fair and equitable manner. He considered the interviewee's views were less

than objective and somewhat emotive, and under those circumstances he believed that

TVNZ had a responsibility to ensure that the opposing viewpoint was fairly and

adequately presented. In addition, he was critical of the manner in which the interview

was conducted, suggesting that it was "little more than thinly veiled propaganda for the

anti-firearms lobby."

TVNZ advised Mr Aitchison that it assessed the complaint under standard G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard requires broadcasters:

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

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

It emphasised that the item was based on a current news event: the decision of two

women, whose husband and partner had both been murdered by gunmen, to urge

people to make submissions for tighter gun control laws. The woman interviewed

appealed to everyone who had an opinion about gun regulations to make their views

known, so that representative submissions could be received.

TVNZ referred to s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which recognises that on a

topical issue such as gun control, balance could be achieved over time. It pointed to the

18 stories it had broadcast in the previous six months dealing with aspects of gun

control, in which both sides of the debate were reflected. It strongly denied that the

Midday interview amounted to propaganda for the firearms lobby, describing it as a

legitimate interview which described how the two women were going to work together

to urge New Zealanders to consider further restraints on gun ownership. It did not

believe it demonstrated a lack of balance by allowing the widow of one of the Port

Arthur victims to explain her views to a lunchtime audience.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Aitchison suggested that if TVNZ

believed it could disregard its responsibilities because it had run a balanced story in the

past, there seemed to be little point in laying a complaint. He suggested that many

people were occasional viewers like himself and thus were not in a position to

appreciate the broad notion of balance being achieved over time. He insisted that a

programme was either balanced or it was not.

As far as the Authority is concerned, the interview was a legitimate discussion of the

views of one woman and her campaign to restrict access to guns by tightening gun

control laws. In the interview, she urged ordinary New Zealanders to express their

views about gun control as a counter to what she described as the organised voice of the

powerful gun lobby. She expressed her belief that most people wanted tighter gun

controls, and emphasised that it was in incidents of domestic violence that guns were

the most threatening and dangerous.

The Authority concludes it was clear that the interview presented the opinion of the

woman and does not consider it was necessary, in that context, to refer to the other side

of the gun control debate. It also refers to the Act's allowance that when controversial

matters of public importance are discussed, balance may be achieved over time. It

accepts TVNZ's submission that stories broadcast over the past six months have given

exposure to both sides of the gun control debate. Accordingly, it does not consider the

standard was breached on this occasion.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
23 January 1997

Appendix

David Aitchison's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd -

25 October 1996

Mr Aitchison of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that an item on

Midday broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1996 breached broadcasting standards.

The interview with the widow of one of the victims of the Port Arthur massacre in

Tasmania focused on her campaign to lobby for greater gun controls.

Mr Aitchison complained first that the item lacked balance. He noted that the firearms

control debate was highly topical and the issues at its centre were often emotive and

controversial. Therefore, he believed, TVNZ had a duty to present both sides of the

debate in a fair and equitable manner. Mr Aitchison suggested that the views of the

widow were somewhat less than objective, and somewhat emotive and therefore TVNZ

had a responsibility to ensure the opposing viewpoint was fairly and adequately

presented.

Mr Aitchison's second concern was that the interviewer appeared to sympathise

strongly with the interviewee's point of view. He wrote:

I certainly don't recall Mrs Winter being asked to justify any of her comments or

to answer any searching questions on firearms control issues. In fact, if anyone

is looking for a visual definition of the term "soft interview" then this must

surely be it. If I am wrong and Mrs Woods isn't a gun control advocate, I can

only conclude that she failed to do her homework before the interview. Either

way, the public interest hasn't been well served. In my view the interview was

little more than thinly veiled propaganda for the anti-firearms lobby.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 19 November 1996

TVNZ noted first that the interview was a studio interview with Mrs Jo Winter, the

widow of a Port Arthur victim, who had joined with the widow of a policeman slain in

Hawkes Bay to lobby for tightening gun ownership laws in New Zealand. It followed

an item about a woman who held police officers at bay in a superette.

The item, it continued, was based on a current news event as well: the decision of two

women to lobby for gun controls. With respect to the attitude of the presenter, TVNZ's

view was that she did not demonstrate sympathy for Mrs Winter's views, but did -

quite properly - show sympathy for Mrs Winter herself.

On the question of balance, TVNZ suggested that the interview was a particularly

sensitive one and not an occasion on which Mrs Winter's views should be directly

challenged. It did not agree that her position came across as an emotive stance or one

lacking objectivity. It pointed out that Mrs Winter appealed to everyone with an opinion

to make themselves heard so that submissions could be representative.

TVNZ observed that standard G6 was derived from s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act

1989 which recognises that balance on a current issue can be achieved over a period of

time. It argued that both sides of the issue had been regularly heard in New Zealand

since the killings at Aramoana and that in the past six months alone TVNZ had

broadcast eighteen stories which dealt with aspects of gun control. During that time, it

continued, both sides of the debate had been heard and the views of the gun lobby on

both sides of the Tasman had been reflected in its news and current affairs

programming.

Recognising that generally when a person made a public stand on an issue they could

expect to be challenged by those opposed to that viewpoint, TVNZ suggested that this

was an occasion when such a challenge would have been inappropriate.

It strongly denied that the interview was designed as propaganda for the anti-firearms

lobby. TVNZ concluded that the gun control debate was one which had been widely

reported on television with all points of view being heard from. It did not believe it

demonstrated a lack of balance by allowing Mrs Winter to explain her views to a

lunchtime audience.

Mr Aitchison's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 25

November 1996

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

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

Pointing to his earlier letter, Mr Aitchison stated that his concerns were clearly set out

there and there was no necessity to repeat them. He then proceeded to comment on

TVNZ's response.

Mr Aitchison commented first that he did not understand the relationship between a

news story about a woman holding a knife to the throat of the owner of a superette and

an item about firearms control.

Regarding his concern that the presenter appeared openly sympathetic to the views of

Mrs Winter, and TVNZ's response that Mrs Winter deserved sympathy, Mr Aitchison

responded that he was at a loss to understand what that had to do with balanced

reporting. He wrote:

Mrs Winter's grief and sense of loss are not in contention, and I would have

been disturbed had she been interviewed in the "hostile manner" mentioned by

[TVNZ]. This is not what I suggested should happen at all. My concerns relate

solely to what I regard as the one sided reporting of her advocacy of firearms

control as a mechanism to prevent mass killings!

To TVNZ's suggestion that "decency" prevented TVNZ from challenging Mrs Winter's

viewpoint, Mr Aitchison noted that Mrs Winter was not new to television interviews

and on a previous occasion had been willing to debate the issues with supporters of the

Arms Act 1983. He added:

I can only conclude that TVNZ's rule about breaching the bounds of decency,

where widows are concerned, has been adopted very recently.

With respect to TVNZ's defence that balance was achieved over time, Mr Aitchison

considered that argument made a nonsense of almost any complaint about balanced

reporting. He argued for people like himself who were occasional viewers of

television, he would never be in a position to appreciate the broader notion of balanced

reporting in action. To his mind, a programme was either balanced or it was not. He

maintained that the programme on 18 October was not.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 4 December 1996

TVNZ responded to some issues raised by Mr Aitchison. First it explained the

relevance of the superette incident, during which the woman was shot and wounded by

a police officer. TVNZ noted that it was another example of guns on the street, albeit in

the hands of the police, adding that whether the police should be armed was part of the

gun debate.

It maintained that the interview stood up to scrutiny as a fair and balanced report of the

decision by the two widows to work together on the gun control issue. It repeated that

Mrs Winter had urged everyone with an opinion to make themselves heard on the issue

of gun control.

TVNZ did not consider that a debate on gun ownership was appropriate on this

occasion. It noted there had been a full debate on Holmes about six weeks previously

and emphasised that TVNZ had broadcast 18 items dealing with aspects of gun control

in the past six months alone and that those had canvassed a wide range of opinions.

To Mr Aitchison's view that all items should contain balance, TVNZ responded that

public awareness of an issue was a given in this instance, and the interview with Mrs

Winter provided another dimension to an ongoing story which was of public interest as

well as in the public interest.

It repeated its view that Mrs Winter deserved to be treated with sympathy when

interviewed and did not accept that treating an interview subject with sympathy caused a

lack of balance.

Mr Aitchison's Final Comment - 12 December 1996

Mr Aitchison raised two issues, both of which were concerned with balance. The first

was a response to TVNZ's point that Mrs Winter's personal circumstances dictated that

she be treated with sympathy when interviewed. While accepting that most people

would agree with that, Mr Aitchison argued that it was only natural that people

sympathising with her, but who had no understanding of firearms issues, would agree

with the analysis of the circumstances which culminated in her tragedy. In Mr

Aitchison's view, her analysis of the tragedy was not necessarily correct.

The other aspect of TVNZ's reply which he addressed was its argument that Mrs

Winter asked "everyone with an opinion" to make submissions to the inquiry head. Mr

Aitchison disagreed that this balanced the interview, arguing that it was a somewhat less

than genuine attempt to encourage an open debate. He concluded:

As Mrs Winter openly acknowledges during the course of the interview, what

she was actually trying to do, with TVNZ's help, was to encourage those

people who sympathise with her and her viewpoint to make submissions to the

Thorp Inquiry.