BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Rallies organised by the Disabled Persons' Assembly were reported in news items

broadcast by RNZ throughout the day on 27 September 1996. Checkpoint at 5.00pm

that evening included an interview with the organiser of the rally in Auckland. The

protests were concerned with the rights of the disabled, and the news items reported

that the focus of the rallies was the Christian Coalition's policy to review the Human

Rights Commission.

On behalf of the Credo Society Inc, Mrs Barbara Faithfull complained to Radio New

Zealand Ltd that the items were inaccurate and biased because they suggested that the

concern about the Coalition's policy was the sole focus of the rallies.

While upholding the aspect of the complaint which alleged a lack of balance as the

Coalition had not been asked for comment, RNZ declined to uphold the accuracy

aspect as, it said, the items accurately reported the comments of attributed Assembly

spokespeople.

As RNZ's response was not received within the time limit because it had been

incorrectly addressed, on the Society's behalf Mrs Faithfull complained to the

Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. When RNZ's response was

finally received, she referred the accuracy aspect of 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 aspect of the complaint

which alleged that the items were inaccurate.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to the Checkpoint item broadcast on 27

September 1996 and have read transcripts of the news items complained about. They

have also read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice,

the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Disabled Persons' Assembly organised rallies to register its concerns during the

1996 election campaign. The rallies were the subject of news items broadcast by RNZ

on the day they occurred (27 September 1996), and the topic of an interview on

Checkpoint, broadcast at 5.00pm on the 27th, with the organiser of the rally in

Auckland. The news items broadcast by RNZ reported that the focus of the rallies

was the policy of the Christian Coalition to review the Human Rights Commission.

Mrs Barbara Faithfull, on behalf of the Credo Society, complained to RNZ that the

items were inaccurate and biased in suggesting that the Coalition was the Assembly's

sole target. The person interviewed on Checkpoint, she noted, had pointed out that

the Coalition's policy was a minor concern and had stated that the Assembly was

looking at policies of all the political parties in regard to disability.

RNZ assessed the complaint under standards R1 and R9 of the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice (although RNZ referred incorrectly to standard R14). Standards

R1 and R9 require broadcasters:

R1   To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs

programmes

R9   To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

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

reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in the same

programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

As it maintained that the items had accurately reported statements correctly attributed

to the Assembly's president and other spokespeople, RNZ declined to uphold the

complaint alleging inaccuracy. It denied that the reference to the Christian Coalition

suggested that it was the "only" target of the rallies.

Turning to the standard R9 aspect, RNZ decided that the standard had been

contravened because the Coalition had not been approached for its response to the

reason publicly given by the Assembly for the rallies.

When she referred to the Authority the aspect of the Society's complaint which

alleged that the accuracy requirement in standard R1 had been breached, Mrs Faithfull

questioned RNZ's statement that accuracy was attained by reporting attributed

remarks correctly. The Checkpoint item, she stated, would have indicated to RNZ

that its previous reports had not reported accurately the reasons for the rallies.

The Authority accepts that the news items broadcast during the day complied with

the requirement for accuracy. It reaches this conclusion on the basis that the items

broadcast during the morning contained an extract from a reported comment made by

the president of the Disabled Persons' Assembly (Ann Hawker) in which she

expressed concern about the Christian Coalition's position on the Human Rights

legislation. The afternoon items included a similar comment from an Assembly

coordinator (John Volk).

The introduction to the interview on the Checkpoint item – with another coordinator,

Aucklander Mark Anderson – included the following summary about the rallies:

The meetings, which were organised by CCS and the Disabled Peoples'

Assembly had as their focus concerns that the Christian Coalition wants to

review the role of the Human Rights Commission.

Whereas that was apparently the stance of the president in Wellington, the Auckland

coordinator, Mr Anderson, explained that the focus of the rally there was the various

party policies on the issues involving the disabled. While his observations may have

suggested that different Assembly spokespeople varied in the concerns they wished to

convey, RNZ reported his views accurately. By attributing the various viewpoints to

the differing spokespeople and reporting each of them accurately, the Authority is of

the view that RNZ has complied on this occasion with the accuracy requirement in

standard R1.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
21 April 1997

Appendix

Credo Society Inc's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 17 October 1996

The Secretary of the Credo Society Inc (Mrs Barbara Faithfull) complained to Radio

New Zealand Ltd about the coverage of the rallies organised by the Disabled Persons'

Assembly broadcast on the Network News and Checkpoint on 27 September 1996.

The coverage, she wrote, breached the requirements for fairness and accuracy in that it

was gravely "biased" against the Christian Coalition. The coverage, she continued,

suggested falsely that the Coalition was the Assembly's sole target.

In support of the complaint, Mrs Faithfull noted that Midday Report stated that the

Coalition was the target of the rallies organised by the Disabled Persons' Assembly in

view of the Coalition's stance against homosexuality. That comment was repeated in

the news at 3.00pm, 4.00pm and in Checkpoint at 5.00pm. Mrs Faithfull said that

Checkpoint included an interview with a rally co-ordinator in Auckland during which

the questions focussed on the Assembly's attitude to the Coalition although the

interviewee concluded by pointing out this was a minor concern as disabled people

were looking at the policies of all political parties in respect of disability.

The news at 8.00pm, Mrs Faithfull observed, included a report from the Minister

Responsible for the Disabled in which she said that the disabled should not fear the

Coalition's attitude to the Human Rights Commission.

In contrast to RNZ's coverage, Mrs Faithfull referred to the coverage of rallies in the

"NZ Herald" on 28 September, the following day, where there was no reference to the

Christian Coalition.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 21 October 1996, RNZ's Complaints Co-ordinator (Mr Richard

Hereford) acknowledged the complaint which, he said, would be assessed against

standards R1 and R9 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

In a further letter dated 29 November, the Complaints Co-ordinator apologised for the

delay in providing a formal decision which, he said, was a result of absence through

sickness and leave. He advised that the decision would be sent within the period of

the 20 working day extension allowed for in the Act.

Credo Society's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 2 January

1997

As the Society had still not received a formal response to its complaint, Mrs Faithfull

referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

She also expressed concern that there had been insufficient publicity for complainants

about the changes to the time limits contained in the Broadcasting Amendment Act

1996.

Further Correspondence

A copy of the Credo Society's referral was sent to RNZ which advised by telephone

that it had responded to the formal complaint on 11 December 1996. It was later

ascertained that this letter had been addressed incorrectly, and another copy was sent

to Mrs Faithfull which she received on 13 January 1997.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 11 December 1996

Reporting that the complaint had been assessed under standards R1 and R14 of the

Radio Code, RNZ began by stating that the test for accuracy when reporting a

properly attributed comment was "the degree to which the report gives an accurate

account of that statement". While reporting the statement might generate an obligation

to seek comment, RNZ maintained that a report of an attributed statement did not

imply editorial endorsement.

RNZ then recorded that the news had correctly attributed to the Assembly president a

statement that the Coalition was a target of the rallies. On the basis that the reference

in context to "the target" was not to be construed as "the one and only target", RNZ

argued that the summaries contained in the news items were accurate.

Nevertheless, RNZ advised, its Complaints Committee was not satisfied initially on

one aspect and requested further information. That matter is taken up below.

RNZ also considered that the items broadcast made it clear that discrimination was the

principal focus of the demonstrations and that the Coalition's policies were a

restricted focus. That aspect became clearer during the day and was included in the

Checkpoint interview. As an explanation for adopting the approach taken in the news

items, RNZ wrote:

For this, Radio New Zealand cannot accept any responsibility. The stories

broadcast reported accurately what the president of the organisation had to say;

another person from the organisation was interviewed and accurately reported.

It is often the case that early statements made by representatives of an

organisation become altered, attenuated, or even contradicted by later statements

by persons of the same body.

Pointing out that it was not its task to assist people in these circumstances, RNZ said

its items accurately reported attributed statements.

RNZ then considered the aspect of the complaint which alleged a lack of fairness and

balance. One aspect of the items was unsatisfactory as the Complaints Committee:

... had been unable to find any indication that appropriate reference had been

made to the Christian Coalition for a Coalition view of the statements made by

DPA and others with regard to Human Rights legislation and discrimination.

Accordingly, RNZ decided, this omission amounted to a breach of standard R14 in

that the Coalition had not been approached for a response to the reasons given by the

Disabled Persons' Assembly for the rallies.

Credo Society's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 6 February

1997

Dissatisfied with the aspect which declined to uphold the accuracy complaint, Mrs

Barbara Faithfull, on behalf of the Credo Society, referred it to the Broadcasting

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

In responding to some of RNZ's specific comments, Mrs Faithfull said that it was

illogical for RNZ to suggest that "the target" did not mean "the one and only target".

She also contested RNZ's ruling that there was no validity in comparing its reports

with the following day's print media accounts.

Mrs Faithfull also disputed RNZ's claim that the news items made it clear that

discrimination was the wide focus of the protests, and that the Coalition's policies

were a restricted focus. She cited the opening remarks on Checkpoint which had said

that the Assembly's focus was the Coalition's intention to review the Human Rights

Commission. Moreover, the wide focus on the rights of the disabled should have been

apparent by the time that Checkpoint was broadcast at 5.00pm. She wrote:

Therefore it is surely inexcusable for Radio NZ to argue that throughout all of

that day's news items, including Checkpoint, of course, it was only reporting

that which D.P.A. spokesmen had to say. After all, Auckland Co-ordinator

Mark Anderson had clearly spelt out the wider picture, and obviously before

Checkpoint was even compiled. Yet the same inaccurate line was repeated there:

"The meetings .... had as their focus" etc re the C.C. and the H.R.C. Not one

word about Government funding concerns, which were only heard fleetingly by

Mr Anderson, in the dying moments of the item, and then passed over as the

speaker was thanked for the interview.

In conclusion, Mrs Faithfull questioned RNZ's practice to comply with the

requirement for accuracy by reporting attributed statements accurately, observing:

In this case such a rule does not seem to have been applied. While we concede

that allowances might be made for the versions of events reported in news items

prior to Checkpoint, the evidence is clear that Radio NZ News was in

possession of a far more full version of events by the time the latter programme

was compiled. Therefore this Society contends that for Checkpoint, at least,

there is no excuse for Radio NZ to continue reporting such a narrow and highly

inaccurate version of events as they related to the D.P.A. rallies held that day.

RNZ's Report to the Authority - 4 March 1997

RNZ pointed out that an aspect of the complaint had been upheld. It also expressed

surprise that NZ Post had been unable to deliver its letter as the error in the address

was slight and as the addressee's name was unusual, it could have been recognised.

Credo Society's Final Comment - 18 March 1997

On Credo's behalf, Mrs Faithfull maintained that the standard R1 complaint should be

upheld, and declared RNZ's response to be inadequate, confusing and "bordering on

the ambiguous". As an example, she pointed to the reasons given by RNZ for

upholding part of the complaint. It was incorrect for RNZ to acknowledge that a lack

of balance became apparent late in the day when it had occurred throughout the day.

In summary, Mrs Faithfull insisted that standard R1 had been breached.