BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An Immigrant Nation: From Sri Lanka with Sorrow was broadcast on TV One at

9.40pm on 29 December 1996. It looked at two Sri Lankan families living in New

Zealand, one Tamil and one Sinhalese, and explored with them the reasons for their

immigration to New Zealand. It discussed the links they maintained with Sri Lanka,

and their new lives in New Zealand.

Dr Balachandran complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the

programme was unbalanced in its representation of Tamils in Sri Lanka, and contained

factual errors. He believed that the programme was particularly insensitive to the

feelings of Tamils living in New Zealand.

TVNZ advised that the programme was about the perceptions of the immigrant

families. While some of the perceptions might not have been strictly accurate, they

were genuinely-held beliefs. TVNZ considered that both families had been treated in a

balanced fashion and declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Dr Balachandran referred his complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 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.

The documentary An Immigrant Nation: From Sri Lanka with Sorrow, broadcast on

TV One at 9.40pm on 29 December 1996, focused on two Sri Lankan families, the

Jayatillekes and the Mahendrans, living in New Zealand. The documentary discussed

with each family why they had left Sri Lanka and explored major issues of their lives

in New Zealand. The documentary also went back with Mrs Jayatilleke to Sri Lanka

for a commemoration of the first anniversary of her mother's death.

Dr Balachandran complained to TVNZ that the programme breached standards G1,

G6, G14, G15, and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. He believed

that instead of explaining the problems faced by Sri Lankan emigrants to New Zealand,

the documentary delved in to the history and current political situation in Sri Lanka,

resulting in an ill informed and incorrect programme biased towards the Sinhalese.

Dr Balachandran made a number of specific objections to back up his general

complaint, the main ones being as follows:

1. The programme advised that Tamils were brought to Sri Lanka by the British

in the 1800s to work on the tea plantations. This did not explain the position with all

Tamils.

2. The boy from the Sinhalese family recollected that he had feared bombs at his

school. This representation, according to Dr Balachandran, showed the Tamils as the

aggressors.

3. There was a failure to report on the JVP violence prior to the immigration of

the Sinhalese family.

4. The death of Mrs Jayatilleke's mother and the daughter's subsequent visit

back to Sri Lanka was not balanced by accounts of tragic Tamil deaths where there

would be no chance of returning for any anniversary.

5. There was unnecessary broadcast of Sinhalese discussion in Sri Lanka aimed,

according to Dr Balachandran, to show Tamil aggression.

6. There was insensitive and untruthful filming and representation of the Tamil

protest in New Zealand.

In responding, TVNZ considered the complaint under the standards nominated by Dr

Balachandran. The first two require broadcasters:

G1   To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

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

The others provide:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially

G15  The standards of integrity and reliability of news sources should be

kept under constant review

G19  Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to

ensure that the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of

the original event or the overall views expressed.

TVNZ advised that the programme was about the perceptions of immigrants, and

while those perceptions may not have been strictly accurate, they were genuinely-held

beliefs. TVNZ denied that the programme had been influenced to push a pro-

Sinhalese line. It maintained that, in making the programme, care was taken to seek

advice from members of the Tamil community. It considered that the programme had

been thoroughly and properly researched. It declined to uphold the complaint.

In his comments on TVNZ's response, Dr Balachandran explained that in his view the

programme had failed to provided a balanced view to the reasons for the immigration

of Tamils and Sinhalese from Sri Lanka. He reiterated that it contained factual errors

and misrepresentation and was insensitive to the Tamils living in New Zealand.

TVNZ, in response, remained of the view that the programme was about the

perceptions of the families involved. It also emphasised that both families interviewed

had advised TVNZ that they were satisfied with the broadcast.

The Authority is sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Dr Balachandran.

However, it is unable to hold that those concerns were reflected in the programme.

The Authority considers the programme gave interesting insights into the immigrants

lives, and it is unable to understand the aspect of the complaint that the programme

made the Tamils appear as the aggressors. Rather, it is of the view that the

programme makers worked hard to present a balanced view of the situation in Sri

Lanka based on the stories of the two families interviewed. The opinions advanced in

those circumstances must necessarily view the situation through those families'

perspectives. It was not a current affairs programme. In respect of the specific

concerns held by Dr Balachandran, the Authority is unable to find that there was any

breach of the nominated standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
22 May 1997

Appendix

Dr Balachandran's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 16 January 1997

Dr B Balachandran of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the

programme, An Immigrant Nation: From Sri Lanka With Sorrow broadcast on 29

December 1996 at 9.40pm on TV One, breached standards G1, G6, G14, G15 and

G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. He stated:

According to the title of the documentary, I expected it to be a documentary

explaining the problems faced by the Sri Lankan immigrants and their

contributions to New Zealand. However, the documentary, for certain

unexplained reasons delved into the history and current political situation in Sri

Lanka and resulted in an ill informed and incorrect version based on Sri Lankan

Government's propaganda heavily biased towards the Sinhalese community.

Dr Balachandran made a number of specific objections under the following headings:

1. Biased selection of the representatives

Dr Balachandran stated that one of the two families interviewed had links with the Sri

Lankan Government controlled television station which, he stated, was an arm of the

Sri Lankan propaganda machinery. He advised that while TVNZ had every right to

interview this family, it did not report the basis used for selecting that family to

appear on the programme.

2. Allowing Sri Lankan propaganda in the documentary.

Dr Balachandran believed that the documentary failed to show balance, impartiality

and fairness, resulting in propaganda by the Sri Lankan Government against the right

of self determination by Tamils.

3. Misrepresentation of the history of Tamils

Dr Balachandran referred to an interview in the programme which stated that the

Tamils came from India two hundred years previously to work in the tea plantations.

He said that the programme did not clarify to the viewer that these Tamils, indentured

labourers during the British rule, were later disenfranchised by the majority Sinhalese

Government, and that the Tamils, who had lived in the North and East of Sri Lanka,

had been in Sri Lanka for several thousands of years and were among the original

inhabitants.

4. Failure to be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

Dr Balachandran referred to the interview with the Jayatilleke family where the son

explained that he was scared because of the bombs planted in school bags. Dr

Balachandran disputed the truth of the boy's statement, and advised that TVNZ

should have verified the story before it was broadcast.

Dr Balachandran stated that anyone watching the documentary would have been given

the impression that the Sinhalese were a peace loving community and the Tamils were

terrorists.

Dr Balachandran went on to describe his perspective on the situation in Sri Lanka. He

believed that the director of the programme should have interviewed a Tamil living in

the North and East of Sri Lanka to balance the interviews with Mrs Jayatilleke's

brother, and spoken to women's organisations and the Government agent for

Kilinochichi, Mr S. Thillainadarsa, to gain a proper perspective on the situation in Sri

Lanka.

TVNZ's Response to Dr Balachandran - 27 February 1997

Initially in a letter of 18 February, TVNZ had written to Dr Balachandran requesting,

as allowed for in the Broadcasting Act, an extension of time in order to respond to his

complaint.

In its substantive response, TVNZ considered the complaint under the standards

nominated by Dr Balachandran. The first two require broadcasters:

G1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

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

The others provide:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially

G15 The standards of integrity and reliability of news sources should be

kept under constant review.

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that

the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original

event or the overall views expressed.

In opening, TVNZ stated:

At the outset, TVNZ records that it is conscious of the frustration and anger

felt by many in the New Zealand Tamil community at the dearth of

information about matters pertaining to Tamils in Sri Lanka which has come

about largely because of the Sri Lankan Government's news embargo. ...

The programme, however, was not about Sri Lanka. It was about New

Zealand. As the overall title "An Immigrant Nation" suggests programmes in

this series look at people from diverse ethnic backgrounds who have made their

home in New Zealand and invites them to describe in their own words how

they feel about this country, and what it was that bought them here. It is a

programme about the perceptions of the immigrants. Some of these

perceptions may not be strictly accurate, but they are genuinely held beliefs of

those who hold them and are part of the reason why they have chosen to

migrate to New Zealand

In "From Sri Lanka with Sorrow", the producers carefully chose families from

both the Tamil and Sinhalese communities. Since receiving your complaint we

have checked back with both families and they declare themselves satisfied

with the broadcast.

In selecting the families for the programme, TVNZ advised they were chosen because

they had compelling immigrant stories and did not have "an axe to grind".

TVNZ rejected any suggestion that the appearance of the Jayatilleke family was

connected to the Sri Lankan propaganda machinery. Mrs Jayatilleke's links with the

state run television service, it advised, had ended and it found no evidence that Mrs

Jayatilleke was reciting an official propaganda line. It argued that both families

interviewed were treated in a balanced fashion and their views were given equal weight.

With reference to Dr Balachandran's assertions that Tamil history was

misrepresented, TVNZ advised that the director of the programme took care to seek

advice from members of the Tamil community and that those advisers had told her

they were unaware of any "significant errors of fact" in the documentary. On the

matter of the Tamils being brought in from India by the British, TVNZ did not agree

that the programme gave the impression that all Tamils came to Sri Lanka that way. It

said that because of the personal nature of the programme, some of the historical

sections were condensed.

In relation to the interview with the boy and his story about the bomb, TVNZ advised

that regardless of whether or not it happened, this was the child's perception of

reality. It denied vigorously any suggestion that the boy was set up to tell a fabricated

story for the television audience.

TVNZ advised that it was thoroughly satisfied that the programme had been properly

and thoroughly researched. The director, it said, spoke to Tamil representatives in

New Zealand, and in Sri Lanka was assisted by a Tamil researcher. She also discussed

the programme with a Tamil journalist from Reuters and talked to other Tamils in Sri

Lanka. TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint

Dr Balachandran's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 25

March 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Dr Balachandran referred his complaint to the

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

Dr Balachandran considered that TVNZ's response was an attempt to justify its

programme rather than provide an independent review of the programme presented.

Dr Balachandran explained his complaint as follows:

[The programme] failed to provide a balanced view to the background to the

immigration of Tamils and Sinhalese from Sri Lanka. It contained factual errors

and misrepresentation both through the narrators and through the persons

selected to express their views, and was insensitive to the feelings of the

Tamils living in this country. In doing so the programme has caused severe

distress to the Tamil viewers in New Zealand, and more importantly has

tarnished the image of the Tamils living in this country, and in general

throughout the world.

Dr Balachandran provided a comprehensive discussion of the parts of the programme

where, he considered, standards had been breached. He provided a summary of his

main concerns as follows:

1. The intent of the programme suffered by allowing unwarranted constructed

discussions from Sri Lanka to be shown, which presented false information

and were unrelated to the migrants in New Zealand.

2. Reporting by the narrator that Tamils were brought to Sri Lanka by the British

in the 1800s to work in tea plantations, but not reporting the fact that the

majority of the Tamils are indigenous people who have indeed lived in Sri

Lanka since ancient times (breach of codes G1, G14, and G19).

3. Insensitive and untruthful presentation of the protest by the New Zealand

Tamils against an unprecedented inhumane tragedy imposed on half a million

Tamils in Jaffna, by the narrator with the aid of Mr Jayatilleke, probably

under pressure from Sri Lanka or its agents to hide the inhumane atrocities (breach of

codes G1, G6, and G15).

4. The story of school bombs distorts the truth by implying that school children

were killed or terrorised by Tamils. The boy had either been set up by the

Sinhalese community to hide Sri Lanka's atrocities against Tamils and portray

Tamils as the aggressors, or may have referred to violence by JVP Sinhala

youth, and by not reporting this fact, the story had been distorted (breach of

Codes G15 and G19).

5. Failing to report on the JVP violence immediately prior to the migration of the

Jayatillekes to New Zealand, thus aiding in hiding this fact, and to attribute

the violence to Tamils (breach of Codes G6 and G19).

6. Unbalanced reporting of the anniversary of Sinhala's mother's natural death,

while ignoring the tragic death of thousands of Tamils at the hands of the Sri

Lankan Government, and their close relatives in New Zealand not being able

to even go for the funeral let alone a death anniversary (breach of G19).

7 A carefully planned and constructed propaganda discussion in Sri Lanka being

telecast to portray the Tamils as aggressors, whereas in reality they are victims

of occupation, harassment, torture and killing by the Sri Lankan Government

(breach of codes G1, G6, G14, G15, and G19).

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 3 April 1997

TVNZ explained that it had been unable to respond to Dr Balachandran within the 20

working days set out in the Broadcasting Act but had, as allowed by the Act, advised

him of the fact that further time to reply was needed.

TVNZ reiterated that the programme was about perceptions, the perceptions it said of

two families from opposite sides of the ethnic divide who had both chosen to leave Sri

Lanka in search of a better life in New Zealand. The programme, it advised, reflected

the perceptions and fears held by these families.

TVNZ also emphasised again that both families interviewed had told it that they were

satisfied with the manner in which their situations were depicted.

As Dr Balachandran had not raised the issue about the Tamil protest in New Zealand

with TVNZ, it considered the issue should be disregarded.

Dr Balachandran's Final Comment - 11 May 1997

In his final comment, Dr Balachandran argued that the perceptions advanced were not

necessarily based on an accurate understanding of the situation which prevailed.

Further, he disagreed with TVNZ's statement that the programme was satisfactory

because the families were satisfied. He maintained that the views of New Zealanders

also mattered, and that they should have been informed of the correct situation in Sri

Lanka.