BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Health reforms were the subject of Fraser, broadcast on TV One on 9 October 1997 at

10.00pm. The item included a pre-recorded interview with the Minister of Health,

and a studio discussion with representatives from the Auckland CHE and the

Coalition for Public Health.

Mr McLean complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

interview with the Minister was aggressive and partisan, and that the host's attitude

was such that the opposing viewpoint was not given a reasonable opportunity to be

represented. He considered it lacked balance and was thus in breach of broadcasting

standards.

In considering the matter of fairness and balance, TVNZ responded that as the

Minister was the person responsible for the health reforms, it was relevant to put to

him the hard questions about the government's attitude to health. It acknowledged

that the questioning was vigorous, but did not agree that it lacked balance or was

unfair. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr

McLean 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 a tape of the item complained about, and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The subject dealt with on Fraser on 9 October 1997 was the impact of the health

reforms. The programme was broadcast by TVNZ on TV One at 10.00pm and

included a pre-recorded interview with the Minister of Health, Mr Bill English, and a

studio discussion between Mr Graeme Edmond of Auckland Healthcare and Dr

Alister Scott of the Coalition for Public Health.

Mr McLean complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the aggressive style used

to interview the Minister contrasted significantly with the approach taken when

interviewing the other two participants. In his view, that demonstrated that the

programme lacked balance. He argued that because of the interviewer's partisan

stance, no reasonable opportunity was given to present the opposing viewpoint. He

pointed to the Act's requirement for balance in programmes dealing with

controversial issues of public importance, and concluded that that requirement had

obviously been breached.

TVNZ advised that it dealt with the complaint under standards G4 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

G4   To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

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

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

TVNZ observed that the programme consisted of two parts. The first part included

the interview with the Minister which had been filmed earlier in the day, and the

second part the studio interview with the two guests. It acknowledged that it would

have been preferable to have had the Minister in the studio also, but that was

impossible since he was in Invercargill that day.

TVNZ did not agree with Mr McLean's assessment of the programme. It emphasised

that in considering whether the programme was fair and balanced, it had to be

remembered that only one of the participants was ultimately accountable for the

health reforms, and that was the Minister of Health. It did not agree that the

questioning of the Minister was aggressive, as Mr McLean put it, but did

acknowledge that it was "vigorous" and suggested that was entirely appropriate, given

the public interest in the health debate.

Further, TVNZ submitted that it was the role of the political interviewer to challenge

the views being advanced by a government minister. It denied that it was partisan to

adopt the devil's advocate position.

TVNZ also made the point that while the Minister was ultimately accountable for

health policy, the same did not apply to the other two guests. It noted that in fact, one

of the guests was not an implacable opponent of the government's policy and went so

far as to identify further areas where cuts in expenditure could be made.

As far as standard G4 was concerned, TVNZ maintained that it was impossible to

conclude that the Minister was unfairly treated. It emphasised that he had half the

programme to himself, and was seen to argue in a persuasive and forthright manner

for the government's position. In addition, TVNZ commented that it had received no

indication from the Minister that he was dissatisfied with the programme.

Turning to standard G6, TVNZ responded that it did not believe the programme

lacked balance. It accepted that the screening of the programme in two halves might

have magnified the host's apparent change of tone, but suggested that it did not

constitute a lack of balance to adopt a slightly more moderate tone when dealing with

those questioning the policy than when dealing with the Minister who was

accountable for the policy.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr McLean contended that it was

the juxtaposition of the two parts of the programme which led to the breach of the

balance requirement. In his view, the programme's structure emphasised the hostile

treatment of the Minister in comparison to the soft interview of the other two

participants. He did not agree with TVNZ that different treatment was justified on the

grounds that the Minister was the person accountable for the health reforms. He

considered that placing all responsibility for the problems in the health portfolio on

the Minister was an editorial judgment which reflected a partisan attitude. Mr

McLean argued that some of the problems in the health system had been caused by

the groups which were represented by the other two participants in the debate, and

that if the programme were balanced, they would have been questioned in an equally

challenging manner as the Minister. He did not consider the fact that the Minister had

acquitted himself well in the debate was relevant.

The Authority observes that robust debate and strongly-held views have been a

hallmark of the health reforms in recent years. The programme was introduced by the

presenter citing a former Associate Minister observing that "the health system is in

chaos", and referring to the unprecedented number of public demonstrations

protesting cuts in the health budget. During the pre-recorded interview, the Minister

explained his government's policy on health, in the face of vigorous opposition to the

reforms and widespread community protest against government policy. He was asked

about the cuts to the health budget, the closure of hospitals in smaller communities,

the government's apparent insistence on maintaining tax cuts in 1998 instead of

funding more health care, his views on the privatisation of health care and the length

of hospital waiting lists. In the Authority's view, he presented as being well-informed

and articulate in his responses. He acknowledged that there was dissatisfaction with

the course of the reforms, that hospital waiting lists were too long, and that the health

budget was not increasing in line with people's growing expectations. He also took

the opportunity to explain what his government intended to do about this.

The other two speakers provided clarification on two of the principal issues put to the

Minister – the waiting list booking system and the declining health budget. The

approach taken by the interviewer in eliciting their views contrasted with the approach

taken when he interviewed the Minister. Indeed, the Authority concluded, the two

parts of the programme each had a different focus. In the first part, the Minister was

asked to defend his government's policy on health, and the vigorous style of

questioning reflected the intense dissatisfaction expressed by many with the course of

the reforms. The Minister, as representative of a government responsible for the

policy decisions which were causing so much concern, was asked to defend its stance.

It was put to him in a very forceful manner that there was no mandate for the cuts in

the health budget. He explained the government's position and acknowledged the

arguments put to him. In the second part, the other two participants were asked to

elaborate on how the health reforms impacted on their areas of interest, and in

particular to comment on the booking system and the health budget. The style of that

interview was different.

Mr McLean invites the Authority to conclude that this approach was unfair and lacked

balance. Mr McLean has a point. There was a marked contrast in style between the

two parts of the programme. However, the Authority is not persuaded that this was of

such a nature as to breach the standards, nor is it persuaded that the approach was

unfair. The Minister did not appear to be disadvantaged in any way by the

forcefulness of the approach and if there was any imbalance in treatment, he was able

to effectively counteract this. In those circumstances it is the Authority's view that

there has been no breach.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
29 January 1998

Appendix

Ian McLean's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – 17 October 1997

Mr McLean of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about its

broadcast of the programme Fraser on 9 October 1997 at 10.00pm. The focus of the

programme was the health reforms, and it included a pre-recorded interview with the

Minister of Health and a studio interview with Graeme Edmond, the Chief Executive

of Auckland Healthcare, and Dr Alister Scott of the Coalition for Public Health.

Mr McLean contended that the interview with the Minister was conducted as a cross-

examination and was not just vigorous but aggressive. He wrote:

The nature of the interview is demonstrated by the fact that on several

occasions the Minister was interrupted before he had completed his reply.

On the other hand the interview with the other two gentlemen was a gentle

examination with leading questions designed to demolish the Minister's

viewpoint. I can only recall one occasion where a reply was questioned and

that courteously.

Mr McLean contended that the host's partisan attitude was such that the opposing

viewpoint did not have a reasonable opportunity to be presented. He argued that it

was not sufficient that a participant was given time to present their position, but that it

should be done within a framework which was reasonably neutral. In his view, where

the interviewer took sides, with one or other of the protagonists, the other side was at

a strong disadvantage.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 3 November 1997

TVNZ advised that it assessed the complaint under standards G4 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It noted that the item consisted of two

parts and that because the Minister was in Invercargill, he had been interviewed

earlier in the day, whereas the other two participants were in the studio. It accepted

that it would have been ideal for all three to have been together in the studio.

However, TVNZ argued, in considering fairness and balance, only one of the people

involved was accountable for health reforms, and that was the Minister of Health. It

was therefore relevant to put the hard questions to him. TVNZ did not accept that the

questioning was aggressive, though it did acknowledge that it was vigorous and, it

argued, appropriate in the context of the health debate.

TVNZ submitted that it was the role of the current affairs interviewer to challenge

views being advanced by a government Minister in areas for which he has

responsibility. It rejected the suggestion that it was partisan on the part of the

interviewer to adopt a "devil's advocate" role, but said that it was expected when the

interviewee was a Minister accountable for policy implementation .

TVNZ pointed out that while the Minister was responsible for health policy, the same

did not apply to the other two guests. It noted that the Auckland Healthcare

representative was not an implacable opponent of government policy, whereas the

other guest was.

TVNZ said it was impossible to conclude that the Minister was dealt with unfairly.

He had virtually half of the programme to himself, and was seen to argue in a

persuasive and forthright manner in favour of the government's position. It advised

that it had not received any indication from the Minister that he was dissatisfied with

the programme, and noted that in the past he had not been slow to indicate displeasure

when he felt he had been dealt with unfairly.

Referring to standard G6, TVNZ did not believe the discussion lacked balance. While

it acknowledged that balance could not be achieved with a stopwatch, it noted that the

interview with Mr English was two minutes longer than the second half of the

programme, and that because of the presence of the head of the Auckland CHE, even

the second half contained an element of support for government policy.

TVNZ accepted that screening the programme in two distinct parts may have

magnified the host's apparent change of tone as he switched from the Minister to the

other two guests. However, it suggested, adopting a slightly more moderate tone in

speaking with those questioning policy compared with the tone used in seeking

answers from the Minister did not constitute a lack of balance. It declined to uphold

the complaint.

Mr McLean's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 21 November

1997

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

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

Mr McLean contended that TVNZ's response did in fact establish that the complaint

was well founded.

He argued that the broadcast was a programme in two parts. Therefore, he argued, the

test of balance, impartiality and fairness needed to be applied to the whole

programme, rather than item by item. He wrote:

If the programme had consisted solely of an interview with the Minister, or

solely of a discussion with the other two participants, then the grounds for

complaint would be tenuous. The interview with the Minister could be

regarded as being a tough interview, unfortunate as to style of interviewing in

that it was so hostile, but perhaps not a breach of the code. Similarly the

segment with Mr Edmond and Dr Scott could be regarded as such a soft

interview that it barely got below the surface of the issues. Again, difficult to

challenge under the Code.

But put together as a programme, the broadcaster through Mr Fraser did not

provide balance and was neither impartial nor fair.

Mr McLean noted that TVNZ in its response acknowledged that a different approach

was taken with the Minister as opposed to the other participants, and that it sought to

justify it on the grounds that he was accountable for the health reforms and because he

was a Minister.

In Mr McLean's view, it was an editorial judgment as to whether the problems in the

health sector were due to the health reforms. He considered it an arguable case that

others who hold responsibility in the sector had frustrated the reforms, and hence

shared some of the responsibility. He believed it revealed a partisan attitude to lay all

responsibility on the Minister.

Mr McLean then argued that some CHEs had caused failures in the system and that

the barrier between the public and private parts of the health sector had been the

greatest impediment to the health reforms. He suggested that the self interest of some

whom Dr Scott represented had led to the barrier being maintained. He added:

It is not my role to argue these cases, but simply to point out that the

arguments have been advanced in the public arena, and that a balanced

programme would have tested these by questioning the protagonists in an

equally challenging manner as the Minister.

Finally, Mr McLean suggested that TVNZ's response appeared to based on the

contention that the requirement for balance could be waived if a Minister was

involved.

He concluded:

The fact that the Minister welcomes constructive debate, that he acquitted

himself well, and that he had slightly more time is not challenged nor in my

view is it relevant.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 2 December 1997

TVNZ responded first that it did not believe that either in the item or in its response

had it said the problems in the health sector were due to the health reforms. What it

had said, it continued, was that there was a perception in the community that the

problems were linked with the health reforms and that the person accountable was the

Minister of Health.

It then turned to the introduction to the item, which said:

Good evening – my guest tonight Health Minister Bill English.

He is facing a wave of public outrage over a public health system under

extreme stress.

His former associate Minister, Neil Kirton says the health system is in chaos,

vandalised by a government bent on privatisation.

The introduction then went on to show recent newspaper headlines reflecting concern

about the health system, and showed pictures of a number of demonstrations against

government health policy. TVNZ accepted Mr McLean's view that there were others

who held responsibility in the system but submitted that in the current context it was

the government which was in the firing line, and that it was appropriate to put the

questions to the Minister. It noted that the Minister did not apportion blame to others

in the health sector.

TVNZ argued that in a subject as wide and diverse as the health system, there were

any number of different arguments which could be advanced, including those put by

Mr McLean.

It also submitted that in considering the matter of balance on such a wide-ranging

issue as the problems in the health sector, it was important to be mindful of s.4(1)(d)

of the Broadcasting Act which clearly acknowledged that some matters were balanced

over a period of time. It added:

This programme was in itself balanced in that the Minister was heard from

first, and the issues raised by his comments were then discussed in the studio.

Other issues in the health area have been covered in other programmes, and

doubtless will continue to be covered for as long as health policy and its

implementation remain a topical issue.

TVNZ referred to Mr McLean's inference from its previous letter that its view was

that when a Minister was involved, balance and fairness could be waived. It

responded that was not its position. It believed that fairness in discussing issues of

public policy with the accountable Minister required having questions put to him and

giving him an opportunity to answer those questions.

Finally, TVNZ submitted that it did not believe it was appropriate that the discussion

part of the programme be in the same style as the one-on-one interview with the

Minister. It argued that there was nothing in the standards which required the same

style to be used.

Mr McLean's Final Comment – 19 December 1997

Mr McLean noted that TVNZ had agreed that the Minister was treated differently

from the other two participants, in that the second part of the programme was a

'discussion', instead of an interview. Yet, he argued, the other two participants

presented viewpoints opposing the Minister and because of that, the requirement for

balance in their treatment was important.

He likened the programme to a cricket match, or a courtroom, and suggested it was

unfair for one participant to be treated differently from the others.

Mr McLean suggested that TVNZ had effectively conceded that the programme was

unbalanced when it argued that balance was achieved over time, rather than within the

programme. He noted that TVNZ relied on the public perception of accountability for

health reforms as justification for the line taken. He did not consider that public

perceptions, however strong, justified a departure from balance. He added:

Indeed, given the dominance of the role of TV in influencing public opinion, it

is important for programmes to present a balanced viewpoint rather than

following the mood of the day and seeking to reinforce it.

Mr McLean also noted that TVNZ's letter made it clear that the stance of the

programme was determined editorially before it began, and was not an accidental

result emerging from the dynamics of the interviews. He therefore submitted that the

lack of balance was more serious than if the stance had not been pre-determined.