BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The background to a brutal murder in West Auckland was examined and used as the

basis of a documentary about that region. The programme asked whether the area's

"Wild West" image reflected deep social problems. The programme was broadcast on

TV One's Assignment at 7.30pm on 7 August 1997.

Mr Shadbolt, a former mayor of Waitemata City, complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained a highly destructive

allegation. That had occurred when it was suggested that, during his time as mayor,

West Auckland gained a reputation for "larrikin behaviour". He also complained that

the programme contained some references which were negative about his mayoralty,

and that in the circumstances he should have been given an opportunity to comment.

Explaining that the programme had assessed the image conveyed when Mr Shadbolt

was mayor, TVNZ maintained the item's comments were accurate and fair. It

declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Shadbolt 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). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The popular concept of the West Auckland, or "Westie", culture was examined in an

Assignment programme. The former mayor of Waitemata City, Tim Shadbolt,

complained that the programme suggested that West Auckland had developed a

reputation for "larrikin behaviour" during his mayoralty. The programme used film

which showed the former mayor in a number of unusual situations, and TVNZ

described this material in a letter to Mr Shadbolt in the following way:

The film clips used in the programme showing you in full mayoral regalia

jumping on a trampoline, you admitting to an audience that you "didn't have a

clue what I'm doing", and your mayoral car pulling a concrete mixer all suggest

the cultivation of an image deliberately intended to challenge orthodoxy, and to

mock the generally accepted way of doing things.

Mr Shadbolt complained that the content of the programme was highly destructive,

and negative. Furthermore, he was concerned that he was not given an opportunity to

respond to the current mayor of Waitakere City who described the legacy of his

mayoralty as "baggage".

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G4, G6, G14, and G19 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The first two 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.

The other two read:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

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 explained that the item had examined a recent gruesome murder in West

Auckland, and had asked whether the "Wild West" image of the area reflected further

deep social problems. It maintained that the image bequeathed by the complainant's

mayoralty included an exuberant style for the region, and that this was partly

responsible for the popular anti-authoritarian image of "Westies".

As for the "baggage" comment from the present mayor, TVNZ denied that it referred

to Mr Shadbolt personally. It wrote:

It seems to us that he was reflecting his view about coping with the image left

by the tumultuous goings on within the Waitemata City Council under "Tim's

team". He felt a particular legacy had been left, and clearly was a little irked

by it.

Overall, TVNZ advised Mr Shadbolt:

Given your larger than life conduct as Mayor in West Auckland and the

imagery surrounding your term, it is our view that the manner in which you

were portrayed in Assignment fell fairly and squarely into the realm of fair

comment. Had this been a political analysis of your mayoralty you might well

have had cause for concern, but this time it was nothing of the sort. The

programme was about image.

Mr Shadbolt repeated his concerns when he referred the complaint to the Authority,

adding that the programme was inaccurate to state that he had moved to Invercargill

for "adventures". In its later response to this point, TVNZ said the description was

justified in view of the schemes advanced by Mr Shadbolt as Mayor of Invercargill.

In his final comment, Mr Shadbolt reviewed the bases of his complaint, and TVNZ's

responses. He referred to his terms as mayor and councillor in different cities, and

asked whether that would have occurred if the "larrikin behaviour" description had

been accurate. Pointing out that TVNZ had not replied to his complaint about the

phrase "stuck in terminal adolescence", he said that it was untrue to suggest that he

personified "the image of an unsophisticated and sometimes apparently unhinged

series of neighbourhoods." Referring to the footage of him in the item, Mr Shadbolt

wrote:

This extremely negative and unfair script was reinforced with negative images.

The broken leg suggested violent activity, the shotgun scene associated me

with violence, the trampoline scene made me look immature, and the edited

clip they took from one of my jokes (made as a professional entertainer) made

me look stupid. TVNZ has hundreds of news clips from my mayoralty to

choose from. The editing of this sequence was very clever. They couldn't

describe me as unsophisticated, unhinged and stuck in terminal adolescence

because I would have sued them. They described the image of neighbourhoods

in these terms and then showed edited images of me being unsophisticated,

unhinged and stuck in terminal adolescence. I just hope they're not clever

enough to fool the Broadcasting Standards Authority who are well aware of

the power of editing but do not have to operate within the narrow legal

confines of our defamation laws.

He also expressed concern that he was not given the opportunity to respond to the

comments from the current mayor, with whom he had contested two elections,

stating:

I don't want to rewrite history. If others wish to claim I was baggage, a good

natured larrikin or even the worst mayor in the history of western civilisation

then of course they are entitled to state their point of view but in fairness I

should be entitled to state my point of view as well.

In view of the matters raised in the correspondence, the Authority considers that there

are two standards which encapsulate the complaint. The first is standard G4, the

obligation to deal justly and fairly with people referred to, and the second is standard

G19, the requirement that editing not distort the original views expressed. The

Authority on this occasion subsumes standard G6 into standard G4, and considers

standard G14 inapplicable as it deals with news.

Initially, the Authority has to decide the ambit of the documentary. It concludes that

it was an exploration of the image of West Auckland which included, in passing, some

archival footage of Mr Shadbolt during his term of office as mayor. Mr Shadbolt was,

then, not the central feature of the programme, and references to him were relatively

brief.

A horrifying murder in West Auckland was the principal source of any suggestion that

the "Westie" image was vicious or unhealthy. The Authority considers that Mr

Shadbolt was not directly linked in the programme to such evidence of the darker side

of "Westie" culture. Rather, he was portrayed for the most part more in contrast, as a

perhaps ingenuous person who had had, at times, a cavalier attitude to civic

responsibility. He came across as a person of extroverted exuberance with an element

of anti-authoritarianism.

In the Authority's opinion, it was not unfair to portray Mr Shadbolt in this way.

The footage which was used covered public appearances by Mr Shadbolt on a number

of occasions. It has been in the media before. The Authority has no doubt that Mr

Shadbolt had his reasons for portraying matters in the way that he did at the time.

The use of the excerpts which portrayed some of Mr Shadbolt's more flamboyant

behaviour cannot in themselves be the basis for a complaint. As he points out

himself, he has been able to maintain a profile as a successful local body politician

since that time, so it could be inferred that there was a degree of public tolerance for

such behaviour. The Authority concludes that this is the very point that the

documentary set out to illustrate by including him in the story: that behaviour pushing

the boundaries of the normally acceptable had not been alien to West Auckland, even

at the highest civic level.

Against this background, the Authority is not prepared to find that the use of the

material complained about was unfair to Mr Shadbolt.

The Authority now turns to the programme's compliance with standard G19. The

footage of Mr Shadbolt taking part in his more unorthodox activities was contrasted

with that of the current mayor engaged in civic oriented actions. There was an

invitation here to conclude that the current mayor of Waitemata City was taking a

more responsible approach than his predecessor. Further, it was implied that Mr

Shadbolt's past example served to highlight aspects of an underlying malaise in the

area. The Authority is required to judge whether any distortion was involved in the

editing of the programme while it made such points.

The Authority considers that there is a distinction to be made between distortion –

which necessarily implies an element of untruth – and editorial discretion, which at

times may legitimately highlight one perspective on events at the expense of another.

Here, the item was edited in such a way as to contrast the two mayors, for the

purposes of a wider point being made about the local culture in which both had played

a prominent part. The Authority concludes that the editorial stance on this

programme, accordingly, falls short of the requirement for a breach of standard G19.

Moreover, a majority of the Authority does not accept Mr Shadbolt's contention that

he was portrayed as being, in his word, "unhinged", through the editing of the item.

The majority does not accept that as being a reasonable inference from his portrayal in

the programme. A minority disagrees on this point. It is of the view that the

programme suggested that Mr Shadbolt was "unhinged".

Finally, the Authority turns to the aspect of the complaint from Mr Shadbolt in

which he maintained that he was dealt with unjustly and unfairly, and consequently in

breach of standard G4, when the current mayor used the term "baggage", in describing

the area's "legacy" from Mr Shadbolt's mayoralty.

In the light of the high-profiled disputes which marked Mr Shadbolt's term of office,

the Authority does not accept that a new mayor - with a different personal style -

was not entitled to refer to Mr Shadbolt's legacy as "baggage". Mr Shadbolt would

have had a right of reply if his competence had been central to the documentary, but it

was not. By the use of highly selective excerpts, his style and that of a later mayor,

were presented in heightened contrast. There was an element of judgment involved

that was clearly not in Mr Shadbolt's favour. However, in the Authority's opinion,

anyone in public life who has courted publicity as Mr Shadbolt has done runs this

risk. And when it happens, the person concerned will not necessarily always be

entitled to an opportunity to respond. Here TVNZ apparently considered no such

opportunity was required. The Authority accepts that to be the case and concludes

that the broadcaster was not in breach of the standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
26 February 1998

Appendix

Mr Shadbolt's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 26 August 1997

Tim Shadbolt of Invercargill, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority,

complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about some comments in Assignment,

broadcast on TV One at 7.30pm on 7 August 1997.

The programme contained what he described as "a highly destructive allegation" when

it said that West Auckland developed a reputation for "larrikin behaviour" during his

term as mayor. Why then, he asked, had he been subsequently elected as a councillor

for Waitakere City following the abolition of Waitemata City, and later as the Mayor

of Invercargill.

Describing all the references in the programme to his mayoralty as negative, Mr

Shadbolt contended that the terminology used to describe the neighbourhoods of West

Auckland were intended to abusive of him personally. Moreover, he was not given

the opportunity to respond to his political opponent who referred to him as

"baggage".

In conclusion, he said, the attack on him contained in the programme was savage,

unfair and unsubstantiated.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 11 September 1997

Assessing the complaint under standards G4, G6, G14 and G19 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ explained that the programme examined a

horrifying murder and had asked whether the region deserved its "Wild West" image,

and whether that image reflected deep social problems.

TVNZ pointed out that the programme, in keeping with the theme, described the

image of Mr Shadbolt's mayoralty, not its substance. It continued:

In discussing the image generated by your period as mayor we find it difficult to

accept that you would not yourself agree that you deliberately cultivated an

image which could fairly be described as that of a "good natured larrikin". The

film clips used in the programme showing you in full regalia jumping on a

trampoline, you admitting to an audience that you "didn't have a clue what I'm

doing", and your mayoral car pulling a concrete mixer all suggest the cultivation

of an image deliberately intended to challenge the orthodoxy, and to mock the

generally accepted way of doing things. (The letterhead on which you penned

your complaint suggests that you continue to encourage that image!).

Accordingly, TVNZ maintained that the image of West Auckland given in the

broadcast was valid. Moreover, the current mayor's remark was not a personal

comment. Rather, TVNZ said, he was reflecting on his task of coping with the image

left by the City Council after "Tim's Team".

In summary, TVNZ wrote:

Given your larger than life conduct as Mayor in West Auckland and the imagery

surrounding your term, it is our view that the manner in which you were

portrayed in Assignment fell fairly and squarely into the realm of fair comment.

Had this been a political analysis of your mayoralty you might well have had

cause for concern, but this time it was nothing of the sort. The programme was

about image.

Dealing with the specific standards, TVNZ considered the programme about West

Auckland's image had been accurate, objective and impartial, and that Mr Shadbolt

had not been dealt with unfairly.

Mr Shadbolt's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 9 October 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Shadbolt referred the complaint to the

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

Referring to the idiosyncratic behaviour of some other mayors, Mr Shadbolt said that

did not mean that they supported murderers. He advised:

The image of a stereotypical "Westie" is a brutal, tattooed, leather wearing hoon

with a Pitbull Terrier who will kill you as quick as look at you has very little to

do with the image I promoted. I have promoted the image of a concrete

contractor, political activist and professional entertainer.

Mr Shadbolt continued to dispute the references to him contained in the programme

and, as a key point, complained that he was not given an opportunity to put his view

when the programme maintained that for many New Zealanders, he was West

Auckland

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 23 October 1997

TVNZ said it had little to add. It rejected the assertion that the programme suggested

that Mr Shadbolt supported murderers. TVNZ maintained that in view of Mr

Shadbolt's unconventional approach to his civic duties while Mayor of Invercargill, it

was not inappropriate to say he left West Auckland for "adventures" elsewhere.

Mr Shadbolt's Final Comment – 5 November 1997

Continuing to dispute TVNZ's approach, Mr Shadbolt said that a politician's image

was probably more important than the reality.

The programme, Mr Shadbolt recalled, had focussed on one murder and had referred to

some other brutal murders. They were linked to a "car crazy, woman bashing,

amoral" Westie attitude. The programme suggested that he had created this image.

Pointing out that he loathed street culture, he said that the "Westie" stereotype he

was familiar with reflected the former rural nature of the West Auckland environment.

Mr Shadbolt objected specifically to the programme's description that under his

mayoralty, West Auckland gained a reputation for "larrikin behaviour". That image

would not have allowed his election as mayor in Waitemata City for two terms and,

later, for one term in Invercargill. Furthermore, TVNZ had not responded to his

complaint about the "terminal adolescent" observation.

As for the programme's comment that "Shadbolt came to personify the image of an

unsophisticated and sometimes apparently unhinged series of neighbourhoods", Mr

Shadbolt said "This is simply not true". The language had been used, he believed, to

avoid a defamation action should the comments have been applied to him directly.

Noting that he and the current mayor were bitter political opponents, Mr Shadbolt

maintained that the reference to "baggage" was meant to refer to him personally. Mr

Shadbolt wrote:

I don't want to rewrite history. If others wish to claim I was baggage, a good

natured larrikin or even the worst mayor in the history of western civilisation

then of course they are entitled to state their point of view but in fairness I

should be entitled to state my point of view as well.

In conclusion, he referred to some of his initiatives while mayor which resulted in a

declining crime rate. However, since Mayor Harvey took over there had been a

dramatic increase in crime. These points, he noted, contradicted the image advanced

by the programme that everything Mayor Shadbolt had done was negative and stupid,

while everything that Mayor Harvey did was positive and intelligent.