BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The opposition of residents to the proposal to install lights at Eden Park was

remarked on by commentators during a live cricket match broadcast on TV One on the

afternoon of 28 February 1998.

Mr Donnelly, on behalf of the Eden Park Neighbours' Association, complained to

TVNZ that the comments misrepresented both the extent of, and the reasons for local

residents' concerns about the proposed night games at Eden Park. He sought a

statement from TVNZ containing an accurate representation of the grounds for

residents' opposition to the installation of lights, and an apology.

In its response, TVNZ observed that viewers of a cricket match were unlikely to

expect the same standard of information from cricket commentators, engaged in

informal chat between balls, as they did from serious news items which had been

thoroughly researched. It added that it was clear that the commentators were

discussing their personal understanding of the situation of the lights at Eden Park.

TVNZ did not consider, it wrote, that the reference to those who objected to the lights

being installed denigrated the views they held. It declined to uphold any aspect of the

complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Donnelly on behalf of the Association

referred it 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.

During the live broadcast of a cricket match on TV One on the afternoon of 28

February, the commentators exchanged views on the proposed installation of lights at

the Eden Park ground. Martin Crowe, one of the commentators, said that there had

been 150 complaints from Eden Park residents who were unhappy about the lights

being installed. He contrasted that with the thousands of people who he said would

get "a lot of joy" from being able to watch games under the lights. The other

commentator, John Morrison, declared that it had been a shame that "progress had

been hindered" by the arguments over the lights. He observed that in fact there were

very few major matches in the year, and they were largely over by a respectable hour.

Furthermore, he noted, residents could "buy blinds and curtains". To that comment,

Martin Crowe added that they could just "join the party and go along with the 30,000

people who were going to enjoy the night games."

The Eden Park Neighbours' Association, through its spokesperson Mark Donnelly,

complained to TVNZ that the remarks were inaccurate, unbalanced, and were intended

to ridicule the local residents, many of whom had been extremely upset by them.

First, the Association complained, the mention of 150 complaints from residents was

grossly inaccurate. It pointed out that there had been 1,166 submissions to the

Planning Commission against the proposed night games, and that two of these came

from local schools with over 1000 children. The Association also complained that the

remark that the games would be "largely over by a very respectable hour" was

inaccurate. It suggested it was likely that some people would not be leaving the park

until 11.30pm or midnight which, in its view, was not "a very respectable hour".

Next, the Association complained that the comments lacked balance. For example, the

suggestion that instead of opposing the lights the residents could just buy blinds or

curtains did not, in the Association's view, present a balanced approach to the issues.

The Association listed what it considered to be the major issues of the installation of

lights at the Park, including the impact on the community of crowds, the safety of

children when games were held on school days, the traffic on residential streets, and

the attraction to criminals of unattended cars. It pointed out that the Environment

Court imposed a large number of conditions on night games, including a restriction to

only two international day/night games per year. The Association considered that fact

demonstrated that the issues were more serious than blinds and curtains.

When it responded to the complaint, TVNZ advised that it had assessed it under

standards G1 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those

standards 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.

First TVNZ made some observations about the nature of cricket commentaries on

television. It pointed out that there was a considerable difference between what

viewers expected of the banter between cricket commentators during the course of a

cricket match, and what they expected of a serious news and current affairs

investigation. Noting that it had become customary for the commentators to "solve

the problems of the world" during the game, TVNZ said that it doubted viewers

considered the exchanges between ex-cricket playing commentators carried any

authority when they strayed outside their area of expertise.

Turning to the substance of the complaint, TVNZ responded first to Martin Crowe's

observation that only 150 complaints had been made, and noted that he had prefaced

that comment with the words "I think". In TVNZ's view, he made no claim to

accuracy, but was simply expressing his understanding of the position.

TVNZ did not accept that John Morrison's reference to "a very respectable hour"

was an inaccuracy. It was clearly an expression of his opinion, TVNZ maintained.

As far as balance was concerned, TVNZ noted that the Environment Court had

already issued its ruling on the lights, having considered the submissions, and argued

that therefore the remarks could not cause harm in the sense of influencing any future

decision to be made by the Court.

Responding to the complaint that the comments ridiculed those who opposed the

installation of the lights, TVNZ maintained that the commentators had simply drawn

attention to the lengthy process which had been involved in obtaining planning

consent. It did not consider it was denigratory to say that it was a shame that

progress was hindered by the arguments. That statement, it considered, was a

reflection on the bureaucratic process.

TVNZ did not believe opponents of the night matches should be given an opportunity

to respond on air. In its view, the comments were simply the genuinely-held opinions

of two well-known former cricket players, and did not amount to a direct criticism of

the Association or its views. It apologised for any offence caused.

The Authority understands that the Association is among those who oppose the

installation of lights at Eden Park, that the planning consent hearings have been

lengthy, and that consent has been granted for only a limited number of day/night and

night games per year. The Association's complaint relates to what it considers to be

the dismissive manner in which the commentators dealt with what, to it, is an

important issue. The Association argued that there were breaches of the requirements

for accuracy and for balance. The response from TVNZ emphasises the weight to be

given to comments made as part of the informal banter between commentators

throughout the game.

The Authority's task is first, to consider the status of the informal dialogue between

cricket commentators during lulls in the game. It accepts TVNZ's submission that

viewers are unlikely to ascribe any particular authority to them when they expresstheir

views on matters unconnected with their expert knowledge of the game. However, the

matter of the installation of lights at Eden Park is, the Authority considers, a topic which

they might be expected to have some knowledge about and a particular interest in, since it

will directly affect the scheduling of future games.

The Authority now deals with the complaint that it was inaccurate for one commentator

to state that there were only 150 objections to the proposed ground lights (when in fact

there were 1,166), and for the other to suggest that it was unreasonable for residents to

object as the games would be over at "a reasonable hour". It notes that Martin Crowe,

when referring to the number of objections to the proposal, qualified his remarks with "I

think". The Authority accepts that indicates he had some doubt about the number, and

does not believe viewers would have interpreted his comments as being a reliable source of

information. Although, it notes, he underestimated the full number of submissions

opposing the lights by a substantial amount, it was clear that it was his understanding of

the position and, the Authority believes, any discerning listener would have known he was

not entirely sure of his facts. Furthermore, it does not consider that viewers rely on

cricket commentators for factual information such as this.

Turning to the comments made by John Morrison when he suggested that the opposition

to the lights was unreasonable because the games were "largely over by a very respectable

hour", the Authority concludes no issue of accuracy arises here, as the matter of what

constitutes "a respectable hour" is highly subjective and not quantified. It finds no breach

of standard G1.

The Authority then deals with the complaint that the controversy surrounding the

installation of the lights was not presented in a balanced manner. It notes that the

Association objected to the inference which it believed could be drawn that the opponents

of the scheme were only concerned about having a few late nights - and which, according

to the commentator, could be remedied by buying curtains or blinds. In fact, the

Authority notes, the principal reasons for the Association's opposition were to do with

safety matters and traffic issues, and the disruption which would be experienced in the

local community. In assessing whether the standard G6 requirement for balance was

transgressed, the Authority considers it improbable that viewers would rely on cricket

commentators to provide a detailed analysis of issues put to the Environment Court when

planning consent was sought. In these circumstances, it finds no breach of standard G6.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
25 June 1998

Appendix

Eden Park Neighbours' Association's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd

– 2 March 1998

Mark Donnelly, on behalf of the Eden Park Neighbours' Association, complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd that comments made by the commentator during a live

cricket broadcast on TV One on 28 February breached broadcasting standards.

The remarks related to the proposal to install lights at the Eden Park cricket ground

and, the Eden Park Neighbours' Association complained, misrepresented the reasons

for their opposition to the proposal.

The Association sought a full apology and a statement from TVNZ containing an

accurate representation of the residents' opposition to the proposal, to be made

during the live broadcast of a subsequent cricket match.

Having been provided with a transcript of the remarks made, in a letter dated 23

March, the Association elaborated on its complaint.

The conversation between the two commentators was concerned with the installation

of lights at the ground.

Martin Crowe: And I understand the lights will also be ready for March next year.

John Morrison: ...This is all the battles that go with Resource Consents and

local communities, and people not getting enough sleep and

what have you. That seems to be overcome.

Martin Crowe: Well it was a long saga that I think 150 complaints around the

Eden Park area from residents who were not happy with the

lights going in. You would think with just 150 complaints in

all, that thousands of people would get a lot of joy.

...

John Morrison: ...It seems a shame that so much progress is hindered by all

these arguments, but at the end of the day major matches do not take up many

days of the year and because they are largely over by a very respectable

 hour and of course if you do want to get some sleep, there are blinds and

curtains available from most leading retailers.

Martin Crowe: Or you could just join the party and come along with the

30,000 that are going to really relish I think day/night cricket or

the rugby of course.

It's going to be wonderful to see Eden Park completely

developed with the lights in what is New Zealand's biggest

market and it's only that we have a ground here in Auckland

that can really cater for day/night fixtures.

The Association complained that Martin Crowe's mention of 150 complaints was

grossly inaccurate and was a breach of standard G1. It pointed out that there were

1,166 submissions made to the Planning Commissioners against the proposed night

games. Two of these were from local schools, with over 1000 children.

It also complained that John Morrison's comment that the games would be "largely

over by a very respectable hour" was inaccurate. It noted that although games were

scheduled to end at 10.00pm, they could run over, possibly up to 10.30pm. Then, it

would take at least an hour to clear the traffic, and some people would remain at the

park and not leave until much later. In the Association's view, 11.30pm to midnight

in a residential area was not a "very respectable hour".

The Association also argued that the exchange was unbalanced and therefore in breach

of standard G6. It suggested that John Morrison's remark that residents could buy

curtains did not present a balanced approach to the issues. It listed what it described

as the major issues, which included the impact on the community of the crowds, the

safety of children when games were held on school days, the traffic on residential

streets, and the attraction to criminals of unattended cars parked on dark tree-lined

streets in the suburb. The Association pointed to the 45 conditions imposed by the

Environment Court on night games, and noted that only two international day/night

games could be held each year.

In the Association's view, this summary of the issues highlighted the completely

unbalanced nature of the comments which suggested that curtains would solve the

problem. It concluded:

We find the comments highly objectionable and we believe the comments were

intended to ridicule the local residents. Many residents were extremely upset

by these comments.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 26 March 1998

TVNZ advised that it considered the complaint under standards G1 and G6, which

were nominated by the complainant.

First, it offered some observations on the nature of cricket commentaries on television.

It suggested that there was a considerable difference between what viewers expected

of a cricket commentary, and what they expected of a serious news and current affairs

investigation. The latter, it continued, was the product of detailed research and

required considerable detailed knowledge of the event being described. It added:

In the course of a cricket test match running over five days (as much as 30

hours of live broadcasting) it has become customary everywhere the game is

played for commentators, as the saying goes, "to solve all the problems of the

world" between balls. To some viewers and radio listeners the patter among

the commentators has become almost part of the sport.

However, TVNZ suggested, nobody seriously considered that when ex-cricketers

discussed matters which were outside their area of expertise (ie the game itself) that

they carried any particular authority.

TVNZ's view was that to give weight to comments made during a cricket commentary

on the same basis as it would a current affairs investigation would be to give far more

weight to the comments than they deserved.

Turning to the specifics of the complaint, TVNZ noted that Martin Crowe prefaced

his comments about the 150 complaints with "I think". It argued that he was making

no claim to accuracy, but expressing his understanding of the position.

It did not accept that John Morrison's reference to "a very respectable hour" was

inaccurate. It maintained that it was clearly an expression of his opinion. It also

noted that many public events, including outdoor concerts, finished at 10.30pm or

later.

As far as balance was concerned, TVNZ noted that the Association's argument was

based on its submission to the Environment Court. It understood that the Court had

already ruled on the matter, and therefore suggested that the commentators' remarks

would not influence any decision of that Court.

TVNZ did not consider that the references to those who objected to the night games

denigrated the views they held. It suggested that the commentators simply drew the

attention of viewers to the fact that there had been a lengthy process involved in

reaching the decision to introduce night games. Further, TVNZ did not consider it was

denigratory to say that "it is a shame that so much progress is hindered by all these

arguments", suggesting that that was simply a complaint about the bureaucratic

process involved.

TVNZ advised that it gave due consideration to the Association's view that

opponents of the night games should be given an opportunity to respond on air. In

TVNZ's opinion, that would invest the original comments with too much weight and

authority. It added:

In our view, the comments were heard at all times to be the genuinely held

opinions of two well-known former international cricketers and that they did

not amount to direct criticism of your association or its views. They were

more in the nature of an acknowledgment that the debate had been held.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Further Correspondence – 27 March 1998

In a letter dated 27 March, the Association sought clarification on the following points

made by TVNZ.

*   It asked what was the basis for the assertion that the Association's comments

on the impact of night games appeared to be a restatement of its position at

the Environment Court.

*   To the response that the comments would not have made an impact to any

decision yet to be made, the Association asked if TVNZ was aware that 11

days after the comments an application for funding for the Park was

considered. The Association regarded the matter as a very current and

controversial issue.

*   It asked if TVNZ considered the "blinds" comment.

*   It asked whether TVNZ considered its role in the Environment Court case to

be irrelevant.

*   Regarding the lack of weight given by TVNZ to remarks made by cricket

commentators, the Association asked whether that was an absolute right,

regardless of how unbalanced the comments were.

The Association's Referral to the Authority – 9 April 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Donnelly, on behalf of the Eden Park

Neighbours' Association referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

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

The Association repeated that it considered that the lack of balance shown in the

comments was serious because it affected the public perception of the issue of night

games at Eden Park. It wrote:

This is a complex, and controversial ongoing issue, and our efforts to educate

the general public about the full effect of night games is seriously undermined

through such trivialising comments.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 23 April 1998

TVNZ stressed again the unique nature of cricket commentaries, and the chatty -

sometimes droll - remarks which were made. It noted that the commentators on this

occasion were two former cricketers, who discussed a variety of topics throughout the

game. It considered it not surprising that they should touch on the issue of lights at

Eden Park, since the match was being played there.

TVNZ submitted that a live cricket telecast was not the appropriate place to mount a

serious debate over an issue, especially as by the time of the broadcast, the matter of

the lights had all but been settled. It understood that two international day/night

fixtures had already been scheduled.

To the Association's complaint that TVNZ had not responded to the remark

concerning "blinds and curtains", TVNZ said that in its view, most people would have

seen the comment for what it was – a good natured, harmless quip. It recorded that it

did not see TVNZ's role in the Environment Court as being relevant to the material

broadcast. Formal complaints were, it wrote, concerned with on-air programme

standards.

The Association's Final Comment – 7 May 1998

The Association said that it concurred with TVNZ that "chatty" cricket commentary

was not the place to mount a serious debate. However, it argued, by choosing to

comment on a controversial subject, it believed the commentators' remarks should

have been accurate and balanced. It considered they were aware of the controversial

nature of the issue prior to making their comments. It did not accept the view that

normal broadcasting standards did not apply to sports commentaries. It asked

whether TVNZ was saying that commentators could make political statements or

other controversial comments with impunity.

The Association said it considered the tone used in the commentary was

condescending and intended to ridicule local residents. It believed this should be taken

into account when reviewing the comments for balance.

Arguing that both the comments and their tone had an impact on how the issue was

perceived, the Association wrote:

To give true balance they could have commented on the fact that the

Environment Court has restricted Eden Park to only two day/night

international cricket matches per year, or that one of the 45 conditions

imposed allows the Auckland City Council to conceivably reduce the number

of night games.