BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An item on the programme 5.30 with Jude, broadcast on TV One on 4 November 1998 at 5.40 pm, featured a representative from a health products company discussing women’s health with the presenter. In particular, soy products, phytoestrogens, and commercial products containing them were discussed in relation to the relief they provided to women with menopausal symptoms.

Mrs James complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that statements made in the item were inaccurate and unbalanced. She did not, she wrote, see any indication that the programme was an advertisement or advertorial, and she therefore assumed that it was classified as a documentary.

TVNZ responded that the segment was "transparently advertorial in nature". It was paid for by the health products company, but TVNZ retained editorial control over it, the broadcaster said. The programme had a magazine format, it wrote, and offered opinions on its topics, in addition to fact, and balance was not a relevant factor. The particular item reflected a naturopathic approach to its topic which was not inaccurate, it said.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mrs James referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about, and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

In a letter to the complainant dated 10 November 1998, and made available to the Authority, TVNZ said that the segment in the programme which was the subject of the complaint was paid for by the company whose products were discussed. In a later letter to the complainant dated 19 November, and made available to the Authority, TVNZ said that the "segment to which your complaint refers is transparently advertorial in nature". The broadcaster claimed that the complaint remained one relating to broadcasting standards, because editorial control over the content of the programme remained with the programme’s producer. It was not, it said, "an advertising matter".

At its meeting on 3 February 1999 the Authority was of the view that the broadcast was an "advertising programme" within the meaning of s.2(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It considered that the complaint should be referred to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. The Board accepted the Authority’s referral of the complaint. On 17 March 1999 the Advertising Standards Complaints Board, having considered the complaint, decided that the complaint would be not upheld. The reasons for the Board’s decision were set out in detail in its decision.

In view of the full consideration given to the complaint by the Board and in all the circumstances outlined in this Decision, the Authority declines to determine the complaint pursuant to the power given to it in s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
13 May 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined the complaint:

1.    Valerie James’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 8 November 1998
2.    Letter from TVNZ to Mrs James – 10 November 1998
3.    TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 November 1998
4.    Mrs James’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 21 November 1998
5.    Mrs James’s Letter to the Authority – 24 November 1998
6.    TVNZ’s Comments to the Authority – 30 November 1998
7.    Mrs James’s Final Comment – 6 December 1998
8.    Mrs James’s Letter to the Authority – 7 December 1998
9.    The Authority’s Letter to Mrs James – 11 January 1999
10.  Mrs James’s Letter to the Authority – 17 January 1999
11.  The Authority’s Letter to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board – 5 February 1999
12.  The Board’s Letter to the Authority – 12 February 1999
13.  The Authority’s Letter to Mrs James – 15 February 1999
14.  The Authority’s Letter to TVNZ – 15 February 1999
15.  The Authority’s Letter to the Board – 27 April 1999
16.  The Board’s Letter to the Authority enclosing its decision – 28 April 1999
17.  The Board’s Letter to the Authority – received on 3 May 1999