BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A telephone poll, organised by the Holmes programme, invited viewers to phone in to express their support for a minority government under the present Prime Minister. The results of the poll were reported on 13 August in the Holmes programme broadcast between 7.00–7.30pm and Tonight broadcast about 9.40pm.

Mr Carapiet complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the extensive coverage of the poll results on both Holmes and Tonight contrasted with the very brief report of the results of another poll two weeks previously. He noted that the earlier poll had only been reported on Holmes and not on Tonight, and argued this demonstrated that the broadcaster was not impartial.

TVNZ responded first that selection of material for a news bulletin was a matter of editorial discretion. It argued that the focus of the news programmes on 13 August was the break up of the Coalition, and in that context, the result of the poll was newsworthy. It was also of interest, it added, because the poll had attracted the largest response ever for one of its kind. In comparison, it argued, the poll conducted two weeks earlier had not been of the same newsworthiness. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Carapiet 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 the item on Tonight complained about, read the scripts of the Holmes items and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The result of a Holmes viewer poll was reported on Tonight broadcast on TV One on 13 August 1998 at 9.40pm. The poll asked viewers to register their support for the minority government under the present Prime Minister. According to the report, a record number of respondents – 20,000 – replied, 60% of whom supported the minority government.

Mr Carapiet complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that its editorial decision to report the result of the poll on Tonight demonstrated its failure to maintain political impartiality. He noted that the result of a similarly conducted poll for Holmes – held two weeks previously following the resignation of Neil Kirton MP and in which viewers were asked to register their support for an early election – was not reported on Tonight. Mr Carapiet maintained that the political effect of treating the two polls differently amounted to political partiality and interfered with the democratic process in New Zealand. He sought an apology from TVNZ which would highlight the discrepancy in its treatment of the two polls, and the possible political ramifications.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which reads:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

It was TVNZ’s view that Mr Carapiet had overlooked the very important issue of editorial discretion. It emphasised that its news editor must have the discretion to select material for a news bulletin on the basis of its relevance to the issues of the day. It explained that there were two reasons why the poll included on Tonight on 13 August was regarded as of sufficient interest to report. The first was that the political scene in New Zealand that evening was in turmoil, with the coalition in collapse. In that context, it considered the poll on whether viewers would support a minority government led by Mrs Shipley was an interesting sidebar. TVNZ compared that situation to the events which preceded the poll two weeks previously and argued that its significance was not on the same scale. Secondly, TVNZ noted, the poll held interest because with 20,000 respondents it attracted the largest response ever for a telephone poll conducted on Holmes. In contrast, the number who had responded two weeks previously had been around 6,000.

TVNZ stressed that the item on Tonight made it clear that the poll was unscientific. It concluded that there was no lack of impartiality in reporting one poll but not the other. It reiterated that poll results, like all other items of news, had to be considered on their merits, and that the decision about what to broadcast was a matter of editorial discretion based on sound professional judgment. It did not accept that standard G14 was breached.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Carapiet emphasised that it was, in his view, TVNZ’s editorial discretion which had constituted the standards breach. He argued that its decision to report the result of one poll on Tonight but not the other had been influenced by a political rather than a journalistic perspective. He did not agree with TVNZ that the political climate during the first poll was much less significant, or that the extraordinary result of the poll, where 80% of respondents supported a general election being called, had justified only a brief verbal report at the end of the Holmes programme. In his view, the failure to report on that poll on Tonight was surprising and an indication of a serious breach of standards.

TVNZ again emphasised that the decision to report on Tonight the result of one poll but not the other amounted to editorial discretion on the part of the news editor. It maintained that the Authority was in no position to judge what should or should be included in any news bulletin, because it did not know the full extent of the material competing for space that day. It repeated that the decision to report on the 13 August poll was made on sound editorial grounds.

The Authority appreciates Mr Carapiet’s claim that the polls were of equal significance statistically, in that both were equally unscientific, and comprised the responses of self-selected respondents who were prepared to pay to register their vote. It also acknowledges Mr Carapiet’s general proposition that public opinion can be influenced by what is reported. However, the Authority does not consider that the failure of TVNZ to report the results of the first poll on its late evening news bulletin can be interpreted as an attempt to manipulate the news, or that it demonstrates political bias on the part of the broadcaster.

The Authority accepts TVNZ’s explanation that editorial decisions are made about every news item, based upon the day’s news imperatives. It also accepts that the political situation which triggered the first poll – the resignation of New Zealand First MP Neil Kirton – was not of the same significance as the collapse of the Coalition which had preceded the second poll. It is not for the Authority to prescribe guidelines about the content of news bulletins: the decisions about what to include and what to omit are made at the time of the broadcast and will reflect the day’s priorities and the material available at the time. It considers that it would have been impossible to predict that two weeks after the first poll was conducted the Coalition would collapse, or that 20,000 viewers would respond to a poll about the minority government. Editorial decisions are based on the events of the day, and cannot necessarily be related to decisions about coverage of earlier events. For these reasons the Authority concludes there was no breach of standard G14.

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 October 1998

Appendix

Jon Carapiet’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 16 August 1998

Jon Carapiet of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about items broadcast on 13 August 1998 between 7.00–7.30pm on Holmes and on Tonight at about 9.45pm.

During the Holmes programme, viewers were invited to telephone to register their approval or disapproval for a minority government under the present Prime Minister. The results of the telephone poll were reported during Holmes and also on Tonight.

Mr Carapiet complained that the editorial decision to report the result in detail was not consistent with a decision two weeks previously when, with respect to a poll regarding viewer support for an election to be called, the results were given only brief mention.

In Mr Carapiet’s view, the different treatment of the two poll results breached broadcasting standards and demonstrated that the broadcaster was not impartial. He wrote:

It is important to keep separate issues of the statistical significance of the polls, the general editorial policies and aims of the broadcaster, or the fact that much other coverage and balanced interviews had been achieved over recent weeks. The specific issue of concern is that the political effect of treating the polls differently in the main news reportage of political events of the day amounts to political partiality and implicitly political interference in the democratic process of New Zealand.

Mr Carapiet argued that in order for TVNZ to maintain its credibility, an apology, which highlighted the discrepancy in treatment of the two polls and the possible political effect it might have had, was appropriate.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 2 September 1998

TVNZ advised that it considered the complaint in the context of standard G14 of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

It suggested that having examined the complaint, its view was that Mr Carapiet had overlooked the important issue of editorial discretion and all that it entailed. Taking Mr Carapiet’s argument literally, it continued, would mean that Tonight should adopt a policy of using all telephone polls conducted on Holmes or none of them. TVNZ wrote:

We do not agree. It is our view that a news editor must have the discretion to select material for a news bulletin on the basis of its relevance to what else is about in a news sense at the time. He should be able to draw from any source at all material which adds significantly to other information being broadcast, or which is simply an interesting sideline to other material.

It reported that there were two reasons why the poll was regarded as sufficiently interesting to be included in the report. The first was that the political scene on 13 August was in turmoil, with the Coalition having collapsed. The focus of the news programmes, it wrote, was on where the government was going. In contrast, it argued, the earlier poll to which Mr Carapiet referred followed on from the resignation of Mr Kirton and was not of the same significance as the break up of the Coalition.

Secondly, TVNZ noted, the poll was of interest because it attracted the largest response ever for a telephone poll, with 20,000 calls logged. In comparison, the figure a fortnight earlier had been in the vicinity of 6,000.

Also of interest, TVNZ reported, was that The New Zealand Herald found the Holmes poll on 13 August of sufficient interest to report.

TVNZ stressed that Tonight made it clear that the poll results were unscientific although "the result was interesting." It said it saw no lack of impartiality in Tonight making use of the 13 August poll, but not reporting the one two weeks earlier. It concluded:

Poll results, like all other items of news, have to be judged on their merits and what is shown and what is not shown is a matter of editorial discretion based on sound professional journalistic judgement. We do not accept that G14 was breached.

It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

Mr Carapiet’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 11 September 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Carapiet referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

First, Mr Carapiet responded to TVNZ’s argument that he had overlooked the "important issue of editorial discretion". He wrote:

This is ironic given the fact that it is precisely these editorial decisions that I believe constitute the failure to meet their requirements to maintain political impartiality.

Mr Carapiet emphasised that the basis for his complaint was that the particular editorial decisions had been influenced by a political rather than journalistic perspective. He said that while he agreed editorial discretion was a matter for the broadcaster to manage, it did not override its statutory responsibility under standard G14. He argued:

The relative significance of the two polls used as an explanation for differential treatment of the quite contrasting results also does not stand up to scrutiny as a reason to reject my concerns.

Mr Carapiet contended that it was clear that the two polls were of equal "journalistic" significance in the context of the news of the day. He did not agree with TVNZ’s claim that the political climate during the first poll was so much less significant, or that the extraordinary results of the poll justified only a casual verbal report from the presenter. That there was no mention of it subsequently he considered was very surprising, and was an indicator of a serious breach in maintaining statutory and journalistic standards of impartiality.

Mr Carapiet continued:

The contrasting treatment given to reporting the second poll is also explained by TVNZ as due to the large number of votes, and TVNZ stress in their letter that they made the "unscientific" nature of the poll clear. As stated in my original complaint, the unscientific nature of the polls is not the basis of my concern. As a professional researcher I can assure the Authority that both these polls were equally significant.

Mr Carapiet argued that the fact that more people voted in one than in the other was irrelevant as an explanation of why the polls should be given different treatment. He maintained that the fact that in the first poll 80% of people said they supported a general election was of significant journalistic interest. In his view, it should have generated the same journalistic interest as was given to the subsequent poll where the figures were closer to a 60% approval rate.

The impact of reporting one poll but not the other, Mr Carapiet argued, was important in assessing whether TVNZ had met its statutory requirements under standard G14.

Mr Carapiet also pointed out that there was a large body of research which showed how information from opinion polls could further impact public opinion. Mr Carapiet advised that his specific concern that TVNZ’s differential treatment of the two polls might have actually had a political influence on perceptions of popular sentiment was further exacerbated by the follow-up reporting of the second poll in the Herald. He said he had been unaware of this coverage until it was mentioned by TVNZ, and that he believed it served to show how the publicity given to the poll supporting the present government reverberated through other media, thus intensifying the effect of TVNZ’s failure to maintain impartiality.

He asked whether, if fair and equal coverage had been given to the earlier poll, the Herald would have found it of journalistic worth to report that 80% of voters were calling for a general election.

Mr Carapiet concluding by seeking a review of the matter, as he considered that TVNZ had failed to justify the broadcast.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 22 September 1998

TVNZ responded that Mr Carapiet was perfectly entitled to his opinion that the two polls were of equal significance. However, it continued, it was only his opinion. It explained:

This comes down to the role of the news editor and editorial process. The decision to carry on Tonight, in anecdotal form, the result of the Holmes poll on 13^th August was based on a number of factors – not the least the fact that the collapse of the coalition had in editorial terms raised that day the level of interest in everything remotely political.

TVNZ maintained that the item on Tonight was not broadcast as hard information. It noted that it was carefully described as being "unscientific", and was interesting, nothing more.

TVNZ concluded by noting that in deciding to carry the story, the news editor had exercised his editorial discretion, selecting from the information available that which was of the greatest significance at the time of the broadcast.

Mr Carapiet’s Final Comment – 6 October 1998

In his final comment, Mr Carapiet emphasised that his complaint centred on the fact that the editorial decision process which resulted in different treatment being given to two politically sensitive polls amounted to a failure to maintain impartiality. He maintained that the broadcaster’s responsibility was not overridden by editorial viewpoints.

Mr Carapiet stressed that the "significance" he referred to was not "opinion" but was a statement of statistical fact. He pointed out that both polls had a comparably robust sample and margin of error. To TVNZ’s view that one poll was not "politically" significant, Mr Carapiet said it was that opinion that led to the discrepancy in the promotion of the data which resulted in a breach of standard G14.

Mr Carapiet said he was concerned as to why the editor thought the second poll showing support for the government was "interesting, nothing more…" and so publicised it, yet decided that a poll showing that 80% of voters were calling for an early election was not interesting.

Mr Carapiet considered it was necessary for the Authority to view both Holmes programmes and the Tonight programme after the second poll.

Further Correspondence

TVNZ responded to the Authority’s request for a tape of the earlier Holmes programme in a letter dated 8 October.

It advised that it was unable to locate the tapes, but provided copies of the script.

In passing, TVNZ stressed its view that the Authority was in no position to judge what should or should not be included in any news bulletin because it did not know what other material was competing for space in that bulletin. Further, it argued, the Authority could not from this distance assess the more intangible matter of the level of public interest in any one issue at the time of the broadcast.

It concluded:

The decision to include the poll result on 13^th August was made on sound editorial grounds. It was not presented as a scientific poll, but simply as a matter of interest on a night of high political drama – a "fancy that!" type of story.