BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

L M Loates was Acting Chairperson in S R Maling's absence.

---

Summary

The series The New Zealand Wars examined the reasons for, and the outcome of, the battles between groups of Maori and Pakeha particularly during the period 1850–1870. The programme was presented by Professor James Belich and was based on his book with the same name. The series was broadcast on TV One at 8.30pm on five consecutive Monday evenings between 8 June and 6 July 1998.

Mr Haggett complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the series among other matters presented "beliefs" as fact, and that it was biased and racist in suggesting that the "innocent" Maori was butchered by "an evil white man".

Emphasising that the series was the "authored" work of an eminent historian whose views had been captured accurately in the series, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

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

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

Decision

Acting pursuant to a delegation of powers under s.29 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, two members of the Authority have viewed the full series complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The series The New Zealand Wars was broadcast on five consecutive Monday evenings at 8.30pm from 8 June until 6 July 1998.

Mr Haggett complained that the series was biased and racist as it advanced what he said were historical "beliefs" as facts. He accepted that dates and places had been given correctly but the other content, he wrote, was "designed to distort history along racial lines". He objected to what he described as the bias in the series in which Maori had been portrayed as innocents butchered by "the evil white man". He used the term "What Rot" in response to the statement in the series that Maori, as amateurs, fought a professional army. In addition, he said the item was factually inaccurate when it claimed that Maori had invented trench warfare.

In summarising his complaint, Mr Haggett wrote:

In fact, anything that showed Maori in a bad light is ignored to portray one race as simple innocents and one race as aggressive butchers imposing their will on the innocent. They might call it journalistic licence. I call it Racism at its very worst. Portraying good and bad, innocent and evil, along ethnic lines is the worst kind of Racism.

What’s worse, if you tell a lie often enough people think it’s true. That is the real danger of this sort of Racism on such a public stage.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G1, G6 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first two 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.

The other one reads:

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.

Denying vehemently that the purpose of the programmes was to distort history along racial lines, TVNZ explained that the series was clearly an "authored" work. It contained the conclusions reached by Professor James Belich, an eminent historian, as the result of extensive research. Moreover, TVNZ noted, the understanding of New Zealand history, as with all history, was continually changing as more evidence became available.

Because the series accurately reported Professor Belich’s views, TVNZ said, standards G1 and G19 were not contravened. As it was not necessary to present an alternative view to an "authored" work, TVNZ contended, standard G6 had not been breached.

TVNZ concluded:

The programme presented viewers with a point of view arrived at by a scholar well qualified in his area of expertise, and worthy of being considered on its own merits. …

Whether it truly reflects what went on in the period described cannot be established by anyone; none of us were there. We can however regard with respect the conclusions reached by the professor, given the huge amount of research revealed in the attached notes. [TVNZ attached a set the footnotes from his book.]

Mr Haggett disputed TVNZ’s conclusions when he referred his complaint to the Authority. In addition, he contended that the broadcast breached standards G7 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. They require broadcasters:

G7 To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the presentation of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence viewers have in the integrity of broadcasting.

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

The appendix records in detail the arguments advanced by Mr Haggett and TVNZ’s responses. In summarising his dissatisfaction with TVNZ’s approach, Mr Haggett wrote:

There is no doubt that it suits the cultural agenda of the authors of the programme to show the British in a bad light and the Maori as innocent but clever little souls, sitting in the kumara patch being forced against their will to fight for their land. That is the way it is portrayed and it is simply not true.

TVNZ’s conclusion in response stated:

We again specifically deny Mr Haggett’s comment that "the programme clearly is intended to show one group in a bad light and one as superior". We do not shrink from describing this as nonsense. It simply makes no sense in the context of a work of historical scholarship.

In his final comment, which is also summarised in the appendix, Mr Haggett repeated the thrust of his complaint and described the approach taken in the series both as "political correctness gone mad", and propaganda in the sense of "disseminating misinformation".

In its assessment of the complaint, the Authority is of the view that it was necessary to examine the full series – five episodes – in order to consider both the approach taken, and the arguments which were developed from programme to programme. The Authority also notes that the series explicitly advanced the views of Professor James Belich, and indeed, he personally fronted the programmes and presented the material.

In the Authority’s opinion, the series assumed that many, if not most, New Zealanders held a view of the country’s history which Professor Belich intended to challenge. He presented in considerable detail a revisionist view which he had developed on the basis of his research. Because he presented the material in person and his role as a researcher was emphasised, the Authority accepts the series emphasised that the findings advanced were in fact Professor Belich’s personal conclusions based on his interpretations of events.

The Authority acknowledges the complainant’s criticism of Professor Belich’s claim in the series that Maori invented trench warfare, and the ongoing debate over the accuracy or otherwise of this view. It notes that Mr Haggett cited standard G1, and that this claim could be placed within that context. However, although it considers the claim might have been over-simplified in the series, the Authority notes that it was advanced as the author’s honest belief according to his definition and within this context, and so it cannot be stated to have been absolutely untruthful or inaccurate so much as matter of interpretation. As with the series as a whole, the statement was attributed to Professor Belich personally, and the Authority considers that it accordingly attracts the exemption in standard G13, which was also cited by the complainant, and which applies to the expression of genuinely held opinion.

The Authority does not find a breach of standard G7, which it applies specifically to technical issues, as it does not consider the series threatened the confidence viewers have in broadcasting, or that it involved a deceptive programme practice.

Turning to standard G6, the Authority does not find that in the series overall there was a lack of balance, impartiality or fairness. The complainant further cited standard G19, but again the Authority finds that there was no evidence of editing that distorted the events covered in the series. It notes that some historical arguments were re-evaluated in the course of the development of Professor Belich’s argument, but it considers his selection of material was a matter for his personal editorial discretion, over which the Authority has no jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Authority notes that history does not deal with absolutes, but with an ongoing accumulation and interpretation of information in which many apparent facts are constantly challenged and re-evaluated. Some of Professor Belich’s views, it acknowledges, were provocative, but they were presented as legitimate views which have been reached after extensive research. While they would be views that would be new to many New Zealanders, and which would threaten some assumptions about this country’s past, the Authority considers that they were legitimately presented within the context of broadcasting standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Rosemary McLeod
29 October 1998

Appendix

Mr Haggett’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – 16 July 1998

Chudleigh Haggett of Tauranga complained to Television New Zealand Ltd (through the Broadcasting Standards Authority) about the series The New Zealand Wars broadcast each Monday evening at 8.30pm from 8 June until 6 July.

Mr Haggett began:

This program is the most insidious of bias and racism because it pertains to offering historical ‘beliefs’ as fact. These so called ‘beliefs’ may in the future be seen as fact if told often enough. Many may find their way into school reference libraries or the program itself offered as a true history of the conflicts that soured New Zealand in the Mid to late 1800’s.

He accepted that the programme was factually correct in regard to dates and places but described the reasons advanced for the conflict as "pure speculation", and claimed that they were "designed to distort history along racial lines". Mr Haggett continued:

It very clearly is an attempt by a small group of academics with a hidden agenda to portray one race as superior to another using their version of history to justify a racist theme as being a ‘truth’.

The bias, Mr Haggett stated, was evident when it portrayed Maori as poor innocents butchered by "the evil white man". Expressing concern about the possible extent of racism currently being taught at Auckland University given the approach adopted in the programme, Mr Haggett referred to some specific statements in the series to which he objected.

The first, he stated, was the presenter’s claim (Professor Belich) that Maori invented trench warfare. That, Mr Haggett wrote, was incorrect and he gave a number of earlier examples of the use of trenches in war.

Mr Haggett wrote "What rot" in response to the statement in the programme that Maori were only amateurs against a professional army. The Maori warrior, Mr Haggett responded, might not have been paid but, because of tribal warfare, was skilled in hand to hand combat and tactical skills. Maori, he maintained, were skilled killers and not the "poor innocent Polynesian" portrayed.

Mr Haggett then addressed the segment which looked at the major conflict near what is now Tauranga. The presenter dealt with the preparations by local tribes for war and, after describing Colonel Greer’s landing as an "invasion", covered the battle at Te Ranga in about 10 seconds.

According to Mr Haggett, the events followed the following pattern:

Well for a start the local tribes had signed the Treaty some twenty years before and were now rejecting it. They had formed a guerrilla army and demanded a fight. That’s Treason! Colonel Greer was not nor could he be described as an invader because he was here at the request of the NZ government to uphold the Treaty obligations of all the people of New Zealand as the Crown was obliged to do under the Treaty. And what’s wrong with spending 10 seconds on the battle at Te Ranga? Well, Te Ranga was the major battle in the Western Bay area and decided the fate of those delinquent tribes. But of course the Maori lost and Belich [the presenter] and Stephens [the director] don’t mention in detail any battles Maori lost. It does not fit their agenda.

The series, Mr Haggett added, also omitted the following:

The constant warring of Tribe against Tribe. The guerrilla wars in the King Country and Taranaki that lasted nearly ten years. The butchering and genocide of an entire Maori race (Moriori). The fact that so many Tribes ignored the Treaty and carried on warring.

Mr Haggett summarised his complaint:

In fact, anything that showed Maori in a bad light is ignored to portray one race as simple innocents and one race as aggressive butchers imposing their will on the innocent. They might call it journalistic licence. I call it Racism at its very worst. Portraying good and bad, innocent and evil, along ethnic lines is the worst kind of Racism.

What’s worse, if you tell a lie often enough people think its true. That is the real danger of this sort of Racism on such a public stage.

Nevertheless, Mr Haggett noted in conclusion:

After watching the last episode, a tale of Te Kooti, I am convinced that a balanced dialogue is more than possible, as this episode is pretty well faultless in such balance.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 August 1998

Assessing the complaint under standards G1, G6 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ began:

At the outset we vehemently deny that the purpose of The New Zealand Wars was to "distort history along racial lines". With respect that is utter nonsense, and is grossly insulting to the professional team of film makers who spent many months making the series, not to speak of the years of scholarship by Professor Belich which the work represents.

It continued:

We also make the point that this was quite clearly an "authored" work. It was the result of scholarship undertaken by one of this country’s most eminent historians and was his considered view of a defined period in New Zealand’s history reached as a consequence of the research he had undertaken.

TVNZ then dealt with the concept of history, and stated that a published work was always the considered opinion of the specific author based on the evidence available. The understanding of history was continually challenging, TVNZ opined, as more data became available and new approaches developed.

Because of the way the programme was put together, TVNZ stated, it did not intend to deal with the factual matters disputed by the complainant. The presenter’s approach, it wrote, was based on extensive research as was apparent in the presenter’s book on which the series was based.

As the programme accurately recorded the views advanced in the presenter’s book, TVNZ did not accept that standard G1 was contravened.

Turning to standard G6, TVNZ did not accept that it was necessary to present an alternative view to an "authored" work.

It wrote:

The programme presented viewers with a point of view arrived at by a scholar well qualified in his area of expertise, and worthy of being considered on its own merits.

As for standard G19, TVNZ said that the series did not distort the presenter’s views, adding:

Whether it truly reflects what went on in the period described cannot be established by anyone; none of us were there. We can however regard with respect the conclusions reached by the professor, given the huge amount of research revealed in the attached notes.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Haggett’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 9 August 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Haggett referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. He considered the series breached standards G1, G6, G7, G13 and G19.

Initially Mr Haggett objected to TVNZ describing his genuine concern as "utter nonsense", and said that it gave the impression that TVNZ’s response to his complaint was superficial. Mr Haggett also objected to the reasons advanced by TVNZ for declining to uphold his complaint, writing:

In the first sentence following the outline of the standards, TVNZ state, "We vehemently deny that the purpose" etc. TVNZ then go on at great length to dispose of any responsibility by referring to the programme as "their authored" work and therefore not one that they are required to question. I disagree, they are the broadcaster and they must be responsible. They take responsibility for the purpose but not the content! TVNZ has taken the stand that Professor Belich is a well known Historian and therefore must be right! And TVNZ shouldn’t question him. Sorry, not good enough!

Even though TVNZ have treated me with disdain and in such an off hand manner surely the fact that highly respected journalists such as Paul Holmes, Mike Hosking and Bill Ralston have all asked Professor Belich on air about the same perceived bias that I refer to. Must give my concerns more credibility than TVNZ have seen fit to give.

Mr Haggett then canvassed the series under the standards he had nominated.

Dealing first with the requirement for accuracy in standard G1, Mr Haggett said it was incorrect to state that Maori invented trench warfare, that British soldiers "invaded" parts of New Zealand, and that the British had no right to be in New Zealand.

As for the need for balance under standard G6, Mr Haggett considered that the cultural views of the programme’s presenter and director were well-known, and that the need for some balance should have been anticipated.

Turning to standard G7, Mr Haggett maintained that the broadcast was deceptive, first, by not disclosing the known skills of Maori in hand-to-hand combat, and secondly, that they were battle veterans. Moreover, the programme was also deceptive in not pointing out "the fact that many Tribes simply rejected the Treaty after signing it and had no intention of honouring it, simply wanting to carry on in their own way warring with whom-so-ever they wished".

Because the series showed one group in a bad light, and one as superior, the programme breached standard G13, wrote Mr Haggett. He referred to a review of the presenter’s books in the NZ Herald where the reviewer considered the books were designed to show that Maori were brighter than the British. Mr Haggett commented:

There is no doubt that it suits the cultural agenda of the authors of the programme to show the British in a bad light and the Maori as innocent but clever little souls, sitting in the kumara patch being forced against their will to fight for their land. That is the way it is portrayed and it is simply not true.

Finally, Mr Haggett recorded, the broadcasts breached standard G19 as:

The culmination of all of the above means that there is no doubt that there has been a distortion of the original events along the lines of the cultural and racial prejudices of the producers.

The complainant appended the article from the NZ Herald to which he referred (16 June 1998), in which Ken Stead, a member of the New Zealand Military Historical Society, criticised a number of Professor Belich’s claims, especially the notion that the Maori invented trench warfare.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 31 August 1998

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ considered that the complainant had not grasped "either the nature of the programme, or the nature of academic scholarship".

TVNZ denied Mr Haggett’s claim that it accepted that everything said by Professor Belich was correct. Rather, it wrote, it believed his book "The New Zealand Wars" was of a sufficiently high standard to warrant a television version. The series was presented as an "authored" work, as occurred in other television series where an eminent historian advanced his perspective on the matter being addressed.

TVNZ wrote:

By broadcasting The New Zealand Wars TVNZ did not say that Professor Belich was right. It was saying, in effect, this is what Professor Belich believes is right.

TVNZ noted that Professor Belich had been challenged about some of his conclusions, as Mr Haggett had pointed out, and had responded to them. TVNZ noted:

The journalists did not, as Mr Haggett implies, accuse the professor of "perceived bias". They asked Professor Belich about issues of controversy which arose from his findings.

Dealing with the standards, TVNZ repeated its argument that standard G1 was only at risk if it had failed to report Professor Belich’s views accurately. That had been done and, furthermore, as was evident by the notes to Professor Belich’s book – which were attached – Professor Belich had not developed his views "upon a whim".

TVNZ objected strongly to the implication that the programme’s director was biased, and in breach of standard G6. TVNZ considered that the complainant, by referring to standard G7, had misunderstood the programme. Professor Belich, as an historian, TVNZ said, was questioning previously accepted "fact".

TVNZ concluded:

We again specifically deny Mr Haggett’s comment that "the programme clearly is intended to show one group in a bad light and one as superior". We do not shrink from describing this as nonsense. It simply makes no sense in the context of a work of historical scholarship.

And as for accusing TVNZ of racial prejudice …!!

Mr Haggett’s Final Comment – 5 September 1998

Acknowledging that his views and those of TVNZ were diametrically opposed, Mr Haggett explained that he was generally tolerant and complained rarely. However, over the past 10 – 15 years an approach had been widely accepted about New Zealand history which presented Polynesian aspects as positive, and everything European as negative. As a result, he wrote, some decent Europeans were feeling guilty of their past. He wrote:

Well, I’ve had enough of this political correctness gone mad.

Mr Haggett reported that his family had been in New Zealand since 1832, and his father, who had been involved in broadcasting, would not have broadcast The New Zealand Wars without adding some balance.

He then responded in detail to TVNZ’s response to the Authority. Overall, he did not agree with the comparisons drawn by TVNZ and he objected strongly to TVNZ’s claim that, under standard G1, it was obliged only to report Professor Belich’s views accurately. He stated:

Of course Professor Belich is entitled to his views and of course he has a right to disseminate them. But if those views are radically opposed to accepted fact, then those accepted facts should be offered as a platform for the debate and not ignored. In simple terms what should have happened was that the dialogue by Professor Belich should have stated: "The view of many is this (accepted fact) but I believe this; and here is why". By ignoring other known facts to pursue one view history becomes distorted. More so when this action is taken by an eminent historian. And frankly I couldn’t care less whether Professor Belich has read every known book in the universe, its what he uses, or more to the point what he doesn’t use from that research that is important. It does not alter the fact that Dr Belich’s views are not accurate in known and accepted fact.

In later comment, Mr Haggett contended that because many New Zealanders knew little of their history, it was easy to promote a controversial factual view, adding:

It’s called propaganda, or as the Americans used to say "disseminating mis-information.

Disputing TVNZ’s claim that he had accused the broadcaster of racial prejudice, Mr Haggett pointed out that he had accused the programme of bias. TVNZ, he said, had failed in its responsibility to ensure that the series was factual and balanced. The following, he wrote, would amount to an adequate response by TVNZ:

1) The New Zealand Wars should not go on general release nor be offered for sale until more balanced dialogue is added.

2) TVNZ to produce a programme offering an alternative viewpoint to each and every one of those views expressed. It will do so by asking for comment on the programme by advertising for submissions from the public and academics.

3) TVNZ to apologise to me for the contempt in which I have been held and the personal attacks on my competence and integrity on this matter.