BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The sum of $90 million had been granted by the government to start a Maori television station, reported the breakfast host of the talkback session broadcast on Radio Pacific between 6.00–9.00am on 20 May 1998. He referred to this figure on a number of occasions even when advised by a guest, the Opposition Spokesperson on Broadcasting, that the correct figure was $19 million.

Ms Thompson complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that the broadcast was inaccurate, unbalanced, deceptive and failed to respect the principles of partnership between Maori and Pakeha.

Explaining that the host was confused between the figure given for the Maori television station and the public broadcasting fee, Radio Pacific upheld the complaint about inaccuracy. It apologised and offered to broadcast an explanatory statement. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Dissatisfied that the complaint was not upheld in full, Ms Thompson referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority agrees that the broadcast breached standard R1, and upholds the complaint that it breached standard R12. It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Decision

The Members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

During a discussion on Radio Pacific’s talkback breakfast session broadcast between 6.00-9.00 am on 20 May, the host (John Banks) referred to a figure of $90 million as the amount which had been allocated by government for a Maori television station. A guest, the Opposition Spokesperson on Broadcasting, advised him that the correct figure was $19 million. The host referred to the figure of $90 million on a number of subsequent occasions during the session.

Ms Thompson of Christchurch complained to Radio Pacific that the host’s remarks were inaccurate and unbalanced. She said they inflamed his audience and the programme developed into a mire of racism and prejudice. She pointed out that, despite the host being corrected by the guest, he continued to broadcast the incorrect figure. No effort, she said, was made by station management to correct what could only be described as deliberately misleading information. She sought a retraction, and contended that the programme breached standards R1, R7, R9, R10 and R12, and "probably" other standards, of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. The nominated standards require broadcasters:

R1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs programmes.

R7 To respect the principles of partnership between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand society in actively seeking a balanced contribution and views on matters relating to that partnership.

R9 To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature, making reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

R10 To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice which takes advantage of the confidence listeners have in the integrity of broadcasting.

R12 To correct factual errors speedily and with similar prominence to the offending broadcast or broadcasts.

When Radio Pacific responded to the complaint, it noted that the host had long mounted a campaign against the public broadcasting fee and the allocation of approximately $90 million for television and radio. It wrote that:

…[the host] confused the $90 million public broadcasting fee allocation to radio and television with the $19 million allocated by Government for Maori television. Discussions with the programme’s producer…and other producers on Radio Pacific confirm that they were aware that the figure was $19 million and that this was made clear in the following days on Radio Pacific’s programmes. …[The host] was made aware by his producer of the $19 million figure and has referred to this subsequently.

Confirming that an error was made and that there was no intent to deceive listeners, the broadcaster upheld Ms Thompson’s complaint under standard R1. It considered that it had corrected the factual error because the figure of $19 million was used in the following days on Radio Pacific programmes. However it offered to broadcast a further statement on the breakfast programme clarifying the point. Apologising for any misinformation that was broadcast and emphasising that the host did subsequently refer to the figure of $19 million, Radio Pacific indicated that a retraction "would add nothing further to the issue".

The Authority commences by observing that it was not assisted by Radio Pacific supplying three hours of unedited tapes, in response to being asked to provide a tape of the item complained about.

The Authority deals first with the requirement in standard R7 for a balanced contribution on matters relating to the partnership between Maori and Pakeha. It acknowledges that the host wrongly stated the amount allocated for Maori television. Radio Pacific stressed that the host had certain strong views on Treaty of Waitangi and Maori/Pakeha issues. Those, it argued, together with the views of others diametrically opposed to him, should be expressed on talkback radio. The broadcaster referred to recent examples of interviews which the host had conducted with Maori opinion leaders, as providing a balanced contribution. The Authority does not consider that standard R7 is applicable to this complaint for the focus of the programme was not on the the Maori and Pakeha partnership or the balanced contribution required by the standard. In any event, it notes that some balance was provided by the input from listeners who identified themselves as Maori.

Next, it turns to the issue of balance in the context of standard R9. Radio Pacific pointed to interviews during the same breakfast session with the Minister of Broadcasting and the Opposition Spokesperson on Broadcasting. It advised that it had declined to uphold the standard R9 complaint on the grounds that those interviews provided proof that significant points of view had been presented within the period of current interest, in compliance with the standard. The Authority does not consider that this standard was contravened, as the two invited guests provided balance to the approach taken by the host.

The Authority notes the broadcaster’s comment that while the "error was on a point of fact", the correct figure of $19 million was stated by two guest interviewees on the talkback programme. That, Radio Pacific suggested, overcame any deceptive programming practice which allegedly breached standard R10. The Authority has previously indicated that this standard is more appropriate to "technical trickery" and does not consider it to be relevant to a case, such as the present one where the broadcaster has made an error.

Standard R1 refers to the need for truth and accuracy on points of fact in news and current affairs programmes. The statement made by the broadcaster’s host was made on talkback radio and the Authority notes the complaint was upheld despite falling outside the parameters of the standard. However, it notes that the same error of fact was included during the broadcaster’s news bulletin which was broadcast during the programme. The broadcast of the error in the news bulletin, the Authority considers, had the effect of compounding the situation and made it all the more important for the broadcaster to correct the errors which had been made at its earliest opportunity.

The broadcaster did not consider standard R12 had been breached as the factual error, it wrote, was corrected in later programmes, and the host had subsequently referred to the $19 million figure as the correct one. Ms Thompson advised that she had not heard any correction of the factual error on any of the broadcaster’s programmes, and advised that the factual error was repeated the following morning. While the Authority is prepared to accept that the error was corrected in the broadcaster’s programmes the following day, it considers Radio Pacific should have acted more quickly to correct a serious and misleading error. This is so particularly when it had been drawn to Radio Pacific’s attention by the Opposition Spokesperson during the talkback session. As it considers that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast breached standard R12, in addition to the breach of standard R1.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds aspects of the complaint that a broadcast by Radio Pacific Limited on 20 May 1998 between 6.00 am and 9.00 am breached standards R1 and R12 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. It declines to uphold the balance of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) or s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It invited submissions from Radio Pacific Limited and the complainant on the question of penalty. The Authority has taken their submissions into account in considering penalty.

The Authority decides that an order would be inappropriate on this occasion because the breach which occurred was not a serious breach of the standards. Furthermore, the broadcaster upheld the breach of standard R1 at an early stage and acknowledged its breach to the complainant. Although there is some difference of opinion between the complainant and the broadcaster over the breach of standard R12, the Authority accepts that the broadcaster did correct its error on the day following the broadcast. In all the circumstances, the Authority considers that the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient in this instance.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority.

Sam Maling
Chairperson
12 November 1998

Appendix

Ms Thompson's Complaint to Radio Pacific Ltd – 3 June 1998

Valerie Thompson of Christchurch complained to Radio Pacific Ltd about the talkback programme, Breakfast with Banksie, broadcast between 6.00–9.00am on 20 May 1998. The programme, she wrote, breached at least standards R1, R7, R9, R10 and R12 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Ms Thompson said the host (Hon John Banks) referred on a number of occasions to the fact that the Maori Broadcasting Authority had been allocated $90 million to start a television station. However, the current figure, as Marian Hobbs MP had told the host during an interview, was $19 million. Nevertheless, the host continued to use the $90 million figure. His comments that the money could be better spent elsewhere, Ms Thompson observed, "inflamed his audience and the programme developed into a mire of racism and prejudice". Ms Thompson considered that the programme was neither fair nor accurate, and no effort had been made to correct the "deliberately misleading" information given. Moreover, she added, the host continued to use the wrong figure the following morning.

Ms Thompson sought a retraction from Radio Pacific.

In a further letter to Radio Pacific dated 12 June, Ms Thompson enclosed a section of Hansard which reported that Mr Trevor Mallard MP had criticised Radio Pacific's breakfast host for his "racist comments" made on 20 May.

Radio Pacific's Response to the Formal Complaint – 15 June 1998

Explaining that the host of the programme (John Banks) had mounted a campaign against the public broadcasting fee, Radio Pacific acknowledged that he had confused the $90 million public broadcasting fee with the $19 million allocated by government for Maori television. This was the figure he had referred to in subsequent broadcasts. However, Radio Pacific added, in spite of the confusion, there had been no deliberate attempt to deceive listeners.

Turning to the nominated standards, Radio Pacific upheld the complaint that the broadcast breached standard R1. As the factual error was corrected in later broadcasts, the standard R12 aspect was not upheld. The standard R10 matter was not upheld as, during the broadcast, Marian Hobbs and, also, according to Radio Pacific, the Hon Maurice Williamson had given the correct figure. Further, in view of the interview with the Minister and Opposition Spokesperson, the alleged breach of standard R9 was not upheld.

Finally, with regard to the standard R7 complaint, Radio Pacific noted that the host held strong views on Treaty of Waitangi and Maori/Pakeha issues. It was important that opposing views should also be expressed and Radio Pacific listed seven Maori leaders who had been interviewed by the host at different times. As a balanced contribution to Maori/Pakeha issues had been sought in this way, Radio Pacific declined to uphold the standard R7 matter.

On the aspect upheld, Radio Pacific commented that it considered that the factual error had been corrected. However, it said it was prepared to broadcast a further statement on the breakfast programme clarifying the matter. It sought Ms Thompson's response to this suggestion.

Further Correspondence

In a letter to Radio Pacific dated 1 July, Ms Thompson said that she was not satisfied with the reply. She listed three reasons. First, she expressed "amazement" that Radio Pacific employed a host who was unable to differentiate between nineteen and ninety million. Secondly she said, contrary to Radio Pacific's claim, she had not heard the broadcast of a correction. Finally, she considered that the broadcast also contravened standards R7, R9, R10, R12 and R13.

In its reply to Ms Thompson dated 6 July, Radio Pacific maintained that the host had referred to $19 million subsequently. However, it was not possible to locate the exact broadcast, and Radio Pacific observed:

With the greatest of respect I do question whether or not this is an issue that is so vitally important that it requires both yourself and our Company to go through a formal complaints process, which can be quite time consuming. However, that is your right and we will of course cooperate in every way with the enquiry that will result in the lodgement of the complaint.

You have my sincere apology for any misinformation that was broadcast. Hosts are human, even John Banks. They do make mistakes and they certainly never deliberately set out to misinform.

Ms Thompson's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 16 July 1998

Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's reply to her complaint, Ms Thompson referred the above correspondence to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Radio Pacific's Report to the Authority – 21 July 1998

Radio Pacific advised that Ms Thompson's complaint was upheld as a breach of standard R1. A correction on the breakfast programme was offered but was not accepted. Radio Pacific commented in regard to that offer:

In our view it will now add nothing further to the issue if we were to correct the figure.

It added:

As it is, we consider the breach was a minor one, a human error, which does not warrant the considerable time and resources that have already been allocated to it.

Furthermore, Radio Pacific wrote, it had apologised twice to the complainant.

As for the comment in Parliament to which Ms Thompson referred, Radio Pacific opined that comments by one MP about another in Parliament "should be taken with a grain of salt".

Radio Pacific concluded by accepting a technical breach of standard R1, but did not agree that there had been a breach of standards R7, R9, R10 and R12.

Ms Thompson's Final Comment – 1 August 1998

In her final comment, Ms Thompson did not accept what she described as Radio Pacific's "whitewashing" of the host's "racist and inaccurate statements". It was not, she argued, a technical breach, but an "outright ploy to inflame a certain audience in an attempt to lift ratings".

Further Correspondence

On 9 October 1998, having decided to uphold aspects of the complaint, the Authority wrote to the complainant and the broadcaster inviting submissions on penalty.

The complainant, in a letter dated 19 October 1998, urged the Authority to impose a monetary penalty, and to order the broadcaster to apologise. Ms Thompson also requested that she be informed of the time of the broadcast of the apology.

In its response dated 21 October 1998, Radio Pacific wrote that it had nothing further to add to its previous submissions, other than:

…to submit that this is not a major breach and any penalty imposed by the Broadcasting Standards Authority should, in our view, take that into consideration.