BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An item on One Network News, broadcast on TV One on 26 May 1998 commencing at 6.00 pm, reported on increased cannabis use among young people in Northland. It referred to the suspension of students from several schools, and included an interview with a student from Kaitaia College. He was asked how long it would take him to get drugs, and replied "about half an hour".

The principal of Kaitaia College complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that promises made by the interviewer that the item would not reflect badly on the college were broken. Of the many comments made by that student and another during the interview, which were pertinent to the issue, the one chosen to represent their view had inaccurately left the impression that cannabis was a major issue at the college, he wrote.

In its response, TVNZ agreed that any impression that the student was familiar with methods by which cannabis could be obtained was unfair to him. It apologised unreservedly to the principal, and offered to write to the student to express its regrets. TVNZ also suggested that its letter be circulated in the school to dispel any doubts raised by the item.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, the principal on behalf of Kaitaia College referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the action taken by Television New Zealand Limited under standard G4 was insufficient. It declines to uphold the other aspects of the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed 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.

Increased cannabis use among young people in Northland was the focus of an item on One National News broadcast on 26 May 1998, commencing at 6.00 pm. The item reported on the suspension of students from a number of schools, and included interviews with a local police sergeant, the principal of Kaitaia College, the district mayor, and two students, including a school boy who was identified by first name only. He was asked how long it would take him to get drugs, and replied "about half an hour".

Mr John Locke, the principal of Kaitaia College, complained to TVNZ about the question which had been asked. Of all the pertinent things which had been said by the boy student, and a fellow girl student, during an interview with the reporter about cannabis and young children, he wrote, that was the sole one broadcast. The student, who was the Head Boy, felt as if he had been tricked, the principal contended, because his reply was deemed to represent the students’ views. Promises made by the interviewer that the item would not reflect badly on the college were also broken, Mr Locke wrote. The item had left viewers with the impression that cannabis was a major issue at the college, he continued, and was only confined to Kaitaia. The principal complained that the item was not balanced or objective.

TVNZ assessed the complaint in the context of standards G4 and G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first requires broadcasters:

G4 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

The second standard provides:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

In relation to the standard G4 complaint, the principal argued that the extract from the interview with the Head Boy was seen out of the context of the total interview. It gave the impression that the Head Boy was a cannabis user, he said, and it was the only extract broadcast that reflected the students’ comments. Both the students depicted were anti-drugs in schools and fine role models, he continued. TVNZ responded that it had looked carefully at the item, and at the question posed. It concluded that the wording of the question "could be taken to indicate that the Head Boy had some personal experience of the methods by which cannabis could be acquired". It therefore agreed that the broadcast was unfair to the Head Boy, and was in breach of standard G4. TVNZ wrote:

…it was not the intention of the reporter, or of TVNZ, to imply cannabis use by your head boy. We are mortified on reviewing the item to realise that that inference can be drawn from it. We apologise unreservedly.

The broadcaster offered to write directly to the Head Boy to apologise, and suggested that its letter to the principal be circulated in the school "so that any doubts the item may have raised can be dispelled". It concluded that its item was a genuine attempt to examine what the mayor had described as a "crisis", and it was clearly a matter of public interest.

Mr Locke indicated satisfaction at TVNZ’s acknowledgement of its breach of standard G4, and wrote that a letter from TVNZ to the Head Boy would be appreciated. However, he wrote, the acknowledgement could not change the public impression of the Head Boy’s integrity, which had been unfairly damaged on national primetime television. He observed that the appropriate avenue for any satisfactory correction would be the broadcast of an apology. To that suggestion, TVNZ replied that it had considered the matter of a broadcast correction but:

…[TVNZ] believed that this was well nigh impossible without causing further embarrassment to your head boy. A correction, in order to make sense to the wider audience, has to revisit the original item and that, we considered, would be unfortunate.

In referring the standard G4 complaint to the Authority, Mr Locke wrote that both the Head Boy and by association the school had their reputations damaged by the broadcast of the item. He had received several comments from people throughout New Zealand which indicated that they now had an unfavourable opinion about the school, and, he maintained, a written apology was not sufficient.

The Authority agrees with TVNZ that by presenting the Head Boy’s comment in the way that it did was unfair to him. It notes that TVNZ upheld the complaint, and apologised in writing to the student and to the school. Dealing first with the aspect of the complaint that it was unfair to the student, the Authority considers that the broadcaster’s action, so far as it related to the student, was both adequate and appropriate. It takes into account TVNZ’s submission that the broadcast of a correction or apology would have required the original item to be highlighted, perhaps thereby causing further embarrassment to the student.

The Authority next considers the aspect of the complaint that the item was unfair by association to the college. TVNZ had upheld the college’s complaint that the item was unfair to the Head Boy. It had suggested its letter of apology be circulated in the school to dispel any doubts raised by the item, and had apologised to the college. The Authority notes that the positioning in the item of the interview with the principal served to dissociate the school from the student’s comments, in that their connection was not obvious to the viewer. The school was identified only in the interview with the principal. An interview with the mayor was interspersed between that interview and the student’s comment. Furthermore, the student was identified only by his first name. In the circumstances, the Authority does not consider that any further action was required from TVNZ, other than the apology which had been tendered to the school.

In his complaint to TVNZ under standard G14, Mr Locke wrote that promises made by the interviewer that the item would not reflect badly on the college were broken by the broadcast of the Head Boy’s interview. It left viewers with the impression that cannabis was a major issue at Kaitaia College, he contended. The principal said it appeared that the thrust of the story was determined before the information was gathered, and then the item was edited to confirm the preconception. TVNZ did not initially deal with this aspect of the complaint in its response. In a further letter, Mr Locke asserted that "a sensationalist and leading question was chosen to be broadcast". TVNZ responded that a range of opinions was reflected in the item which resulted in it describing the situation in Northland in a manner which complied with the standard.

The Authority takes into account the matters raised by the parties, and it notes that the emphasis of the programme was on the availability of drugs to young people in Kaitaia. However, in the Authority’s view the programme did not assert that the problem existed only in Kaitaia. In all the circumstances, the Authority is unable to find any breach of standard G14 in the item, for its focus was the easy availability of cannabis to young people, and the student’s comment highlighted that focus. The student’s contribution, it concludes, did not impact on the item in a way which threatened the standard. The Authority does not consider that the item lacked balance because only a portion of the student’s interview was included. It appreciates that generally the extent to which interview material is used is an editorial decision, not a standards matter.

The Authority notes with some surprise, however, the promise ‘not to reflect badly on the college’ which was apparently made to the interviewees before the interview took place. It observes that if not honoured, such an undertaking could lead to a breach of standard G4. While the Authority does not find circumstances which would lead to a breach in this instance, it notes that standard G4 extends to the preparation of programmes and it observes that a promise of the sort alleged to have been made could attract the standard.

The Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster under standard G4 was insufficient. It declines to uphold the other aspects of the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the action taken by Television New Zealand Limited under standard G4 was insufficient and it declines to uphold the other aspects of the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
26 November 1998

Appendix

Kaitaia College’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 29 May 1998

Mr John Locke, the principal of Kaitaia College, complained to Television New Zealand Limited about an item which was broadcast on One Network News on 26 May 1998. A newsworthy event, he wrote, had been triggered by comments made about cannabis and young children. The school which had been the focus of the issue would not comment and, he wrote, he had agreed to comment on the issue in general terms and to make senior students available.

On behalf of the college, Mr Locke wrote:

I feel a strong obligation to students not to place them in situations which they might regret. I feel that their trust in me was compromised by the last question asked by the reporter. This was not previewed and …[the student] who answered honestly felt as if he had been tricked when this was the sole student comment broadcast. His objection is not that it was broadcast but that of all the things that he and …[the other student] had said which were pertinent to the issue, this was the only one which was deemed to represent their view.

An honest young man has experienced an unnecessary betrayal and promises made by the interviewer that the item would not reflect badly on the College were broken. Viewers were left with the impression that cannabis was a major issue at Kaitaia College….

The complainant concluded that he had been left with a "jaded view" about the ability of the news programme to remain balanced and objective. It appeared, he said, that the thrust of the story had been determined before the information had been gathered, and then items had been carefully edited to confirm the preconception.

Kaitaia College’s Further Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 21 August 1998

Mr Locke, on behalf of the college, wrote to the Broadcasting Standards Authority on 7 August 1998 complaining that he had not received a reply to his letter to the broadcaster of 29 May 1998, which is summarised above.

Mr Locke said that the Head Boy, the Head Girl and he were interviewed by the programme’s reporter about attitudes to drugs in the school. The students gave detailed and positive responses from their perception of the situation, he also said. He observed that they were "both anti drugs in schools and are fine role models".

Mr Locke said that the interviewer’s last question was "how long would it take you to get drugs", to which the Head Boy responded "about half an hour". On behalf of the college, the principal wrote:

He is an honest young man and his reply was based on travelling time to a known supplier. The impression given was that he was a user. This was the only item broadcast that reflected the students comments.

The item, Mr Locke concluded, was an example of poor journalism and biased reporting.

Following further correspondence between TVNZ and the complainant, the principal on behalf of the college confirmed to the broadcaster that he did wish to proceed with the complaint formally.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 10 September 1998

TVNZ commenced by apologising for the misunderstanding which had occurred over the correspondence between Mr Locke, on behalf of Kaitaia College, and the producer of its One Network News programme. The college’s letter of 29 May had been seen, TVNZ said, as an effort to simply place on record the objections which it had raised in an earlier telephone conversation. It had not been appreciated, it wrote, that there was a need to respond further.

TVNZ considered the complaint in the context of standards G4 and G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The complaint, it considered, came down:

…to the simple question, "Did viewers get the impression that the schoolboy being interviewed was a cannabis user?"

TVNZ wrote:

We have looked carefully at the item and, in particular, at the question put by the reporter. He asked, "How easy would it be for you, [name], to get some dope this afternoon?"

Concluding that the wording of the question could have been taken to indicate that the Head Boy had some personal experience of the methods by which cannabis could have been acquired, TVNZ said that the broadcast was unfair to the student. It upheld the complaint as a breach of standard G4. The broadcaster wrote:

…it was not the intention of the reporter, or of TVNZ, to imply cannabis use by your head boy. We are mortified on reviewing the item to realise that that inference can be drawn from it. We apologise unreservedly.

It offered to write to the student to express TVNZ’s regrets, and suggested that its letter could be circulated in the school "so that any doubts the item may have raised can be dispelled".

In conclusion, TVNZ wrote that the broadcast was a genuine attempt to examine what the local mayor had called a "crisis". The matter was one of public interest, and, although it had erred in the case of the student, TVNZ observed, its motivation was genuine.

Kaitaia College’s Response to TVNZ – 14 September 1998

On behalf of the college, Mr Locke wrote that the affected student would appreciate a letter from the broadcaster, acknowledging its regrets. He continued:

Such an acknowledgement cannot however do anything to change the public impression of his integrity which was unfairly damaged on national prime time television. A broadcast apology would appear to be the appropriate avenue for any correction to be deemed satisfactory.

The principal noted that the broadcaster had not made a decision about standard G14. He sought that as, he wrote, the college’s complaint was not solely about the way the student had been treated. He said that both:

…the Head Boy and Head Girl expressed opinions about cannabis in schools but these were not reported. The interview with students was specifically requested by the reporter and sanctioned by me [the principal] in the belief that their opinions were relevant to an understanding of the drugs in schools issue.

It is for this reason that …the item was neither objective nor impartial. Although canvassed the student viewpoint was ignored. A sensationalist and leading question was chosen to be broadcast instead.

TVNZ’s Reply to Kaitaia College – 17 September 1998

The broadcaster advised that it had written to the Head Boy expressing its regrets for the way he had been portrayed in the news item.

TVNZ, it said, had considered the matter of a broadcast correction:

…but believed that this was well nigh impossible without causing further embarrassment to your head boy. A correction, in order to make sense to the wider audience, has to revisit the original item and that, we considered, would be unfortunate.

Referring to the standard G14 complaint, TVNZ wrote that it had believed that the complainant’s concern was with the context in which the student had been shown. It also believed, it wrote, that the college had cited standard G14 "on the basis of the total interview material collected by the reporter, whereas a formal complaint has to be about what was broadcast". The item, TVNZ said, reflected a range of opinions, and accurately, impartially and objectively described a situation which the local mayor had called a "crisis". "We concluded that G14 was not breached", it asserted.

The broadcaster explained that, in news work, interviews of several minutes were routinely done with the object of acquiring a particular "nugget" which encapsulated the main point being advanced. Only when the interviews were being edited would the reporter and editor select those extracts most relevant to the story being assembled, it opined. Time constraints in radio and television meant that the editing process was more savage that might be the case with a newspaper, TVNZ advised.

Referring to the college’s claim that the student viewpoint had been ignored, TVNZ said that the reporter explored that viewpoint:

…to see whether it added anything of great significance to the public’s understanding of the story. ... The editorial conclusion was that the student view did not add significantly to what the rest of you had to say.

The extract that was used from the [Head Boy’s] interview was chosen because what he said was so startling. It was completely different from anything anyone else said. It was only when we looked at it again…that it was realised the comment could be misconstrued.

TVNZ concluded by noting that it had departed from its policy, not to enter into further correspondence once it had issued its decision, on this occasion.

Kaitaia College’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 17 September 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Locke on behalf of the college referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Referring to standard G4, he pointed out that TVNZ had acknowledged fault and had offered a written apology. Mr Locke emphasised that the offending item had been broadcast nationally on prime-time television. Both the Head Boy and, by association, the school had their reputations damaged, he wrote. Several comments had been received by him as principal, he said, from people throughout New Zealand which indicated that they now had an unfavourable opinion about the school. On behalf of the college, the principal wrote:

Such factors impact on a school when new staff need to be recruited. [The Head Boy] is applying for entry to University Halls of Residence, this item may well affect his success. I do not feel that a written apology is sufficient to correct or compensate for the damage inflicted.

In his reference to standard G14, the principal, on behalf of the college, wrote that the broadcast had been stimulated by comments made by the police about drugs in an intermediate school. Because that school would not speak to TVNZ, the college had been approached. Upon a specific request, the principal had agreed to make students available for interview, and had himself agreed to comment, he wrote. He pointed out that the interviewer had given a verbal agreement that the item would not reflect badly on the college. "The drugs problem was not a major issue at the College", he wrote.

On behalf of the college, Mr Locke made the following additional points:

4. Students spoke at length and provided the interviewer with plenty of material about student attitudes. I feel their comments were crucial to ensure that the broadcast item was objective and impartial.

5. The only student comment broadcast was in response to a leading question which TVNZ acknowledged breached a broadcasting standard.

6. The tenor of the entire item was set by one comment from the Mayor which included the word crisis.

7. Kaitaia College in wishing to provide a balanced view on this item has been denied the opportunity to do so. The item was focussed on students and drugs but student opinion was not deemed to be appropriate for a so called objective and impartial report.

TVNZ’s Comments to the Authority – 8 October 1998

TVNZ expressed disappointment that the principal of the college was dissatisfied, and said it had some difficulty in understanding why.

The complaint had initially "placed the emphasis very tightly on the question and answer which was used in the programme involving the head boy", it wrote. TVNZ said it had acknowledged that using just that question and answer might have caused the programme inadvertently to have given the impression that the head boy had a personal knowledge of cannabis. The broadcaster had apologised, it said, and at the principal’s request, it had written to the head boy and apologised.

Because the college was the premier school in the district, it had been appropriate that it and its principal should have been approached for comment, TVNZ asserted. The principal, and the head boy and girl, had spoken willingly to its reporter, the broadcaster wrote, and the principal had been in a position to interject if he had thought the line of questioning was inappropriate.

Pointing to the college’s reference to a verbal agreement with the interviewer that the item not reflect badly on the college, TVNZ wrote:

[The principal]… has not raised this before. We believe the item did not reflect badly on Kaitaia College.

Finally, TVNZ emphasised that the interviews with the college representatives had been entered into willingly, had been conducted in a pleasant tempered manner, and had concluded on affable terms.

Kaitaia College’s Final Comment – 16 October 1998

On behalf of the college, Mr Locke pointed out that he had not requested that an apology be offered to the head boy. The offer of an apology, he wrote, was made by TVNZ.

He disagreed that, as principal, he had been given an opportunity to interject during the interview. He wrote:

To those of us unfamiliar with Television the idea of ‘butting in’ when a camera is rolling is not something that would be easily undertaken. The questions were not previewed and I was not invited to play any role in editing what had been recorded.

The verbal promise by the interviewer that the item would not reflect badly on the college, contrary to TVNZ’s statement in its comments to the Authority, had been stated in the college’s letter to TVNZ of 29 May, Mr Locke wrote.

The principal agreed that the interview had been conducted in a friendly manner. When the item was broadcast, he wrote, the college felt it had been misled. Any balanced comments which had been offered on the issue by the Head Boy and Girl, he concluded:

…had failed to be included in what we felt was a very one sided report.

Further Correspondence

Following a request from the Authority to TVNZ in a letter dated 3 November 1998 seeking copies of some correspondence between TVNZ and Kaitaia College, TVNZ made available to the Authority a copy of its letter of apology dated 17 September 1998 to the Head Boy. TVNZ wrote that it accepted without reservation that the student was "anti-drugs". It continued that neither the reporter or any of the staff set out to misrepresent the Head Boy’s position, and it was distressed that "the item came out that way".