BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An item on Fair Go reported on a dart-throwing competition which had been won by an Auckland man. The competition had been organised by a promoter, who had arranged insurance for the event with his United States principal. After the competition had been won, the principal refused to accept the claim, asserting the winner’s throw had been wind-assisted. The item suggested the wind would not necessarily have assisted the winner. It also suggested that a competition clause excluding "assistance" for dart throwing had been utilised by the promoter to escape his liability to the winner. The item was broadcast on TV One on 21 April 1999 commencing at 7.30pm.

Mr Baty, the promoter, complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was misleading, unbalanced and unfair because the broadcaster was aware of the principal’s valid reasons for refusing the claim and failed to present them in the programme.

TVNZ responded by citing information available to it which, it said, confirmed the claims presented in the programme on wind conditions, and on the promoter’s contact with the competition’s organisers about conditions affecting the competition, which had led him to deny liability for the win. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Baty 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.

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.

An item on Fair Go on 21 April reported on a dart-throwing competition which had been held jointly by a Papakura business and the city’s business association. The competition had been organised by a promoter who had arranged insurance for the event through his United States principal. The competition had been won by an Auckland man, and the item reported that the winner’s prize of a motor car had not been delivered to him. The item also reported that the principal had refused to accept the winning throw, claiming it had been wind-assisted and that any "form of assistance" had been excluded by the rules of the competition. The promoter, the item suggested, had not indicated that wind-assisted throws would affect the competition until after the event, and it further suggested that wind conditions at the time were adverse to competitors rather than supportive.

Mr Baty, the chief executive of the promoter, Sports & Events Marketing, complained to TVNZ that the item was unfair and biased. The joint organisers of the competition had been warned before the event about the wind factor, he wrote, and had assured him that the competition would be moved to a sheltered spot. He referred to various items of evidence which indicated wind conditions at the time of the competition, and the possible effect of those upon the darts. TVNZ had not presented that information in the programme even though it had been aware of it, he asserted. Mr Baty also suggested that the reporter was motivated by personal dislike of him, because of a past working relationship, and that influenced the way in which he approached his reporting about the complainant and his business.

The complainant wrote that the style of the item inferred that "we are a bunch of crooks". He stressed that his business had assisted an organiser of the event to settle the dispute, by contributing one-third of the cost of the car which was given to the competition winner. This, he complained to TVNZ, "was even turned around on us to make us look as though we would not pay. The sarcastic remark stating we had not sent the cheque was the parting comment from the reporter".

TVNZ considered the complaint in the context of standards G4 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. These require broadcasters:

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

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

TVNZ commenced by noting that Mr Baty’s personal remarks about the reporter were not relevant to an inquiry into matters raised by the Broadcasting Act 1989. Its investigation, it wrote, dealt with what was broadcast. Its investigation had confirmed the view put in the programme that wind had never been a factor referred to in the original rules of the contest, and that the wind on the day in no way provided assistance to the competition participants. The broadcaster questioned the accuracy of the statements made by Mr Baty about wind speed at the site of the competition, and it reiterated its belief in the accuracy of the information which it had presented in the item. It also repeated the information known to it about the contact between Mr Baty and a competition organiser concerning the exclusion by the competition’s rules of wind-assisted dart throws, which was in conflict with that provided by Mr Baty.

The broadcaster concluded that as Mr Baty had been given, and accepted, the opportunity to appear in the item and had been heard to express his views on the issue, he had been treated fairly. It declined to uphold a breach of standard G4. It failed to find a lack of balance or fairness in the programme, and declined to uphold a breach of standard G6. It noted that Fair Go examined consumer issues as a consumer advocate, and reflected "as wide a range of relevant views as possible".

In referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Baty referred to some past connections with the reporter which he believed had coloured the report. He emphasised his concern about statements made to his overseas principal by the reporter which, he wrote, indicated that his company’s paperwork "was bogus and fraudulent".

In reply, TVNZ observed that a former business relationship between Mr Baty and the reporter was not relevant to the complaint. It took strong exception, it wrote, to any hint that the reporter had shown malice towards Mr Baty. The reporter was a thorough professional, and well-respected in the industry, it noted. TVNZ concluded by restating information contained in its earlier letter to Mr Baty.

In a final comment, Mr Baty submitted particulars of his earlier relationship with the reporter, and reiterated that contact between the event organisers and himself about the rules of the competition had taken place before the event. That had been known to TVNZ, he repeated. Mr Baty wrote that the "editing of the interview was designed to make us look as though we were not telling the truth, several responses were not shown at all". He enclosed further material in support of his statements, all of which he said had been provided to the programme. He pointed out that the decision of his overseas principal to refuse the claim was "theirs and theirs alone".

In a further letter to the Authority, Mr Baty repeated his concerns about what he said were the approaches made by the programme’s reporter to his United States underwriter. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the programme’s failure to include a number of the matters particularised in his original complaint. Mr Baty enclosed a letter from his American underwriter which explained its decision to decline the claim, and described some contact which it had had with the programme’s reporter. It concluded by expressing satisfaction about its relationship with the complainant.

In a letter in response, TVNZ denied that the programme or its reporter "ever accused Mr Baty of being bogus or fraudulent". It enclosed some promotional material distributed by Mr Baty’s firm and drew attention to its reference to the competition prize-winner winning "a $27,000.00 Toyota Corolla". TVNZ wrote that Mr Baty had refused to accept the winning claim and, it added, another business had "paid out the $27,000.00. Mr Baty’s contribution was only $6,500.00".

Mr Baty later provided the Authority with a letter from the car dealer which acknowledged a contribution of $6,500 towards the cost of the car. Mr Baty admitted that this money was paid after the broadcast, but explained that the question of a settlement had been discussed before the item was screened.

The Authority’s Findings

Standard G4 provides the framework for the Authority to consider the complaint. It requires broadcasters to deal "justly and fairly" with any person referred to or taking part in a programme. Mr Baty claimed the programme raised a number of implications adverse to his reputation and his business. In the Authority’s view, these can be condensed to the following claims. First, Mr Baty said that a previous working relationship between him and the programme’s reporter had led to biased reporting on the programme. Second, he wrote that Fair Go unfairly portrayed him and his company as to blame when the insurer refused to pay. Third, Mr Baty claimed the programme suggested there was no evidence that he warned the event organisers of the competition’s exclusion clause for "wind-assisted" dart throws before the event. Fourth, he said the programme had failed to acknowledge his contribution towards the costs of the car given to the prize-winner on the programme.

In dealing first with Mr Baty’s claim that the programme was biased, the Authority notes TVNZ’s response that the complainant’s past professional relationship with the reporter was not relevant to an inquiry under the Broadcasting Act 1989. In the Authority’s view, TVNZ puts the matter too widely. If a programme is biased, leading to the conclusion that it lacks balance and this can be attributed to some personal matter of difference between the reporter and a person on the programme, that may well be a factor for the Authority to take into account. But here, the Authority is not persuaded that there was bias against Mr Baty, or any indication that the programme was influenced unduly by his past – allegedly unhappy - relationship with the reporter. Given the well-known consumer advocacy nature of Fair Go, the Authority believes that the viewer would expect the programme makers to take the position they did. To that extent Mr Baty, as a professional promoter of this type of event, could surely expect to be in the firing line when the successful prize-winner was refused his prize. The important point is that Mr Baty was given the opportunity to put his side of the case, which he did. The Authority is not prepared to uphold this part of the complaint under standard G4.

The Authority next examines Mr Baty’s concern that he was unfairly portrayed by the programme as being responsible for the decision not to award the prize. In this instance, the programme took the view that the winner was a victim, and its story evolved from that position. The substantial number of participants associated with the competition’s organisation may have resulted in the programme makers over-simplifying the story for the sake of clarity. However, it was made clear in the programme that Mr Baty was the conduit between the organisers of the event and Golf Marketing, the decision maker. In the Authority’s view, there was material in the programme from which it could be inferred that Mr Baty was closely involved in that decision making process and, in any event, any unfairness which may have resulted from that stance was balanced by the opportunity given by the programme to Mr Baty to present his view.

Next, the Authority considers the claim that the programme unfairly failed to explain Mr Baty’s position on "wind-assistance" under the competition rules. On the programme, Mr Baty said he had warned the organisers not to run the promotion because of wind. He was questioned about when he did that. The questions raised valid issues, in the Authority’s view, and Mr Baty was given the opportunity to respond to those issues in the interview. The Authority concludes that the complainant, as a businessman whose living was made from organising events such as those depicted, could be expected to deal with those issues. Furthermore, in the Authority’s view, he would likely have been aware of the interest created by the failure to award the prize to the competition winner and could reasonably be expected to cope with the difficult questions about that as well.

The item advised that there had been discussions between Mr Baty, the car dealer and the Papakura Business Association about settling the prize-winner’s claim. It sought to point out that no cheque had been received from Mr Baty at the time of going to air. The Authority is satisfied that this was the position, and that it was unclear as to the extent to which Mr Baty was prepared to make a contribution towards the costs of the car donated to the winner on the programme, at the time of the broadcast. It has since been established that Sports and Events Marketing contributed $6,500 towards the cost of the prize. However, against the background that no payment had in fact been made at the time the programme was broadcast, the Authority declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint as a contravention of standard G4.

The Authority concludes that the opportunity given to Mr Baty by the programme to address the issues which had been raised sufficed to balance any unfairness or inherent bias which might otherwise have occurred in the item.

The Authority does not consider standard G6 is apposite to the complaint. That standard requires broadcasters to show "balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature". The complaint does not raise issues which touch on political matters or current affairs, or controversial questions, and the Authority accordingly declines to uphold the complaint under this standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
7 October 1999

Appendix

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

1. David Baty’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – 28 April 1999

2. TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 May 1999

3. Mr Baty’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 18 June 1999

4. TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 29 June 1999

5. Mr Baty’s Final Comment to the Authority, with attachments – 15 July 1999

6. Mr Baty’s Letter to the Authority, with attachment – 24 August 1999

7. TVNZ’s Letter to the Authority, with attachment – 2 September 1999

8. Mr Baty’s Letter to the Authority, with attachments – received on 15 September 1999

9. Mr Baty’s Letter to the Authority, with attachments – 15 September 1999

10. Mr Baty’s Letter to the Authority – 20 September 1999

11. Papakura Toyota’s Letter to the Authority – 24 September 1999