BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Winston Peters MP, leader of New Zealand First, was interviewed on National

Radio's Nine to Noon on 22 February 1996. The interview focussed on the Party's

immigration policy which was a matter of considerable public interest at the time.

Mr Norman complained to New Zealand Public Radio Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

item breached a number of broadcast standards and that the interviewer (Kim Hill) had

failed to maintain professional standards. He said that the interviewer had been

argumentative, patronising and rude, and had allowed personal animosity to intrude.

Pointing out that the aim of the interview had been to clarify the basis of Mr Peters'

contentions, NZPR accepted that the interview had been ill-mannered at times.

However, as Mr Peters had not been dealt with unfairly while the presenter sought

clarification on the issue under discussion, and as the interview had not breached the

standard requiring good taste, NZPR declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with NZPR's decision, Mr Norman referred the 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 listened to the interview complained about and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). They have also listened

to an interview with Mr Peters, supplied by NZPR, broadcast on National Radio's

Checkpoint between 5.00–6.00pm the same day. As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The Programme

Winston Peters MP, leader of the New Zealand First political party, was interviewed

on National Radio's Nine to Noon on 22 February 1996. The interviewer (Kim Hill)

questioned Mr Peters about aspects of New Zealand First's immigration policy which

proposed a considerable reduction in the total number of immigrants accepted

annually.

The Complaint

Mr Norman complained to NZPR that the presenter was argumentative, patronising

and rude and had asked questions, seemingly, as an agent for the National

Government. Moreover, he considered that the presenter had not conducted herself

professionally. Mr Norman gave a number of examples of the questions posed and

approaches adopted by the presenter which, he said, were evidence for his complaint.

For example, when Mr Peters complained about the manner of the interview at its

conclusion, the presenter responded:

Do you think that belligerence and paranoia will serve you well in the election

then?

Mr Norman listed a number of the standards which he believed had been contravened

and gave examples where he considered that the item had breached the nominated

standards. He also noted that the presenter had reported that the vast majority of the

telephone calls received after the broadcast had been critical of her while the views

expressed in the faxes received were more evenly divided. Mr Norman considered the

former both more reliable and more accurate.

The Standards

NZPR considered the complaint under the nominated standards. They require

broadcasters:

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

programmes.

R2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and good

taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any

language or behaviour occurs.

R4  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

R5  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

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.

R14 To avoid portraying people in a manner that encourages denigration of or

discrimination against any section of the community on account of gender,

race, age, disability, occupation status, sexual orientation or as the

consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political

beliefs. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of

material which is:

a factual

b the expression of serious opinion, or

c in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

NZPR maintained that standards R2 and R5 were the only ones which applied to the

broadcast. It dismissed the others for the following reasons.

The standard R1 requirement for factual accuracy was irrelevant as the discussion

involved essentially an exchange of opinions on an announced policy, rather than

disagreement on questions of fact. Mr Peters had been given an adequate opportunity

to present his case as required by standard R4.

NZPR argued that the balance requirement in standard R9 was not applicable as the

interview was concerned with clarifying the policy and ascertaining the source of his

contentions. Furthermore, NZPR considered that any applicability of the balance

requirement was satisfied when Mr Peters was interviewed about New Zealand First's

immigration policy on Checkpoint broadcast between 5.00–6.00pm that evening.

Standard R10 did not apply, NZPR wrote, as it applied to technical trickery which

had not occurred in the live interview complained about. Finally, R14 did not apply

as denigration, in the sense of a severe blackening, had not occurred and, further, the

broadcast was not subject to the standard in view of the exemption for the exchange of

serious opinion.

The Broadcaster's Response

NZPR focussed on standards R2 and R5 and began by pointing to the diverse range of

responses received from listeners. It continued:

The [Complaints] Committee recognised that the broadcast had strongly

polarised listeners who fell into two broad groupings: those who believed that

Mr Peters had been treated unfairly, and should not have been interrupted by

the interviewer's attempts to check the sources, the origins and the validity of

the foundations of his publicly aired statements and deductions; and those who

believed that Mr Peters should not have objected to requests for clarification and

reconciliation of apparently conflicting figures and facts.

NZPR then advanced what it described as three broad categories of interview:

[They are] interviews amounting to an opportunity to explore and reveal for the

audience some interesting person's life and work; interviews designed to elicit

from the interviewee some up-to-date information on a topical "hard" news

story (which can just as well be turned into a scripted, written bulletin story);

and interviews undertaken with the object of clarifying some statement or action

about which there is some confusion or ignorance, to lead to better understanding

for the public.

Expressing the view that the interview complained about belonged to the third

category, and that the presenter was entitled to ask "awkward" questions in this

situation, NZPR wrote:

The Committee recognised a significant element of rudeness and ill-mannered

conduct in the interview, but was of the opinion that this offence against the

Code of Practice R2 did not arise from the interviewer's contribution to the

broadcast.

As for the alleged transgression of standard R5, NZPR argued that Mr Peters had been

given an adequate opportunity early in the interview to explain his thesis. It

acknowledged that there had been interruptions, "politely at first, rather more

forcefully later as the answers became progressively ruder but less relevant", and

insisted that it was not an interviewer's role to "roll over gracefully" when confronted

with opinions which seemed to lack logic or to be sourced inadequately.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

The Referral to the Authority

In his comments to the Authority, Mr Norman emphasised that the presenter had said

that there had been 100 telephone calls critical of her and four in support. It was thus

totally inappropriate for NZPR to suggest that the responses represented "two broad

groupings".

Acknowledging that he was fighting an uphill battle in defending Mr Peters, given the

media assault which he felt had been inflicted on the MP, Mr Norman stated:

I and others have a perfect right to object to programs or items that we believe

transcend normal standards and the broadcaster has a perfect right to defend

themselves from these objections. What I cannot accept is that a broadcaster has

the right to use deceptive tactics to deflect that criticism. By wilfully taking so

long to address the complaint, by deliberately misquoting standards, by writing

gobbledygook and by misinterpreting the data that they own, these people (who

accuse another of being evasive) reveal a level of aggression that is inappropriate

to the matter in hand.

If they can't make the case without this kind of nonsense then they should do

the right thing and apologise. I would ask you to chastise them.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority's task is to decide whether the broadcast complained about – Nine to

Noon's Kim Hill's interview with New Zealand First's Winston Peters on 22

February 1996 – breached the nominated standards. It is of no relevance to the

Authority in determining the complaint whether Mr Peters has been the subject of a

media assault or whether the people who telephoned and faxed Nine to Noon on 22

February were polarised or motivated by political considerations.

The Authority considers that NZPR's description of the interview is useful in its

assessment of the complaint. It was, in the terms of NZPR's categories, an interview

designed to clarify a statement in order to achieve a better public understanding of the

matter. And the matter, in this instance, was the immigration policy promulgated by

New Zealand First.

Having listened to a tape of the interview, the Authority records that it involved a

seasoned politician and an experienced interviewer. Because the interviewer seemed to

consider that her original questions were being inadequately answered, she repeated

and rephrased her questions, and later interrupted what she apparently considered

were inadequate replies. Mr Peters obviously believed that his answers were full and

thorough. When faced with what he seemed to feel were unjustified repetitions, he

challenged the source of the material on which the questions were based. It was

apparent that the interviewer and Mr Peters were using different material which,

although from official sources, had been released at different times. As the interview

progressed, it became increasingly adversarial and both interviewer and interviewee

became exasperated. Both interviewer and interviewee adopted at times a patronising

attitude. The exchange concluded with the interviewer's comment about belligerence

and paranoia (recorded on p2 above).

The Authority repeats that its task is to decide whether the exchange breached the

standards. It considers that standards R1 – factual accuracy – and R10 – technical

deception are not applicable. As the exchange involved the sharing of strongly held

opinions, it does not consider that supporters of New Zealand First were denigrated

as racist in contravention of R14. To the extent that balance under standard R9 was

necessary, it was achieved through the live exchange during the interview, and other

broadcasts during which Mr Peters was given an ample opportunity to advance the

Party's immigration policy.

In agreement with NZPR, the Authority is of the view that the core of the complaint

is the alleged breaches of standards R2 – good taste and decency – and R5 – dealing

with Mr Peters fairly.

With regard to standard R2, the Authority agrees with NZPR that there was a

"significant element of rudeness and ill-mannered conduct" in the interview. However,

the Authority concludes, these matters in context do not seriously threaten currently

accepted norms of decency and taste and thus the standard was not breached. It

believes that the manner of the exchanges is a matter which should be more

appropriately assessed under standard R5.

Standard R5 requires that any person taking part in a programme be dealt with fairly.

The Authority considers that the interview involved justified requests – and later

interruptions – in which the interviewer sought clarification. It became an adversarial

exchange in which both participants became increasingly abrupt and precise.

Nevertheless, the Authority does not believe that the interviewee was dealt with

unfairly. Both participants made use of debating techniques and at these times the

issue – New Zealand First's immigration policy – seemed to be of less importance than

the techniques involved in putting the questions and replying to them. Mr Peters was

not brow-beaten into submission. Rather, he responded in a way which showed that

he was well able to reply in a competent manner.

The presenter's final comment in which she raised the issue of belligerence and

paranoia is the one which the Authority considers most closely. The Authority agrees

with Mr Norman when he said the remark lacked professionalism. The Authority

believes that it was uncalled-for. However, on the basis that it was obviously a

comment made out of exasperation, and one which reflected negatively principally on

the presenter rather than on the interviewee, the Authority concludes that it did not

breach standard R5.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
29 August 1996

Appendix

Mr Norman's Complaint to New Zealand Public Radio Ltd - 3 March 1996

Chris Norman of Wellington complained to New Zealand Public Radio Ltd about an

interview of Winston Peters MP, leader of New Zealand First, on National Radio's

Nine to Noon on 22 February 1996. He stated that his complaint would cover at least

standards R2, R4, R5, R9 and R14 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Maintaining that the interview was unprofessional and that the presenter (Kim Hill)

was argumentative, patronising and rude, Mr Norman said that the presenter

seemingly was acting as an agent for the National Government. He stressed that

listening to the interview would ensure that the listener had no doubt of the

presenter's animosity and reveal significant lapses of professionalism in her conduct.

Mr Norman then gave four instances where he claimed breached standards R1, R2, R4

and R9.

The first occurred when the presenter commented, in an insulting and patronising way,

that Mr Peters was being interviewed in order to have his say. The second arose when

the presenter, "after relentlessly quoting the Minister of Immigration", sighed as if

speaking to a child. As the third example, Mr Norman referred to the assumptions

contained in some of the presenter's questions, eg the cost of educating non English

speaking children, that everything Mr Peters said was incorrect. Finally, at the end of

the interview when Mr Peters complained about its manner, the presenter responded:

Do you think that belligerence and paranoia will serve you well in the election

then?

Mr Norman added:

These are the worst examples, the interview is peppered with other examples.

Alleging that taken as a whole the interview failed to meet standard R5, Mr Norman

turned to standard R9.

He started by naming two National Radio reporters who, it subsequently transpired,

were shown to be government supporters. He suggested that some of their broadcasts

as reporters had breached standard R9 and that the same had occurred on this

occasion.

Considering standard R9 in more detail he suggested that there was a lack of balance in

the following when:

... Mr Maxwell (Minister of Immigration) is interviewed for Morning Report

in a normal fashion and what he has said is then used to lead the news. Later

on Mr Peters is invited to discuss his policy on "nine to noon" and subjected

to an assault of interruptions, patronising remarks and rudeness in the various

forms I am outlining.

Mr Norman declared that the only way to make the interview balanced would be to

give the Minister an equally trying time, rather than accepting everything he said as

true while considering everything Mr Peters said was suspect.

Turning to standard R14, Mr Norman suggested that the standard was breached when

the presenter asked Mr Peters whether it worried him that a "great many" of his

supporters may be racist. He argued that such a statement denigrated the group of

Winston Peters' supporters as a whole. He claimed that this rumour had been started

by the National Government, and that as such, the question should have been prefaced

by "The National Party claims . . ." or words to that effect.

Mr Norman expressed the view that the National Party had cut immigration levels due

to feedback from a "great many" of its own supporters and contended that all political

parties have racist members. Moving to standard R10, he wrote:

Racism was a theme of the interview, when Mr Peters brings the subject of

racism up Ms Hill says "I didnÕt raise the subject, you did, that's interesting".

The device "that's interesting" is used in conversation to highlight a particular

point, in this case Winston Peters/racism. This remark appears to breach code

R10 in that it allows Ms Hill to throw a bit of mud in an oblique fashion

without actually having done it in an obvious way. In that sense it is

deceptive.

Pointing out that the presenter had mentioned that after the interview there were 100

phone calls against her and four in support - while the opinions in the faxes received

were more evenly divided - Mr Norman maintained that Nine to Noon erroneously

believed that faxes sent in represented a cross section of listeners. In his opinion, they

were only representative of people who owned faxes. He asserted that this was a

useless way to determine majority opinion.

He emphasised that he had no connection with New Zealand First, but stressed that

this would be irrelevant anyway.

Mr Norman noted that at the end of the interview, the presenter complained that

rather than answering the questions Mr Peters always went on attack. He asked

whether the presenter had a right, or even a contractual requirement, to criticise her

guests. He stressed that in his opinion all fault lay with the presenter, who was

supposed to be the professional.

NZPR's Response to the Complaint - 28 May 1996

NZPR began by noting that formal complaints could be made against broadcasts, not

people. It sent Mr Norman a copy of the report prepared for its Complaints

Committee in response to 12 complaints about the programme. In deciding which

were the relevant standards, NZPR explained that, in its opinion, the programme was

not a news broadcast, but current affairs.

The Committee noted that standards; R1, R2, R4, R5, R9, R10, and R14 had been

raised by the complainants. It ruled that standards R1, R9, R10 and R14 were not

applicable for the following reasons.

Standard R1 did not apply because the item was an interview and not a factual report.

It maintained that any facts cited were attributed to their source. With respect to

standard R9, NZPR decided balance was not required. It argued that the purpose of

the interview was to clarify statements made by Mr Peters and to ascertain the origin

of his contentions. It pointed to a Checkpoint item later in the day, which it argued,

provided balance.

As for standard R10, NZPR applied the practice established by the Broadcasting

Standards Authority that this standard is concerned with technical trickery, and noted

that as the interview was broadcast live this standard was not relevant.

Turning to standard R14, NZPR expressed doubt as to whether it was relevant to the

broadcast, noting that past Broadcasting Standards Authority decisions have required

a severe blackening before the denigration standard was contravened. However, it felt

that it did not need to decide the alleged breach of this standard as the interview fell

into the exemptions in the standard in that it was material that was factual, or the

expression of serious opinion.

Because Mr Peters had expressed numerous opinions and, because the interview had

challenged the factual answers and not his opinions, in NZPR's view, there was no

possibility that standard R4 had been contravened.

NZPR proceeded to assess the complaint against standards R2 and R5. It wrote:

The [Complaints] Committee considered that the assessment of the item against

either of these standards was likely to involve a significant degree of subjective

judgement, and in this connection noted letters of commendation received from

listeners whose reaction to the broadcast had been equally strong but

diametrically opposed to the complaints.

It then cited briefly some comments which praised the presenter's patience in

response to Mr Peter's "invective". It concluded:

The Committee recognised that the broadcast had strongly polarised listeners

who fell into two broad groupings: those who believed that Mr Peters had been

treated unfairly, and should not have been interrupted by the interviewer's

attempts to check the sources, the origins and the validity of the foundations of

his publicly aired statements and deductions; and those who believed that Mr

Peters should not have objected to requests for clarification and reconciliation of

apparently conflicting figures and facts.

Maintaining that the interview was designed to clarify some comments made by Mr

Peters in order to achieve a better understanding on the subject, and thus the presenter

was entitled to press for answers to difficult questions, NZPR did not consider that

the "rudeness and ill-mannered conduct of the interview" breached standard R2. It

was not unacceptable in context.

As for the allegation that Mr Peters had been treated unfairly, NZPR considered that

he had been given ample opportunity to explain his thesis, adding that he was:

... interrupted (politely at first, rather more forcefully later as the answers

became progressively ruder but less relevant) only for clarification and source

details.

As it was of the view that the presenter should not "roll over" in such a situation,

NZPR did not believe that standard R5 had been breached.

Mr Norman's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 30 June

1996

Dissatisfied with NZPR's response, Mr Norman referred his complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

While seeking a full review of NZPR's decision, Mr Norman emphasised the following

points. First, as the presenter was a broadcaster, her behaviour should be assessed

when considering whether standard R2 was transgressed. Secondly, whereas balance

could be achieved by giving parties an equal amount of time, partiality occurred when

the interviewer treated politicians differently.

That something unusual had occurred on this occasion, Mr Norman wrote, was

explained by the presenter's comment at the end of the interview that of the 104

phone calls received, 100 were against the approach that she took.

NZPR's Response to the Authority - 4 July 1996

In its report to the Authority, NZPR pointed out that the immigration issue was an

on-going story. As it was dealt with on a number of occasions, NZPR said that

balance had been achieved over time. In particular, it referred to an item on Checkpoint

broadcast between 5.00 - 6.00pm on the same day as the interview complained about.

It enclosed a tape of that interview for the Authority to listen to.

NZPR maintained:

The Company accepts neither that Kim Hill was insufficiently prepared for the

interview, nor that she ought not to challenge evasive or apparently irrelevant

answers (or statements requiring, but lacking, attribution or source). The

convention which once ruled out the quizzing of politicians or the posing to

them of awkward questions died when Robin Day began interviewing Harold

Wilson.

In response to the specific points raised in the referral, NZPR considered that the

Broadcasting Act was primarily concerned with broadcasters - not to specific persons

who might be talking, singing or otherwise performing. Secondly, it maintained that

each alleged breach must be assessed under the full standard.

Mr Norman's Final Comment - Received 16 July 1996

Confirming that he had forwarded the referral within the time limits set out in the

legislation, Mr Norman asked the Authority, when ruling on NZPR's submission that

it dealt with programmes, not broadcasters, to note that NZPR had initially assumed

that its interpretation was correct.

He also contested NZPR's description that 100 telephone calls against as opposed to

four in support, could be described as "two broad groupings".

Mr Norman wrote:

I and others have a perfect right to object to programs or items that we believe

transcend normal standards and the broadcaster has a perfect right to defend

themselves from these objections. What I cannot accept is that a broadcaster has

the right to use deceptive tactics to deflect criticism. By wilfully taking so long

to address the complaint, by deliberately misquoting standards, by writing

gobbledygook and by misinterpreting the data that they own, these people (who

accuse another of being evasive) reveal a level of aggression that is inappropriate

to the matter in hand.

If they can't make the case without this kind of nonsense then they should do

the right thing and apologise. I would ask you to chastise them.

Commenting that he was "pushing things uphill", in arguing on Mr Peters' behalf, Mr

Norman said that the media assault on the man was extraordinary. He concluded:

The standards are not there to protect the good blokes, the people we all get on

with, the ones the broadcaster likes and are easy to interview. The standards are

there to protect the others. I simply ask you to let the standards do their job.