Hippolite and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1996-137
Members
- J M Potter (Chair)
- A Martin
- L M Loates
- R McLeod
Dated
Complainant
- James Hippolite
Number
1996-137
Programme
AssignmentBroadcaster
Television New Zealand LtdChannel/Station
TVNZ 1
Summary
The laws relating to prostitution were examined on Assignment following the
conviction of a couple in Wellington on eight charges of brothel keeping. They were
involved in what the police described as a multi-million dollar business. The
programme was broadcast on TV One at 7.30pm on 25 July 1996.
Mr Hippolite complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the
programme was biased and involved an attempt to engineer an environment which
would be conducive to the liberalisation of the laws.
Arguing that the programme explored the debate among politicians and police which
the case had evoked, TVNZ maintained that the programme was balanced in view of
the range of views presented.
Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Hippolite 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 viewed the item complained about and have read
the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority
determines the complaint without a formal hearing.
Mr Hippolite complained to TVNZ about the Assignment programme broadcast on 25
July 1996 which examined the laws relating to prostitution. He argued that the
programme was biased and believed that commentator Annetta Moran had been given
a "lamentably short air space". He suggested that this occurred as she opposed the
attitude advanced in the programme which attempted to create an environment
conducive to the liberalisation of the prohibition laws.
TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of
Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:
G6 To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political
matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.
Recording that the question of law reform had arisen following the conviction of a
couple in Wellington for brothel-keeping in what the Police described as a multi-
million dollar business, TVNZ explained that prostitution itself was not illegal. It was
illegal to solicit for the purposes and live off the earnings of prostitution, TVNZ
added, and the case had raised the question of whether those laws were appropriate.
TVNZ pointed out that the debate was wide-ranging and the programme had recorded
a variety of views. It believed that Mr Hippolite was confusing the message with the
messenger.
When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Hippolite maintained that the
debate was one-sided as Ms Moran had been the sole voice opposing change. He
maintained that the programme put the case that the laws were out-dated and,
accordingly, argued that it was not a fair-minded analysis of the issues.
The Authority's first task is to decide what was the programme's theme. In its
opinion, the programme explored the adequacy of the laws which apply to
prostitution. It was not, the Authority notes, an examination of prostitution per se.
In the programme's examination of the legal issues, the Authority considers that an
appropriate range of views was advanced – from politicians, police officers, sex
workers and social commentators. It believes that the item, by presenting a range of
views on the legal and practical points involved in the application and enforcement of
the laws relating to prostitution, contained the balance necessary in such a descriptive
study of the issues explored. It was not an item of advocacy journalism.
The Authority accepts that should the programme have set out to study the moral
aspects of prostitution, it could well be criticised as unbalanced. However, as it
focussed on the laws relating to prostitution, and as it explored those laws
comprehensively, the Authority considers that the broadcast complied with the
requirements for balance in standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting
Practice.
For the reasons above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
Judith Potter
Chairperson
24 October 1996
Appendix
Mr Hippolite's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 5 August 1996
James Hippolite of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the
Assignment programme broadcast at 7.30pm on TV One on 25 July 1996.
The programme had examined the laws relating to prostitution and Mr Hippolite
referred to the "lamentably short air space" given to Annetta Moran. Arguing that her
stance was the opposite to that taken by the programme's producers, Mr Hippolite
considered that the biased programme was an attempt to engineer an environment
conducive to the liberalisation of the prostitution laws.
TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 August 1996
Reporting that the item had examined the legislation relating to prostitution and had
included interviews with politicians, police, sex workers and others, TVNZ said that it
had examined the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting
Practice.
TVNZ explained that, as the programme reported, prostitution was not illegal. It was
illegal to solicit or live off the earnings of prostitution. It concluded:
The programme was not an effort to sway public opinion on prostitution; that is
not the role of current affairs investigations. It was a legitimate examination of
the legal position following the recent, and highly publicised Glasgow and Truby
case in Wellington in which the couple faced eight charges of brothel keeping and
one of living off immoral earnings after their involvement was revealed in what
police describe as a multi-million dollar business. The case has had no obvious
affect on the prostitution business.
The case, TVNZ added, had raised the question as to whether it was now time for a
change of the law.
TVNZ maintained:
We feel that in this case you are confusing the message and the messenger. The
message is that discussion is going on at a high level concerning a review of the
prostitution laws. The messenger was TVNZ which reflected that debate with a
wide ranging inquiry into what was described as the "muddled laws" and the
"absurd charade" surrounding massage parlour/brothels. A wide variety of
views - including those of Annetta Moran - were canvassed in this country and
in Australia and this was not an occasion where there was a clear divide between
two opposing and entrenched positions. There were many shades of opinion.
Pointing out that the programme had considered the laws surrounding prostitution and
that a variety of views had been expressed on that matter, TVNZ stated that the
requirement in the standards for balance had been achieved.
Mr Hippolite's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 21 August
1996
Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Hippolite referred his complaint to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
Mr Hippolite began by responding to the following points in TVNZ's letter. First, he
was aware that the programme dealt with the law but maintained that the programme
had not presented the reason for it. Then he disputed TVNZ's comment that it had
not been attempting to sway public opinion, observing:
In their own documentary, they talk about how the case has got the entire
"industry" worried. Suddenly, the "industry" has woken up to the fact that
what they are doing is illegal and unwanted, and the media jumps on their side
and calls the laws "out-dated".
As the next point, he asked why were the politicians and police officers who opposed
a law change not interviewed. In response to the message/messenger point, Mr
Hippolite commented:
I did not hear one whole side of the debate from this programme. Annetta
Moran was the token view canvassed, but she neither represents politicians nor
police. It was a singularly one-sided debate, from the point-of-view of
somebody watching this programme alone.
In conclusion, Mr Hippolite described the programme as biased. There was a need, he
wrote, for "a more balanced, fair-minded analysis of the topic".
TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 29 August 1996
TVNZ explained that it did not wish to comment further.