BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Member Rosemary McLeod declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the discussion.

---

Summary

Deborah Coddington, author of the recently published index of paedophile offenders,

was interviewed on the Holmes programme broadcast on TV One between

7:00–7:30pm on 26 June 1996. One matter raised by the interviewer dealt with the issue of

paedophilia as a behavioural trait over which some men may have no control.

Lt Cdr Fotheringham complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that

as the assumption in the interviewer's comment that paedophilia was uncontrollable

was not challenged, the broadcast breached the standards relating to good taste and

decency, the maintenance of law, and the protection of children.

Explaining that the interviewer's role on this occasion was to play the devil's

advocate, TVNZ denied that the assumption was advanced as an incontrovertible fact.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with that response, and as TVNZ would not allow him to view the tape

of the programme to enable him to decide whether his interpretation was correct, Lt

Cdr Fotheringham referred his complaint to the 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. Authority member Rosemary

McLeod has written an article for the press following an interview with author

Deborah Coddington. Accordingly, she declared a conflict of interest and declined to

take part in the decision.

When Deborah Coddington released her index of convicted paedophile offenders, she

was interviewed by host Paul Holmes on TV One's Holmes on 26 July broadcast

between 7.00–7.30pm.

Lt Cdr Fotheringham objected to the question which focused on whether paedophiles

were able to control their behaviour and, he wrote:

Whether or not this implication is correct, and despite whatever interviewing

technique Mr Holmes may have been using to challenge Ms Coddington on her

actions or comments, it is considered that these comments were inappropriate,

potentially injurious to vulnerable people in society and in breach of standards

specified in the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Fotheringham noted that Ms Coddington had challenged the comment but it was

not withdrawn. Consequently, he wrote, it would be accepted by many viewers that

paedophiles were unable to control their behaviour. He argued that a statement or

withdrawal, clarification or explanation was necessary.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards referred to by Mr Fotheringham.

They require broadcasters:

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste

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

language or behaviour occurs.

G5 To respect the principles of law which sustain our society

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during

their normally accepted viewing times.

Arguing that the interviewer was acting as devil's advocate, TVNZ said it was

incorrect to assume that he was putting his own views. As for the question raised in

the complaint, TVNZ pointed out that it was introduced with the phrase "some

would say". Given that it was not in bad taste to advance a view held by some

professionals, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint under standard G2. It did not

believe standard G5 was applicable and expressed the opinion that standard G12 did

not apply to current affairs programmes such as Holmes.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Fotheringham said that he found

TVNZ's reply unsatisfactory, citing, in particular, the suggestion that standard G12

was inapplicable. Holmes, he wrote, was broadcast during children's normal viewing

hours.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ insisted that the question did not imply support

either for paedophiles or for the view that their behaviour was uncontrollable. The

question, it said, was put as one which Ms Coddington could expect to be raised by

critics of her book. As for the applicability of standard G12, TVNZ stated that it was

not intended to prevent an interview such as the one referred to in the complaint.

In his final comment, Mr Fotheringham found "tiresome" TVNZ's allegation that he

did not understand the interviewer's role. The point was covered, he explained, in his

initial letter of complaint and, he repeated, the interviewer's comment was not

justified even when the interviewer acted as "devil's advocate".

In its examination of the complaint, the Authority considers that it is important to

understand the exchange between interviewer Paul Holmes and interviewee Deborah

Coddington. It was a discussion about the book released by Ms Coddington and, in

view of the controversy the publication evoked, it was apparent that the interviewer

was advancing the points raised by the book's critics. This applied particularly to the

question to which objection was taken as it was introduced with the phrase "some

would say". This comment indicated the style of the interview.

As the debate was clearly an exchange of opinions, and as it did not contain anything

which the Authority believes is in bad taste or indicates a disregard for younger

viewers, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 October 1996

Appendix

Lt Cdr Fotheringham's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - July 1996

Lieutenant Commander Fotheringham of Auckland complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on the Holmes programme between 7.00 -

7.30pm on 26 June 1996.

The item involved an interview with author Deborah Coddington who had released a

book which listed recently convicted paedophile offenders. Mr Fotheringham

expressed concern about the comment from the interviewer (Paul Holmes) - that

paedophiles were unable to control their behaviour - and, he continued:

Whether or not this implication is correct, and despite whatever interviewing

technique Mr Holmes may have being using to challenge Ms Coddington on

her actions or comments, it is considered that these comments were

inappropriate, potentially injurious to vulnerable people in society and in

breach of standards specified in the Broadcasting Act.

Although Ms Coddington challenged the interviewer, Mr Fotheringham added, the

interviewer had not clarified his comment and the implication remained.

Mr Fotheringham considered that the interviewer's comment was offensive and

breached the standard relating to good taste and decency. It also breached the standard

requiring the maintenance of law and order, he stated, as the first step to stating that

any behaviour was reasonable, was to suggest that it was unable to be controlled.

Finally, it contravened the standard relating to the protection of children as they might

accept that there was an element of "inevitability or reasonableness" about

paedophilia.

In conclusion, Mr Fotheringham believed that a statement of clarification, withdrawal

or explanation should be broadcast.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 August 1996

Assessing the complaint under standards G2, G5 and G12 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ summarised the complaint in the following way:

Your complaint seemed to suggest that Paul Holmes (the interviewer) showed

bias in his question line, especially when referring to paedophilia being a

behavioural trait over which some men had little control.

Suggesting that the complainant seemed not to recognise the proper role of an

interviewer, TVNZ said that it was a basic broadcasting requirement that coverage of a

controversial public issue be balanced. That could be achieved through a studio debate

or by the presenter acting as "devil's advocate" and, it continued:

It was this latter course that Holmes decided to take with Ms Coddington.

The presenter properly did his research beforehand and was able to challenge

the author of the paedophile index using arguments that had been levelled

against her in the wider community. She had the opportunity to respond to

each point.

It would be quite wrong to assume that Mr Holmes was presenting his

personal views. If he had been interviewing an opponent of Ms Coddington's

book he would have put to that person the very arguments that Ms

Coddington used! To imply, as we feel your letter does, that Paul Holmes is

understanding and sympathetic towards the actions of paedophiles is to

misunderstand his role as a journalist completely.

TVNZ then pointed out that the question to which objection had been taken was

introduced with the phrase "some would say". The interviewer, it maintained, was

acting as a professional journalist in challenging the controversial views expressed in

the book and the interviewee had replied intelligently.

In regard to the standards, TVNZ said it was not a breach of good taste to advance a

view held by some professionals in the area. It was unsure as to what aspect of

standard G5 was jeopardised and concluded that standard G12 was not relevant to a

current affairs programme such as Holmes. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Lt Cdr Fotheringham's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority -

received 9 September 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, Mr Fotheringham referred his complaint to the

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

On receiving TVNZ's reply dated 13 August, Mr Fotheringham wrote to TVNZ

expressing some concern. However, in a letter dated 3 September 1996, TVNZ

declined to take the matter further given the provisions in the Broadcasting Act.

In the letter to TVNZ in response to its decision on the formal complaint, Mr

Fotheringham pointed out that his complaint was based on the premise that the

interviewer made a statement, not a question, which was not challenged or clarified.

However, if he was wrong in that assumption, he said that he would be happy to

withdraw the complaint. He suggested that he be given an opportunity to view the

tape - at a time and place suitable to TVNZ.

Mr Fotheringham wondered why, should TVNZ have been unsure of any aspect of

his complaint, he had not been telephoned for clarification. That, he added, would

have saved time on TVNZ's part.

Turning to the aspect of the complaint which alleged a breach of standard G5, Mr

Fotheringham described TVNZ's reply as inadequate. He had alleged that the

interpretation in the interviewer's statement were not consistent with the maintenance

of law and order.

He described TVNZ's response to the complaint in regard to standard G12 as

"unsatisfactory and potentially disturbing". Holmes, he wrote, was broadcast during

children's normal viewing times and he did not accept TVNZ's argument that current

affairs programmes were exempt from the standard.

TVNZ wrote to Mr Fotheringham in response (3.9.96):

In accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, as we have given

our decision on your formal complaint we are unable to take the matter further.

We can only reiterate that we are sorry that you found fault with this

particular interview on the Holmes programme. We consider that we have

replied fully to your concerns and further correspondence on our part is not

warranted.

In his letter of referral to the Authority, Mr Fotheringham regarded TVNZ's attitude

as unsatisfactory, commenting:

Television New Zealand has considered that they are unable to proceed any

further in investigating my concerns or providing a response to my requests

because the very Act which provides for such a requirement prevents them

from so doing.

He asked the Authority not only to investigate and review his complaint, but to advise

him of the propriety of TVNZ's above response to him.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 12 September 1996

As its reply to the complainant on the formal complaint had dealt with the standards

G5 and G12 aspects, TVNZ argued in its report to the Authority that Mr

Fotheringham's appropriate response when dissatisfied was to refer the matter to the

Authority. It wrote:

Clearly, we cannot reopen the complaint and consider any further points the

complainant wishes to advance.

TVNZ maintained that the complainant was unwilling to recognise the interviewer's

role, commenting:

(a) The questioning by Paul Holmes was not intended to imply that he had

views on paedophiles which were largely sympathetic. We outlined in our

response to the complaint the "devil's advocate" role of the presenter and

why his assumption was incorrect.

(b) We regret if the complainant considers our response to be patronising. We

were endeavouring to set out the basic structure of a studio television

debate and how we, in this way, can give balance to an item.

(c) The reason we quoted this passage was to show how this set the tenor and

background for the questions that subsequently gave rise to the

complainant's irritation.

(d) We do not agree that Paul Holmes "made a statement".

(e) We consider that we have responded to this complaint in a fair and proper

way.

TVNZ also maintained that the interviewer had not suggested a law change and thus

standard G5 had not been breached. As the discussion would not have been

injurious to children, it considered that standard G12 had not been transgressed,

noting:

This standard is certainly not intended to prevent an interview such as this

during a current affairs programme broadcast at 7:00pm.

In conclusion, TVNZ wrote:

The complainant is able to purchase a copy of the programme if he wishes. We

do not consider, however, that we should provide facilities to complainants to

review a tape, particularly after we have made a decision on a formal complaint

in accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting Act. There is no dispute

between us as to the content of the programme, although we are puzzled as to

what "incident" the Lieutenant Commander is referring to that is still of concern

to him.

Lt Cdr Fotheringham's Final Comment - received 30 September 1996

Expressing concern that there was no process for a complainant to review a

programme before lodging a complaint, Mr Fotheringham stated that he had found

TVNZ's response to the standard G12 complaint unsatisfactory. He considered

"tiresome" TVNZ's assertion that he did not understand the role of the interviewer as

he had dealt with the point in his initial complaint. He remained concerned with

TVNZ's suggestion that the use of the "devil's advocate" approach justified the

comment made on this occasion.

Pointing out that other comments about the interviewer were irrelevant, Mr

Fotheringham repeated that his complaint was concerned with whether the remark

made by the interviewer was in breach of the standards.