BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An item about firearms on More FM's 11:00am news on 11 May 1996 included

comment from a spokesperson from Gunsafe.

Maintaining that the interview was another example of the broadcaster's unbalanced

reporting of issues relating to firearm ownership and its failure to present the

viewpoint of gun owners, Mr Dunlop complained to More FM in Auckland.

More FM explained to Mr Dunlop that its news bulletins were supplied by Radio

New Zealand Ltd and, accordingly, it had forwarded the complaint to RNZ for

response.

As he did not receive a response to his complaint within 60 working days, Mr Dunlop

referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence (summarised in the

Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority determines the complaint without a

formal hearing.

Mr Dunlop complained to More FM that a news item on the firearms debate was

unbalanced as it incorporated comment from a Gunsafe spokesperson, but nothing

from a representative of the Sporting Shooters Association.

As it relied on Radio New Zealand Ltd for its news service, More FM advised Mr

Dunlop that the complaint had been forwarded to RNZ for response.

As no response to his complaint was received within 60 working days, Mr Dunlop

referred it to the Authority. More FM advised the Authority that it had forwarded

the complaint to RNZ while RNZ advised the Authority that it had no record of

receiving the complaint.

RNZ pointed out to the Authority that More FM, as the broadcaster, was the

responsible organisation under the Broadcasting Act for dealing with the complaint.

More FM told the Authority that it had not generated the news item and, accordingly,

it did not agree with that concept. Nevertheless, it added, it had established, in

conjunction with RNZ, a procedure for dealing with formal complaints in the future.

More FM failed to respond to the Authority's requests to comment on Mr Dunlop's

complaint about the broadcast of the news item on 11 May.

The Authority is disappointed that More FM has not replied to its requests for

comment on the specific complaint. It observes that the situation is not dissimilar to

any broadcaster which broadcasts a programme made in another country, or made by

an independent producer. Indeed, the Authority believes the broadcaster's lack of

response is unacceptable and it does not expect a recurrence.

Because it has neither a tape nor a transcript of the item complained about, the

Authority's only option with this complaint is to decline, in all the circumstances, to

determine it.

For the above reasons, under s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority

declines to determine the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
14 November 1996

Appendix

Mr Dunlop's Complaint to More FM - 11 May 1996

Phillip Dunlop of Pokeno complained to More FM in Auckland that its coverage of

the firearms debate generally was biased in favour of those opposed to firearms

ownership.

A recent example was the 11:00am news on the 11 May 1996 when an item on

firearms included an interview with Gunsafe's Mr Meyer but no response from a

representative of firearm owners. As Gunsafe's membership was about 70, as

opposed to over 3,000 members of the Sporting Shooters Association, Mr Dunlop

stated that the second group deserved a "Fair Go".

More FM's Response to the Formal Complaint - 20 May 1996

More FM in Auckland advised Mr Dunlop that Radio New Zealand Ltd supplied the

news service it broadcast. The complaint, it continued, had been forwarded and Mr

Dunlop could expect to hear from RNZ.

Mr Dunlop's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20 August

1996

As Mr Dunlop did not receive a reply to his complaint from More FM or RNZ after

60 working days, he forwarded it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 6 September 1996

RNZ advised the Authority that More FM received bulletins from RNZ but, it

maintained, More FM, as the broadcaster, was responsible for responding to the

complaint.

Moreover, RNZ said that it could find no record of receiving Mr Dunlop's complaint

from More FM. However, it had now sent More FM a summary of the item which

would enable it to deal with the complaint.

More FM's response to the Authority - 13 September 1996

More FM advised the Authority that it did not check the news bulletins received from

RNZ. Accordingly, it had forwarded to RNZ the complaint when it was received

from Mr Dunlop, as it believed that this was RNZ's responsibility.

More FM's Programme Director wrote:

In the past 15 years in Radio I have always dealt with any complaint very

quickly as I will always take responsibility for broadcast matter that is within

my control. I still find it difficult to grasp the concept that I am responsible for

material from a News service that I have no control over, however even though I

still do not agree in theory with this concept, I have talked with Richard

Hereford who is Radio New Zealand's complaints coordinator and we now have

a procedure in place should I receive another formal complaint.

Further Correspondence

The Authority advised More FM on 16 September and 15 October that, as the

broadcaster, it was responsible under the Act to respond to the complaint from Mr

Dunlop.

More FM did not respond to either letter.