BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An item on the Larry Williams Programme focussed on the resignation from the Alliance Party of Mr Frank Grover MP. The item included interviews with Mr Jim Anderton, the leader of the Alliance Party, and with Mr Grover. It was broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 11 June 1999, commencing at about 6.15 pm.

Both John Bryant, the Executive Director of the Christian Heritage Party, and Adam Claasen of Christchurch complained to The Radio Network Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was untruthful, unfair, deceptive and unbalanced. Mr Grover had agreed to the interview on the basis that Mr Anderton was not "on the call at the same time", they wrote, but by including Mr Anderton in the interview, the host had breached that agreement.

TRN responded that the complainants’ "summation of the arrangements" for Mr Grover’s appearance on the programme was "basically correct", although no agreement had been given that Mr Anderton "would disappear during the Grover segment", or about what would occur after both men had been interviewed. It denied that the item was unbalanced or unfair, and pointed out that both interviewees had had opportunities to advance their positions. The host’s comment about Mr Anderton’s participation in Mr Grover’s interview may have sounded misleading, it noted, and he had been "counselled … that this could be seen as misleading". It declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TRN’s decision, Mr Bryant on behalf of the Christian Heritage Party and Mr Claasen each referred their complaints 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendices. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

An item broadcast during Newstalk ZB’s Larry Williams Programme on Friday 11 June at about 6.15 pm featured the resignation from the Alliance Party of Mr Frank Grover MP. It included an interview with Mr Jim Anderton, the leader of the Alliance Party, at the conclusion of which the programme’s host said "Stay on the line will you, we are going to talk to Mr Grover in just a minute". Mr Grover was then interviewed, and the host said "Alliance leader Mr Anderton has just called back and wants to come in on the interview". The host then interviewed both men, and the programme’s producer also asked a question of Mr Grover. The programme ended with some comments from Mr Anderton, after Mr Grover had completed his interview.

Both John Bryant, the Executive Director of the Christian Heritage Party, and Adam Claasen complained to TRN that despite the host’s comment at the beginning of the item that Frank Grover would not agree to being on the line at the same time as Mr Anderton, and that the two men would be interviewed separately, that did not occur. They each noted that that had been the basis for Mr Grover originally agreeing to be interviewed by Mr Williams. However, when the host had finished his interview with Mr Anderton, he had asked him to stay on the line, but had not indicated that to Mr Grover. Part way through the interview with Mr Grover, the host had told him and the listeners that Mr Anderton had called back and wanted to come in on the interview. That, Mr Bryant wrote:

…would appear to have been a deliberate lie, and a gross breach of the condition for the interview which you had previously acknowledged in that Frank Grover had told you that he would not give any interview with Mr Anderton on the call at the same time".

The complainants declared that the host’s action was a clear breach of the requirement that the broadcaster deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in the programme. It was also, Mr Bryant suggested, the use of a deceptive programme practice, and a breach of the requirement to be truthful and accurate. Mr Claasen complained that the broadcast also breached standard R9 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, which relates to balance, and standards R16 and R21.

Mr Bryant argued that what he called the programme’s bias against Mr Grover also became evident when the programme’s producer asked him questions directly, "adding …[her] personal weight to the kinds of trick questions which Mr Williams was asking". That breached the broadcaster’s requirement to show balance, impartiality and fairness, he wrote. He also complained that the programme’s allocation of time to Mr Grover and Mr Anderton was unequal. Furthermore, Mr Byrant wrote:

…after Mr Williams had given Mr Anderton the opportunity of attacking Mr Grover live on your programme, Mr Williams then asked Mr Grover to hang up following which he asked Mr Anderton how effective Mr Grover had been as an M.P.

Mr Claasen contended that the programme’s host had lied to Mr Grover when he said that Mr Anderton had phoned back and wished to participate in the programme when in fact he had always been on the line.

Mr Bryant concluded that by an "outrageous and manipulative use" of the interviews, one protagonist had been given a separate interview, the opportunity to intrude on the other person’s interview time, and then a final reply in the absence of that other person.

TRN considered the complaint in the context of standards R1, R5, R9, R10, R16 and R21 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice which had been nominated by the complainants. The first four require broadcasters:

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

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.

The other standards provide:

R16  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

R21  It shall be the responsibility of each station to be fair in the allocation of time to interested parties in controversial public issues. In exercising this responsibility a station will take into account the news value of the viewpoints offered and previous allotment of air time.

In its response, TRN acknowledged that Mr Grover had obtained an agreement from the producer that he would not appear "at the top of the programme" with Mr Anderton. It noted that Mr Grover declined its offer to listen in to what Mr Anderton said and, at the start of the interview, the host had told listeners this. However, TRN continued, there was no mention of what might happen after both had been interviewed.

In TRN’s view, it should have come as no surprise to listeners that the host advised that Mr Anderton had called back as he had asked him to "stay on the line". However, it acknowledged, it may have sounded misleading.

The broadcaster denied that the programme was biased against Mr Grover, and that Mr Anderton "got patsy questions". Furthermore, it wrote, both participants had every opportunity to present their views; Mr Anderton was on, in the set piece interviews, for 4 minutes 10 seconds, and Mr Grover for 3 minutes 35 seconds, "an immaterial difference in radio terms". Both then, it continued, "had a chance to further develop their arguments".

TRN maintained that Mr Anderton did not intrude on Mr Grover’s interview, but was re-introduced at the end of it, when both interviewees were given opportunities to pursue their views. After Mr Grover had departed, it noted, the host asked Mr Anderton a final question. It wrote:

You can’t have it both ways. First you want Mr Grover contained on his own, then you’re unhappy when he departs and Mr Anderton is further questioned.

The producer’s question to Mr Grover, it wrote, was a legitimate programme tool "and one we intend to further use in the future". Mr Grover, it concluded, had no difficulty in holding his own in the interview, and the listeners could have clearly weighed up the issue.

TRN concluded that its one area of concern was:

…in relation to the "Mr Anderton phoned back" comment. [It had] … spoken to Larry Williams and counselled him on the fact that this could be seen as misleading.

It declined to uphold the complaints.

In referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Byrant wrote that the broadcaster had not seemed to accept the serious nature of the complaint, yet it had admitted that the host’s comment "Mr Anderton has phoned back" could have been "seen as misleading". He described that as "an extraordinary juxtaposition of opposites".

In his referral, Mr Claasen described as "disingenuous" TRN’s acknowledgment that it might have sounded misleading when the host said that Mr Anderton had called back, when in fact he was on the line all along. Further, he argued, despite TRN’s contention that the parties were offered almost equal amounts of time, because the programme was so heavily weighted against Mr Grover, it was clearly unbalanced.

As for the interjections by the programme’s producer, Mr Claasen repeated his question as to whether such a technique had been used when other politicians had been interviewed. He disagreed with TRN’s claim that the participants each had a "fair and more than adequate opportunity to answer and canvass their views".

As a further point, Mr Claasen expressed scepticism about the nature of the counselling given to the host, and noted that his complaint that the host had actually lied to listeners had not been addressed by TRN.

When asked to respond to the complaint, TRN reiterated the points outlined earlier in this decision.

The Authority’s Findings

The complaints raise three issues. The first relates to the terms upon which Mr Grover agreed to participate in the broadcast. According to the complainants, his participation was based on an assurance that his former party leader, Mr Anderton, would not remain on the line while he was being interviewed. However, that assurance was not honoured. Part way through the interview, Mr Anderton, who had been kept on the line, came back on air to discuss the matter of Mr Grover’s departure from the Alliance. The complainants asserted that this was unfair to Mr Grover.

The Authority concludes that because Mr Anderton was not live on air at the same time as Mr Grover was being interviewed – and therefore was not able to interject or debate with him – then in effect the broadcaster had complied with its undertaking. It is the Authority’s understanding that Mr Anderton was held on the line, able to listen to the interview but not able to participate until the host re-opened Mr Anderton’s phone link to the interview. It therefore considers that there was no unfair treatment of Mr Grover as he was able to convey his views uninterrupted and in accordance with the prior agreement. It was not until after he had explained his position that Mr Anderton’s line was re-opened. The Authority concludes that the broadcaster acted within the spirit of the agreement made, and it declines to uphold this aspect of the complaints.

The second aspect of the complaints was that the entire interview was biased against Mr Grover and that bias was demonstrated when the programme’s producer came on air to ask questions of Mr Grover directly. TRN’s response was that this was an editorial technique which it intended to employ in the future, and denied that it had demonstrated partiality in any aspect of the interview. As for the complaint about the style of interviewing and the interview’s content, it concluded that:

In the end this was a bit of old fashioned political stoush, in which your man [Mr Grover] had no difficulty in holding his own.

The Authority’s view is that as a political representative, Mr Grover could expect to be asked some probing questions, particularly as it appeared that his resignation from the Alliance came as a surprise to the party leader and had significant repercussions on the Alliance’s funding. It was also apparent from listening to the tape that there was a major issue surrounding the agreement he had entered into with the Alliance that he would not leave the party. It was therefore, the Authority concludes, inevitable that he should be asked to account for his departure from the party under whose auspices he had come into Parliament, and that his party leader would comment.

The circumstances of his resignation justified some challenging questions, but as they would not be unexpected, the Authority considers that Mr Grover was fairly dealt with on this occasion. It notes that he was given an adequate opportunity to explain his position. As for the complaint about the different treatment meted out to Mr Anderton, the Authority concludes there was no evidence of bias or preferential treatment afforded to him. Accordingly, it declines to uphold the complaint that the item was unfair or unbalanced.

Thirdly, the complainants contended that the host had been dishonest when he misled listeners – and Mr Grover – into believing that Mr Anderton had phoned in midway through the interview, when in fact he had been on hold for its entire duration.

The Authority’s view is that the host’s remark was misleading, but that in the overall context of this programme, that error was relatively unimportant. TRN itself seems to have concluded that the remark could have been misleading and it has taken steps to acquaint the presenter with its concerns. In those circumstances, the Authority is not persuaded that this part of the complaints should be upheld either.

As a final point, the Authority notes that it considers the essence of the complaints was that the broadcast was unfair and unbalanced. It has therefore considered them under standards R5, R9 and R21 and subsumed the other standards accordingly.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
23 September 1999

Appendix I

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

1.    Christian Heritage Party’s Complaint to The Radio Network Limited – 30 June 1999

2.    TRN’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 2 July 1999

3.    CHP’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 13 July 1999

4.    TRN’s Response to the Authority – 20 July 1999

Appendix II

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

1.    Adam Claasen’s Complaint to The Radio Network Limited – 23 June 1999

2.    TRN’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 28 June 1999

3.    Mr Claasen’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 20 July 1999

4.    TRN’s Response to the Authority – 28 July 1999