BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An Our World programme about wetas, broadcast on TV One between 6.30 – 7.30pm on 21 June 1998, included a reference to the "Auckland Museum" in the credits.

On behalf of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Public Petition Campaign Group, Mr Corrin complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that it was factually incorrect to describe the Auckland War Memorial Museum as the "Auckland Museum".

On the basis that the Broadcasting Standards Authority had accepted in an earlier decision that a brief reference to the "Auckland Museum" did not contravene the standards, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with decision, Mr Corrin referred the Group’s complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Mr Corrin is involved with the Auckland War Memorial Museum Public Petition Campaign Group which asks that all public references to the Auckland War Memorial Museum use its full title, rather than referring to the institution as the "Auckland Museum".

As an individual, Mr Corrin has complained to the Authority on two occasions that a reference to the "Auckland Museum", in a programme on TV One, has involved a breach of broadcasting standards.

On the first occasion, in a complaint which referred to a programme and circumstances which were similar to the current complaint, the Authority wrote (1997-121):

In its determination of the complaint, the Authority takes into consideration that an exhibition of living spiders, focussing on the tarantula, was the subject of the item. It accepts that the brief reference, by the commonly-used name, to the place where the exhibition was housed does not contravene the standards.

On the second occasion, earlier this year, the Authority concluded (1998-010):

The Authority appreciates Mr Corrin’s view as to the significance of the Hall of Memories and his concern for the memory of the war dead, but it considers the term used to be a reasonable contraction of the description of the title of the museum. Whether the full official title is used is a matter for the broadcaster to decide as a matter of house style or editorial judgment.

In the circumstances, the Authority believes that the complaint does not raise a matter of standards under the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Further, the Authority believes that its procedures are not the means of redress for a matter such as is raised by the complaint. Consequently, in all the circumstances, the Authority declines to determine the complaint in accordance with s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

On this occasion, the Authority again declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances under s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In view of the current and past decisions, the Authority now records that should it again be required to deal with a similar complaint, it may well make use of the powers in s.16(1) of the Act to award costs against a complainant.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances pursuant to s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
20 August 1998

H R Corrin’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 25 June 1998

Mr Corrin of Whangarei complained on behalf of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Public Petition Campaign Group which, he said, supported the retention of the full title of the Museum. The Group complained about an item on wetas broadcast on TV One’s Our World, between 6.30 – 7.30pm on Sunday 21 June, where the credits referred to the "Auckland Museum".

Such a description of the Museum, Mr Corrin wrote, was unfair and a factual error, showed disrespect to the fallen, and merited an apology. Moreover, Mr Corrin recommended that the programme makers carry out some research into the history of the Museum.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 2 July 1998

Acknowledging that the institution had been referred to in the credits of the item as the "Auckland Museum", TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G1 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ cited Authority Decision No: 1997-121 when it had dealt with a complaint about the Auckland Museum being described as the venue for a spider exhibition. On that occasion, the Authority reported:

In its determination of the complaint, the Authority takes into consideration that an exhibition of living spiders, focussing on the tarantula, was the subject of the item. It accepts that the brief reference, by the commonly-used name, to the place where the exhibition was housed does not contravene the standards.

TVNZ added:

With respect, the only difference this time is that the programme was about wetas, rather than spiders.

TVNZ also stated:

We also note that in a subsequent decision not to determine your complaint (1998-010) the Authority noted that "it considers the term (Auckland Museum) to be a reasonable contraction of the description of the title of the museum".

In view of the above rulings, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Corrin’s Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 3 July 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Corrin on behalf of the Group referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Corrin expressed objections to TVNZ’s interpretation of the Authority’s decisions, and made four points.

First, he enclosed material from the campaign against the contraction of the name and, he wrote, it was gaining public support.

Secondly, he said, the Museum was a consecrated memorial to the fallen in the wars, and it held a special significance to Maori.

As for the third point, Mr Corrin said the contraction left foreign viewers with the impression that the institution was just another museum, rather than a monument.

Finally, Mr Corrin asked what was the reason for the opposition to giving the institution the correct name?

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 24 July 1998

TVNZ advised that it had nothing further to add.