BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A report about the likelihood of further redundancies being announced by NZ Rail was the

lead item on One Network News at 6.00pm on 5 November 1993 – the evening before the

general election on Saturday 6 November.

Mr Thornton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast of a speculative

news item about a matter related to the existing government's policy in the final hours of

the campaign breached the standard which required news and current affairs to be

impartial, accurate and objective.

Noting that the item was the product of considerable research and explaining that

journalism required news information to be passed on to the public as soon as possible,

TVNZ maintained that the standard had not been breached. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's

response, Mr Thornton referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

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

For the reasons given below, a majority of the Authority declined 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 has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

The lead story in One Network News on Friday 5 November 1993 reported the likelihood

of up to 1000 further redundancies at NZ Rail. The item included a comment from an

interview broadcast on Frontline in August in which a representative from the new

American owners of NZ Rail acknowledged the likelihood of redundancies. The 5

November item reported that it was understood that the major political parties had been

advised of the current proposals but no comment from any party was included. It also

reported that NZ Rail declined to comment on the current story.

Mr Thornton complained to TVNZ that the broadcast of such a "speculative" item on the

evening before the general election breached the broadcaster's duty to be impartial,

accurate and objective in its news and current affairs programmes. He pointed out that he

had delayed making his complaint until near the end of the statutory 20 working day

period to see if the item was substantiated by developments. That, he added, had not

happened and, in fact, only about 200 people had been made redundant.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice which reads:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

Pointing out that the item was the product of considerable research and had been

confirmed by "no fewer than four" separate sources, TVNZ continued:

In the view of the [Complaints] Committee, news is not a commodity that should be

tailored to a particular time. Once the reliability of news information is established

it should be passed on to the public as soon as possible. To do otherwise is to deny

what news journalism is all about.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Thornton argued that TVNZ's

acknowledgment that the "up to a thousand" figure was a considerable over-estimate,

supported his concern that broadcasting a speculative item dealing with the election issue

of unemployment was in breach of the standard.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ did not concede that the figure was an over-estimate.

That number, it stated, had not yet been reached. As for broadcasting controversial items

on the eve of an election, TVNZ said that it was in a no-win situation. If reported, it risked

the ire of the existing government but, if not reported, it risked allegations that news had

been suppressed.

The Authority accepted that a broadcaster was in a difficult position reporting

controversial issues during election campaigns. It accepted TVNZ's view that the

broadcaster had no option but to report important news. However, plainly all items have

to comply with the broadcasting standards and because of their possible political impact,

extra care should be taken with news broadcast on the eve of an election.

On that basis, the Authority assessed the complaint under the requirements for accuracy,

objectivity and impartiality in standard G14. Although each requirement is assessed

separately below, the Authority stresses that the points noted under each heading are

usually applicable to the other headings. However, in the interests of brevity, these points

have not been repeated.

In regard to accuracy, the item did not give either a precise number or a time frame

within which the redundancies would occur. As the reduction in NZ Rail's staff numbers

continued and continues to take place, the Authority decided that it was not able to

determine conclusively whether or not the item was accurate.

As for the requirement for objectivity, the Authority noted the use of qualifiers both in the

headline introduction and in the item itself. Because of the extensive use of such terms as

"it is understood" and because of NZ Rail's "no comment" when its response was sought for

the purpose of balance (which TVNZ maintained added veracity to its report in the

circumstances), a majority of the Authority decided that the item did not contravene the

objectivity provision.

In dealing with the need for impartiality, the item included an archival comment on

behalf of the American owner who had agreed several months earlier that redundancies

were inevitable. Again, as more recent comment from NZ Rail was sought but was not

available, the requirement for impartiality, a majority of the Authority concluded, was not

transgressed.

Although the majority was of the view that the individual requirements in standard G14

had not been breached, the Authority concluded by examining the item overall. It

acknowledged that during an election campaign the broadcaster was open to criticism if it

broadcast such an item and also if it did not. It observed, as Mr Thornton alleged, that the

tone of the item was speculative but, in order to comply with the standards, TVNZ had

made considerable use of qualifiers in the item which was broadcast. Furthermore, it

advised the Authority, it had based the item on four distinct sources. For these reasons, a

majority of the Authority concluded that the item, overall, did not contravene standard

G14.

The minority also acknowledged that TVNZ had a responsibility to report important news

and might have been placed in a difficult situation on the eve of the election. Nevertheless,

it believed that the use of such qualifications as "it is understood" and "up to" did not justify

the use of a specific figure which would clearly have an impact and an emotional one at

that. Furthermore no time limit was mentioned, the item reporting that an

announcement would be made soon after the election. Almost six months have elapsed

and the redundancies amount to a little more than half the number stated. If one took

TVNZ's argument to the extreme, presumably "up to 1000" would be just as acceptable

even if the figure had been 200. There was inevitably a degree of speculation in the item

and, whilst acknowledging that it is easy to be wise in retrospect, the minority believed

that the words "several hundred" (or similar) would have been much more appropriate in

the circumstances. The minority also believed that this item related directly to

unemployment which was undoubtedly an election issue.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority declines to

uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
28 April 1994

Appendix

Mr Thornton's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited

In a letter dated 2 December 1993, Mr David Thornton of Auckland complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on One Network News broadcast between

6.00pm and 6.30pm on Friday 5 November.

The item, he said, reported that TVNZ understood that up to 1,000 people were soon to be

made redundant by NZ Rail and that an official announcement would be made soon after

the election. The item also reported that the information came from a reliable source and

that both major parties had been advised of the situation.

Recalling that the possibility of large-scale redundancies was one of the reasons for the

opposition to the sale of NZ Rail, Mr Thornton maintained that the item would be

interpreted by many as a negative consequence of the sale by the National Government of

the organisation.

Mr Thornton accepted that while "speculative" items such as the one broadcast were

acceptable in a regular news bulletin, he wrote:

However - and this is my complaint - this particular item was broadcast in the last

major 6.00pm bulletin prior to the Election and referred to potential

unemployment - a subject which was widely held to be the most significant election

issue for the majority of voters. In the minds of many viewers the cause of this

"bad news" would almost certainly have been identified as National Party policies -

and consequently would have affected their voting intention. In these

circumstances I suggest this news item should not have been broadcast without

corroboration from some attributable and totally reliable source.

Noting that subsequent announcement about NZ Rail redundancies amounted to around

200 jobs - "a long, long way short of 1,000" - Mr Thornton said the broadcast of the news

watched by 700,000 viewers each evening, breached the standard requiring broadcasters

to be impartial, accurate and objective in its news and current affairs programmes.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint

TVNZ's Programme Standards Manager, Mr David Edmunds, advised Mr Thornton of

TVNZ's Complaints Committee's decision in a letter dated 13 December 1993.

Recording that the complaint had been assessed under standard G14 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice, the letter reported that the item was the result of considerable

research and had been confirmed by four separate sources. It continued:

In the view of the [Complaints] Committee, news is not a commodity that should be

tailored to a particular time. Once the reliability of news information is established

it should be passed on to the public as soon as possible. To do otherwise is to deny

what news journalism is all about.

The story was one of considerable importance - and was given extra credibility both

by the refusal of NZ Rail to take the opportunity to dispute or refute the claim, and

by the new head of NZ Rail's earlier comments (included in the item) that layoffs

were inevitable in a railway system that was overstaffed.

The letter emphasised that the item had used the expression "up to a thousand" and had

reported that "no numbers are available". Noting that news was news on whatever day it

emerged, TVNZ maintained that as the item was accurate, objective and impartial, the

standard had not been breached.

Mr Thornton's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, in a letter dated 27 January 1994, Mr Thornton referred

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

Act 1989.

Arguing that TVNZ acknowledged that the figure of "up to a thousand" was a considerable

over-estimate, Mr Thornton maintained that the item was "speculative". He agreed with

TVNZ that the proximity of a general election was no reason to suppress news but, he

added, the item complained about was speculative rather than hard news. It was also

related to probable unemployment - another major election issue - and he questioned

whether speculation amounted to news. He noted that redundancies in NZ Rail, since the

announcement, did not amount to anywhere near the number of 1,000.

He argued that the standard was breached, concluding:

The public is entitled to rely on the accuracy and reliability of news information

and in this specific instance it seems that the TVNZ story was inaccurate in relation

to the number of redundancies - a major element of the story. There was no basis

for speculating on the numbers involved - particularly on the eve of an election.

Without those figures the story would have been merely a re-hash of comments

from NZ Rail made earlier in the year. The figures provided the basis for the story.

The figures were unsubstantiated and have proved wholly inaccurate.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint. Its

letter is dated 31 January 1994 and TVNZ's reply, 21 February.

Stating that it had little to add to the Complaints Committee's report, Mr Edmunds on

TVNZ's behalf said that Mr Thornton had read more into its earlier letter than was

written. He recorded:

We did not say that the figure of up to a thousand redundancies was a considerable

over-estimate. We conceded, rather, that at the time the complaint was considered

the number of redundancies had not yet reached that figure.

TVNZ remained confident, the letter added, that the new owners of NZ Rail believed the

organisation was overstaffed by between 800 - 1000 people and the story broadcast on 5

November would be proved accurate.

Moreover, newspaper clippings were enclosed to show that what Mr Thornton described as

"speculation" was proving increasingly accurate as time passed.

Maintaining that the item did not contravene the standard, TVNZ remarked:

As a general observation we observe that a news service that completes a news

investigation of this nature on the eve of an election immediately finds itself in a

no-win situation. In running it, the news service risks the ire of those such as Mr

Thornton who fear for the impact it may have on the election success of the

existing government. But imagine the furore that might ensue were the story not

run and opponents of the government subsequently discovered that it had been

withheld - or "suppressed".

Mr Thornton's Final Comment to the Authority

When asked for a brief comment on TVNZ's response, in a letter dated 11 March Mr

Thornton stated that it was "interesting to note" that four months after the broadcast the

estimate of redundancies amounted to 320 - less than one third of the figure reported by

TVNZ. He also considered that TVNZ's speculative item had fuelled the rumours about NZ

Rail before the election.

Expressing sympathy that TVNZ felt itself to be in a "no-win" situation, he pointed out

nevertheless that the figures had still not been substantiated. As the estimate of "up to one

thousand' had given the item prominence, he argued that TVNZ should have produced

positive evidence to justify them.

TVNZ, Mr Thornton wrote, had made the wrong decision on this occasion to broadcast a

speculative item which could influence voters in such a spectacular manner.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 15 March 1994, TVNZ drew the Authority's attention to recent radio

news stories which revealed a proposed further 246 redundancies by NZ Rail. Together

with those acknowledged, the total was no 566 and would, TVNZ maintained, approach in

due course the figure of "up to a thousand".

In response, in a letter dated 28 March, Mr Thornton said that 246 was the maximum

number of the recently announced redundancies and the final figure depended on

negotiations with staff and unions.

He persisted with his complaint that the original item was highly speculative and that,

after five months, there were only 320 confirmed redundancies.