BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Countdown 93 was the title of the special news programme broadcast by TV3 during the

evening of 6 November 1993 to report the outcome of that day's general election.

Mr and Mrs Burgess complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that its coverage of the

Christian Heritage Party during the campaign and on Countdown 93 was untruthful,

inaccurate and unfair. They pointed out that news media coverage influenced voters and,

consequently, the results and contrasted the extensive coverage given to New Zealand First

– the fourth largest party – with the meagre coverage given to Christian Heritage Party –

the fifth largest.

Maintaining that news value was the criterion on which coverage was based and that was

the reason why the potential split in the National Party caused by the creation of New

Zealand First had been a focus, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with

TV3's decision, Mr and Mrs Burgess referred their complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority, while declining to uphold the substance of the

complaint, upheld by a majority one aspect about TV3's presentation of electorate results

in Countdown 93.

Decision

Because of the length of Countdown 93 (in excess of six hours), the members of the

Authority did not watch it while considering this complaint. However, all the members

had watched part or all of it when it was screened on 6 November last year and accepted,

as the complainants alleged, that only minimal mention was made of the Christian

Heritage Party during the programme. TV3 did not dispute the complainants' points that

the Party's share of the vote was not shown when the totals for each electorate were

displayed or that the Party received comparatively brief coverage during the build-up to

the election when compared with the four Parties who, before the election, held

Parliamentary seats.

TV3 advised the Authority in response to a request for information on the specific point,

that the electorate results only recorded the number of votes for the four main parties. In

the small number of electorates where the New Zealand First Party did not advance a

candidate, the electorate results recorded zero votes for that Party. TV3 advised that it

adopted this format for two reasons. First, it considered that the results of the four major

parties met the newsworthiness criterion as they were the parties which would be involved

in forming the post-election government. Secondly, the technical procedures required to

list the fourth party in the seats not contested by New Zealand First were not available and

would have required manual recording. That, TV3 believed, was inappropriate given the

fast-moving results.

The Authority sought on 25 March 1994 TV3's response to the referral by the Burgesses

of their complaint but did not receive a reply until 15 June – some 12 weeks later and that

was received after a number of reminders. The Authority has reached an agreement with

broadcasters that a response to a request for information about a referral will be received

within one month. The complaint has, after all, been through the broadcaster's

complaints process and should not involve much more research. Should that be required,

however, the Authority is prepared to allow the broadcaster some extra time. TV3 did not

make such a request on this occasion and the Authority records its displeasure at the time

taken by TV3. It is the second contemporaneous complaint in which this broadcaster has

failed to acknowledge its responsibility.

When TV3's response was finally received, the Authority became aware of the difficulty

seemingly facing TV3 in drafting a reply. Because the Christian Heritage Party had

advised the Authority of its dissatisfaction when TV3 did not accept its formal complaint,

the Authority was aware that the Christian Heritage Party complained to TV3 about the

coverage it received during the campaign and on Countdown 93. It was also aware that

TV3 had not been obliged to respond to the Party's complaint because it had not been

received within the statutory time limit.

TV3 attached to its response to the referral by the Burgesses of their complaint, a letter

signed by the Christian Heritage Party's Prayer Director for the Wellington Region in

which he also expressed his dissatisfaction with the coverage received by the Party during

the campaign and on Countdown 93. In the Prayer Director's opinion, TV3 had

misrepresented the facts during the 1993 campaign. In view of the forthcoming changes

to the electoral system, he advised TV3 to exercise "extreme caution" and concluded:

This year and the next I believe voters will deal severely with politicians and the

media alike who play with the truth.

Taking into account the other complaints from the Christian Heritage Party and the

Burgesses which alluded to the probability that the Party would gain political

representation when MMP was introduced for the next election, TV3 described the Prayer

Director's letter as containing a "veiled threat".

The Christian Heritage Party also complained to TVNZ that its election night coverage,

Decision 93, contravened the broadcasting standards for similar reasons advanced by the

Burgesses in regard to Countdown 93. In its decision on that complaint, the Authority

noted that it had been assessed under standards G1, G6 and G20 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The first two require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters,

current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

Standard G20 provides:

G20 No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested

parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present all

significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only by

judging every case on its merits.

Stressing that news value had been the criterion under which it had selected the Parties to

record on the screen, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

The Authority wrote in that decision (No: 33/94, 2 June 1994):

In the Authority's view, news coverage was the principal issue raised by this

complaint. It accepted TVNZ's argument that the matters which should be

imparted to viewers was which Party had won each electorate and which one was

likely to form the government. While these points had been taken into account

before the broadcast and, consequently, had been the reason for focussing on the

Parties represented in Parliament, the possibility of a "hung" Parliament was the

issue which developed during the broadcast of Decision 93.

The Authority also concurred with TVNZ that an election campaign, especially for

the smaller parties, was a "chicken and egg" situation – in that publicity itself as

much as the Party's policies might generate support – and that TVNZ's role was not

to act as a publicity agent. It accepted TVNZ's explanation that the polls did not

disclose a degree of support for the Christian Heritage Party which justified it being

treated as one of the major parties contesting the 1993 election.

In view of these considerations about "news" priorities, the Authority concluded

that TVNZ's general approach to the Christian Heritage Party as contained in

Decision 93 did not breach the nominated broadcasting standards.

In that decision, the Authority then proceeded to deal with the aspect of the complaint

that electorate results listed the same four parties whether or not they had advanced a

candidate in the specific electorate. It recorded in regard to the 14 seats in which the New

Zealand First Party did not field a candidate:

If the broadcaster decided on a presentation which named four parties in each

electorate, then the majority of the Authority was of the view that the public

should be entitled to know the four leading parties. In those seats, the majority

considered, it would have been fairer to have shown the Party that actually filled

one of the first four places, rather than the party that was not a contender in the

seat showing a zero.

While agreeing with TVNZ that the greater part of the complaint should not be

upheld as it accepted the broadcaster's logic in selecting the results shown, a

majority of the Authority considered that it might have been misleading to show a

nil return for a Party not represented in 14 specific electorates named when results

from those electorates were broadcast. The majority was also of the view that it

was not unfair to a major degree nor did it affect the overall impact of the

programme. However, the majority concluded that the broadcast breached

standard G6 of the Television Code.

The minority of the Authority disagreed. It accepted the broadcaster's reasons for

showing the results in the format used and did not consider it to be unfair to the

Christian Heritage Party.

The Authority reached a similar decision in regard to the Burgesses' complaint about TV3's

election night broadcast.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority upholds the

complaint that a minor part the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd of

the programme Countdown 93 breached standard G6 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. As explained in the decision, the Authority declined to uphold

what it considered to be the principal issue raised. The aspect upheld is not significant in

the context of the complaint and, accordingly, the Authority believed an order was not

appropriate.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
7 July 1994

Appendix

Mr and Mrs Burgesses' Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited

In a letter dated 1 December 1993, Keith and Kay Burgess of Palmerston North

complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the coverage given to the Christian

Heritage Party during Countdown 93. Countdown 93 was the title of the special news

programme broadcast from 6.30 pm on Saturday 6 November 1993 until after midnight

reporting the outcome of that day's general election.

Arguing that the news media coverage was influential on voting patterns and,

consequently, on the results, the Burgesses recalled that during the election campaign they

had spoken to TV3's News Director on two occasions and were led to believe that the Party

could expect to receive some coverage. However,

Graham Capill, Party Leader, was never interviewed on TV3 news bulletins during

the campaign, and was not ever mentioned in any of the Current Affairs

programmes. The fact that he appeared after the election is irrelevant to the

complaint. Even TVNZ saw some newsworthiness in the Christian Heritage

campaign, albeit rather meagre also, in that they interviewed the Leader at least

once in the lead up to the election.

Noting that the New Zealand First Party and its leader had received extensive coverage, the

Burgesses wrote that that party was still forming policies up to election day while the

Christian Heritage Party had earlier issued a full and comprehensive manifesto. It added:

Without much help from the media, Christian Heritage was polling 3% of the

national vote prior to the election and one must concede that it is the 5th largest

party. The party also polled fourth in all seats where NZ First failed to have a

candidate, and 5th on the majority of all others. CHP received as many votes as all

the minor parties put together, in almost every seat. Why was it then, that during

the election night coverage, CHP did not rate a mention. Again we can only come

to the conclusion that it was predetermined what would be shown, regardless. It

does seem strange that it was deemed newsworthy to show a nil result for NZ First,

where there was no candidate, and totally ignore the fourth polling party in those

electorates. For this reason we seriously challenge TV3's fairness on polling night in

pre-selecting which Party to show results for. Thus we maintain that they misled

the public in suggesting that the NZ Party had candidates in electorates where in

fact there were none.

During the election period as it failed to deal with the Christian Heritage Party truthfully,

accurately or fairly, the Burgesses concluded, TV3 had breached standards G1, G6 and

G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint

TV3 advised the Burgesses of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter dated 28

February 1994.

The most important point, it noted, was the fact that it based its election coverage on

"news value". It continued:

In other words, we ran stories which we believed were of interest to our viewers.

We were not governed by an attempt to advise the voting public of the policies of

the Christian Heritage Party, or any other party. We believe that television is not

the best vehicle for delivery of that information. The print media are better able to

deal with the detail of party policies.

In addition to the news stories, TV3 had also heeded the cut and thrust of the election

campaign, its atmosphere and the issues and the leaders. In dealing with these matters,

TV3 had not been guided by the age of the party, its support as recorded in the polls or

advertising allocation. As part of its coverage, TV3 reported, it had discussed Winston

Peters, the split in the National Party and the formation of the New Zealand First Party.

TV3 commented:

We would like to point out that we did not in fact ignore the Christian Heritage

Party. On one occasion we did a news story that we felt would be of interest to our

viewers, ie an item on Mere Wirepa with regard to her being the oldest candidate

ever to contest a seat in a general election.

Also since the election we have had the Christian Heritage Party leader, the

Reverend Capill, in our Christchurch studio for a debate on a moral issue which

lasted for several minutes.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

The Burgesses' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, in a letter dated 14 March 1993 Mr and Mrs Burgess

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

In their detailed letter dated 15 March 1994, they repeated the substance of their

complaint to TV3. As for broadcasts of a small item on the oldest candidate, they wrote:

This could have been seen by some as a ridicule of the Party. There were plenty of

other things happening that were of greater interest to the people of New Zealand

such as the Leader's rally in Auckland where over 250 people gathered; a far larger

audience than most sitting MPs could draw.

The disagreed with the reason advanced by TV3 for the "vast coverage" of New Zealand

First, adding:

Had the cameras followed Graham Capill as diligently as they did Winston Peters,

the people of New Zealand would be better able to form an opinion of Christian

Heritage and would know that they are a well organised Political Party. There is no

doubt that public opinion is swayed by what the media choose to portray.

They concluded by reiterating that TV3 had breached standards G1, G6 and G20 of the

Television Code and expressed concern about TV3's potential coverage of the next election

at which, they averred, the Christian Heritage Party had every chance of putting several

members in Parliament.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint

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

letter is dated 25 March 1994 and TV3's reply, 15 June.

Reiterating the point that, based on news value, the broadcast covered the four major

parties, TV3 said its role was not to act as a publicity agent for the minor parties. The

parties chosen were those represented in Parliament and those which were expected to play

a part in forming the government after the election. TV3 continued:

Had at any stage during the election campaign there had been any indicators that

Christian Heritage Party was gathering some sudden surge in public support it is

likely TV3 would have reported it.

It argued that the results broadcast on the item contained the appropriate amount of

information.

In addition, TV3 enclosed a letter signed by the Prayer Director for the Wellington Region

of the Christian Heritage Party expressing concern at the inadequate coverage the Party

had received from TV3. The letter continued:

This country was built on a justice system based on the Bible, yet we as a nation are

allowing unfair and undemocratic platforms to be set up. We believe that as one

part of the media that your organisation has a responsibility to report the facts.

We are not seeing this being done and I believe that the public has a right to receive

the facts as they are, not misrepresented.

As the current political climate now enters into a very real change to the future, I

see your role to be exercised with extreme caution.

This year and the next I believe voters will deal severely with politicians and the

media alike who play with the truth.

TV3 concluded its report to the Authority by stating that it had given thought as to how to

respond to what it believed was a "veiled threat":

... but after due deliberation decided to highlight their inclusion in the complaints

to the Authority and leave further comment to the Authority.

In response to a letter from the Authority asking exactly how the electorate results were

presented on Countdown 93, TV3 advised by telephone on 20 June 1994 that the results

recorded the number of voters received by the candidates from the four main parties.

Because of the limited technical capabilities, when New Zealand First did not advance a

candidate, the results recorded a result of zero beside that party. The only way of dealing

with this situation which applied in a small number of electorates, TV3 added, would have

been to record the results manually.

The Burgesses' Final Comment to the Authority

When asked for a brief comment on TV3's reply, in a letter dated 24 June the Burgesses

maintained that TV3 had been unfair in selecting only four parties.

Any comment they had made about a possible portfolio for the Christian Heritage Party

was light-hearted speculation and were separate from the comments in the other letter.

They concluded:

We believe the main issue is very clear, in that TV3 were unfair, and needs to be

rectified for future reporting.