BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An interview with a patient who had been allowed to leave Taumarunui Hospital

apparently without the hospital authorities realising the severity of his injuries was

included in an item on the Holmes programme broadcast on 29 June. The hospital was

described as a "Fawlty Towers" facility. An item the following night included an

interview on the matter with the Chief Executive of the Waikato Crown Health

Enterprise.

Mrs Cosh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

sensational and biased item on 29 June was gratuitously insulting and unbalanced.

Pointing out that an item broadcast on the following evening (30 June) balanced the

first item as it included an interview about the incident with the Chief Executive of the

Waikato CHE, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's

response, Mrs Cosh referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority upheld the complaint that the items, while

balanced, nevertheless failed to meet the requirements for impartiality and fairness.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item of 29 June complained about, and

the item on 30 June, and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix).

As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal

hearing.

An item broadcast on Holmes on 29 June interviewed a road accident victim about his

treatment at Taumarunui Hospital. Because the item maintained that the victim had

been allowed to leave the hospital in unsuitable transport before his injuries were fully

diagnosed, the hospital was described as a "Fawlty Towers" facility. The item also

reported that unsuccessful attempts had been made to interview hospital authorities.

An item on Holmes the following evening showed a reporter at Taumarunui Hospital

attempting unsuccessfully to interview someone in authority and it was followed by

the programme's presenter (Mr Paul Holmes) interviewing Dr Tony Cull, Chief

Executive of the Waikato Crown Health Enterprise.

Mrs Cosh complained to TVNZ that the first item was tawdry and gratuitously

insulting to the hospital. The majority of the issues raised were either misreported or

misunderstood.

TVNZ dealt with the complaint essentially as one which alleged a lack of balance and

assessed it under standards G6 and G20 of the Television Codes of Broadcasting

Practice. Under standard G6, broadcasters are required:

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.

Dealing with the "Fawlty Towers" comment, TVNZ maintained that it was

appropriate given the "sad sequel" of events which disclosed that the hospital was not

performing in the way that it should. As for balance, TVNZ said that Dr Cull was

interviewed, as soon as he was available, at which stage he had put the hospital's

point of view. The interview on the evening after the first item, TVNZ stated, was

"within the current period of interest". That phrase is taken from s.4(1)(d) of the

Broadcasting Act which, like standard G6, is also concerned with balance.

When she referred her complaint to the Authority, Mrs Cosh noted seven specific

points on which the item was unbalanced and listed six factual matters which she said

had not been dealt with accurately. She alleged that the item on 29 June had displayed

a bias against the hospital.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ insisted that the "Fawlty Towers" description

was appropriate given the entire chain of events. It also maintained that Dr Cull had

provided balance during the 30 June item and, as the matters in the letter of referral

were not raised in the original complaint, it did not intend to respond to them.

However, at the Authority's request to reconsider that stance on the basis that most

of the additional points were in the nature of elaboration of the original complaint

rather than new material, TVNZ addressed a number of the points. It explained that

Dr Cull acknowledged, when available for interview, that an error of judgment had

occurred at Taumarunui Hospital on the issue of the type of transport to be used to

take the patient to Auckland and he replied to the other criticisms made by the patient

and his friends in the item on 29 June. TVNZ argued that some of the factual material

and opinions advanced by Mrs Cosh in the referral had been gathered in the weeks

after the reports on Holmes on 29 and 30 June.

In her final comment, Mrs Cosh expressed disappointment at TVNZ's attitude and

continued to argue that the programme failed to be balanced and impartial.

In assessing the complaint under standards G6 and G20, the Authority considered

first whether broadcasts on successive days were within the period of current interest

in which balance can be provided. The first item involved an interview with the

former hospital patient at home with a friend. It was followed by an interview with

the Leader of the Opposition about Taumarunui Hospital. The presenter concluded

by announcing that neither the Chief Executive of the Waikato Crown Health

Enterprise nor the Minister for Crown Health Enterprises was prepared to appear on

the programme that evening. The following evening the story was recapped and,

following a brief interview with the patient's girlfriend, a reporter from the Holmes

programme was shown visiting offices at Taumarunui Hospital attempting to find a

person to be interviewed on behalf of the hospital. Then followed a lengthy interview

with Dr Tony Cull, the Chief Executive of the Waikato Crown Health Enterprise.

To deal with the complaint, the Authority has included this sequence of events in the

broadcasts in some detail. It decided as the first point that although the item on the

first night castigated Taumarunui Hospital, the broadcast on the second night was

within the period of current interest and so provided an opportunity for a balanced

coverage of the events in question. The Authority then went on to consider whether

the broadcast on the second night in fact provided the balance required by the

standards – ie the opportunity to respond to the criticisms contained in the first

night's reports when Taumarunui Hospital had been described as a "Fawlty Towers"

facility. In view of the requirements in standard G6, the Authority was also required

to decide whether the items overall were impartial and fair.

In its assessment of impartiality and fairness, the Authority considered as well the

point raised by Mrs Cosh that the patient had been questioned "gently,

sympathetically and respectfully" while the interview with Dr Cull, she claimed, was

"adversarial, aggressive and insulting".

In determining the issues raised by the complaint, the Authority focussed on the

interviews broadcast on 29 and 30 June. It agreed with TVNZ that some of the

material contained in Mrs Cosh's letter when she referred her complaint to the

Authority contained factual information and opinions which appeared to have been

gathered during the weeks after the broadcast and which would not have been available

at the time of the broadcast of the items.

In focussing on the broadcasts, the Authority noted that the comment in the

introduction to the 29 June broadcast – "for Fawlty Towers, read Taumarunui

Hospital" – was based on a number of specific incidents raised during the interview

with the patient. The item criticised Taumarunui Hospital over the way it had dealt

with the following issues: inadequate diagnosis of injuries, inadequate dental treatment,

inadequate food, inadequate treatment for pain, the absence of transport by

ambulance, the use of pillows and the role of the ACC. All these issues (other than

food) were put to Dr Cull in the interview on 30 June in which he maintained that the

treatment given was appropriate. He conceded that transport by ambulance would

have been preferable to the transport by car and described that matter as an error of

judgment on the hospital's part. Despite that admission, he emphasised the

competence of the medical judgment of the personnel at Taumarunui Hospital.

Moreover, he stated that he considered the previous night's item to be biased.

In view of the extent of the criticisms included in the 29 June broadcast, the Authority

was of the view that these comments required some, indeed considerable, response to

ensure that standard G6 was complied with. The Authority also acknowledged that

different interviewing styles had been adopted during the interview, on the one hand,

with the patient and friends and, on the other, with Dr Cull. The patient and friends

were asked sympathetically and patiently to explain the treatment that they felt had

been inflicted on them while Dr Cull, as spokesperson, had had their complaints put

to him aggressively and at times impatiently.

In other words, the patient's and his friends' comments were accepted

unquestioningly as credible while Dr Cull's remarks were invariably challenged.

Indeed, the Authority believed that Dr Cull displayed considerable aplomb in

responding to the questions put to him with explanations and comments which

supported the hospital and countered the "Fawlty Towers" connotations.

In conclusion, the Authority believed that the 29 June item was one-sided: the twice-

repeated description of Taumarunui Hospital as a "Fawlty Towers" facility, while

promoted by the evidence advanced, lacked a response. Yet on the item broadcast the

following day, the Authority was impressed with the skill shown by Dr Cull in

defending the hospital. The opportunity was given to him to comment and, despite

the tenor of the interview, he made effective use of it. Consequently, the Authority

concluded that Dr Cull's appearance ensured that the requirements of standard G20 –

raised by the complaint in addition to standard G6 – were complied with.

In dealing specifically with the standard G6 complaint, the Authority noted that, as is

required to ensure balance, most of the criticisms raised in the first item were put to

Dr Cull. Nevertheless, the Authority decided that, while the interview with him dealt

with some of the criticism inflicted on the hospital in the first item, that broadcast did

not comply fully with all the standard G6 requirements. As reported above, under

standard G6, broadcasters must, in addition to balance, show impartiality and fairness

when dealing with controversial issues.

Taking into account the different approaches adopted in the interviews with the

parties – including the condition of the patient interviewed – and specifically the

differing attitudes towards the credibility of the respondents' answers, the Authority

decided that the requirements for impartiality and fairness were not met. It considered

that for those requirements to have been achieved in the 30 June item, it would have

been necessary to include some editorial acknowledgment perhaps from the presenter –

rather than leave the matter solely to viewers to judge – that the extensive criticisms

broadcast on 29 June were not all substantiated.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast

by Television New Zealand Ltd of items on the Holmes programme on 29 and 30

June 1994 breached the requirements in standard G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice for impartiality and fairness.

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

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

the Act. It does not intend to do so as it regards the requirement for balance in

standard G6 as the principal obligation and as it has acknowledged, it was achieved by

the broadcasts.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
15 December 1994

Appendix

P Heather Cosh's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 22 July

Mrs Heather Cosh of Taumarunui complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about

an item on the Holmes programme on 29 June, broadcast by Television One between

6.30 - 7.00pm, concerning Taumarunui Hospital.

Describing the broadcast as unbalanced, sensational and biased, the complainant said it

was gratuitously insulting to refer to the Taumarunui Hospital as a "Fawlty Towers"

facility. She said that the "tawdry and warped piece of ratings-grabbing" had damaged

morale at the hospital.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 8 August 1994

When TVNZ advised Mrs Cosh of its Complaints Committee's decision, it said that

the complaint had been assessed under standards G6 and G20 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ outlined the story dealt with in the item:

The item concerned a Mr Dean Wong who had been taken to Taumarunui

Hospital after a road accident. It was reported in the item that the severity of

Mr Wong's injuries had not been realised by the hospital which discharged him

resulting in him being driven by friends to Auckland in a hatchback vehicle - to

discover on arrival at hospital there that he had fractures to the back and the

neck, fractured cheek bones, a fractured nose, and fractured jaw and broken

teeth.

It noted that the complaint was confined to the item on 29 June and that Dr Tony

Cull, Chief Executive of the Waikato Crown Health Enterprise, was not prepared to

appear on the programme that night. However, TVNZ said that he did so on 30 June

and he had then put the hospital's point of view. Consequently, TVNZ argued, it had

complied with the standard G6 requirement (as explained in S.4(1)(d) of the

Broadcasting Act) to provide balance "within the period of current interest".

Moreover, TVNZ said, the 30 June item showed a reporter at Taumarunui Hospital

attempting to gain interviews with key staff.

TVNZ also recorded:

On the matter of the use of the term "Fawlty Towers", TVNZ would observe

that the item was clearly referring to a specific incident at the hospital. While

we recognise your concern for the image of the hospital, we do suggest that on

this specific occasion the sad sequel of events warrant a suggestion that the

hospital was not performing in quite the way a hospital should.

Explaining the sequence of events which led to that conclusion, TVNZ denied that the

item was "ratings-grabbing" as it had been fulfilling its watchdog role on behalf of the

public.

TVNZ sympathised with the complainant's concern for her local hospital but denied

that the accurate and fair items had breached the standards.

Mrs Cosh's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 16 August

1994

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, the complainant referred the complaint to the

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

Referring to both programmes, she made the following points:

1) The "Fawlty Towers" reference was included in the introduction to the first

item

and showed that a judgment had been reached after only hearing one side of the

story.

2) The time given to presenting the hospital's case in the two items was

unbalanced.

3) The interview with Mr Wong and his friends was sympathetic while that with

Dr

Cull was aggressive.

4) There was only minimal attempt to follow up the hospital's claims about the

reasons for the treatment received by Mr Wong.

5) It was not reported whether Mr Wong had made any use of the Health

Consumer Service and, if not, why not.

6) TVNZ's efforts to interview the Taumarunui Hospital manager was more

evidence of bias as the team arrived, unannounced, by helicopter and then

attempted to gain an interview.

7) There was no attempt to clarify the position of the dentist despite the item's

slur

on his professional competence.

Furthermore, the complainant listed six points of fact which were at variance to those

reported in the item.

1) Mr Wong was offered ambulance transport to Waikato Hospital - the nearest

base hospital - but preferred to return to Auckland which the ACC would not

fund.

2) "The range and severity of Mr Wong's injuries was fully appreciated" and he

was

under observation for 24 hours given the significant concussion. Full x-rays had

not been carried out given the extent of his neck and facial injuries.

4) Mr Wong was supplied soup as his facial injuries would only allow him liquid

nourishment. "Complan was offered but declined"

5) The dentist, who was not a member of the hospital staff, examined Mr Wong

and

advised the specialist treatment which was necessary. "To remark disparagingly

that he was Ônever seen again' was insulting and uncalled-for".

6) Mr Wong's friends assured hospital staff that a station wagon would be used as

a

means of transport. The staff strongly advised against the use of the hatchback

"but Mr Wong and his friends were insistent upon travelling".

The complainant concluded that the item displayed both overt and subtle bias against

Taumarunui Hospital and its staff.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 19 September 1994

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ noted that the original three paragraph letter of

complaint had become a four-page referral and submitted that the Authority should

confine its review to the matters raised in the original complaint.

TVNZ explained that the use of the term "Fawlty Towers" was appropriate given the

entire chain of events reported.

It repeated the point that the Waikato CHE declined to appear on the 29 June item

because it lacked sufficient information about the case. The following day, a reporter

was shown trying to elicit comment from the Taumarunui authorities and the item

included an interview with Dr Tony Cull of the Waikato CHE which ran for 5 minutes

30 seconds. That interview, TVNZ reiterated, was within the period of current

interest.

TVNZ concluded:

We do not propose to provide a point by point response to Ms Cosh's letter to

the Authority because much of the detail therein was not included in her letter of

complaint to us and therefore should not be considered in a review of our

decision.

Mrs Cosh's Final Comment - 23 September 1994

In her final comment, the complainant expressed her disappointment that TVNZ was

"attempting to evade the issue on a technicality".

Acknowledging that her original letter of complaint might not have been framed with

as much precision as might have been desirable, the complainant said that she did not

accept that the item on 29 June was balanced by the one on the 30th.

The complainant explained:

All that I have done in my letter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority is to

elaborate upon the original complaint, and to itemise the reasons whereby I feel

that the programme fell short of the required standard. The substance of the

complaint remains, as it always has been, that of imbalance and bias.

She concluded:

Incidentally, I have recently been informed that a member of Taumarunui

Hospital's staff, who also made a complaint to TVNZ, has - in recognition of

her concerns - been granted exemption for the year from her broadcasting licence

fee. This implies an acknowledgment that TVNZ were in the wrong.

Further Correspondence

Although Mrs Cosh's original letter of complaint was brief, she emphasised her

concern about the item's lack of balance and questioned its accuracy. Accordingly, the

Authority decided that her four page letter of referral substantially involved the

elaboration of her complaint rather than the introduction of new grounds of complaint.

On that basis, on 6 October 1994, it asked TVNZ to respond to the points raised in

the referral letter.

TVNZ responded in a letter dated 14 October 1994 and its comments are recorded

under similar numbering to that which Mrs Cosh used in her letter of referral.

1) TVNZ said it had responded to the "Fawlty Towers" reference on 19

September.

2) TVNZ repeated that the first item investigated the accident victim's allegations

and, when it was possible to obtain the hospital's reaction, they were broadcast

in the second item. The second broadcast of the on-going story had included a

recap of the first one.

3) Describing Mrs Cosh's observations about the interviewing style as "entirely

subjective", TVNZ denied that there was any bias.

4) Mrs Cosh was wrong, TVNZ stated, when she claimed that there was only

minimal follow up of the hospital's claims. She only gave one side of the pillow

story and, TVNZ maintained, the extent of Mr Wong's injuries were not

appreciated until after the X-rays taken in Auckland had been examined.

5) The reference to the Health Consumer Service was totally new material TVNZ

argued.

6) "Mrs Cosh cannot have it both ways" TVNZ wrote. She could not accuse the

item of lacking balance and then criticise TVNZ for its efforts to obtain balance.

A helicopter had been used as a means of transport to ensure that the material

obtained was ready for the programme's deadline.

7) TVNZ said the dentist was not interviewed as, like other hospital staff, he was

not available.

Much of the other material TVNZ contended, was totally new and had not been used

by Dr Cull (apparently because it was not available) when he was interviewed on 30

June. TVNZ continued:

Mrs Cosh writes as if the facts she has produced are uncontroversial and

indubitable. We suggest they are sometimes opinion led. On the matter of the

ambulance, Dr Cull has already indicated on "Holmes" that there had been an

error of judgement and that Mr Wong was owed an apology.

Facts 2, 3 and 4 could have been released much earlier and now, TVNZ opined:

Frankly, we see them as an example of post-incident damage control, rather than

being specifically related to what happened at Taumarunui.

It then wrote:

On "fact" 5, we observe that if dental care is not available other than by a dentist

"coming out of kindness and at some inconvenience to himself", it is difficult to

see how Mrs Cosh can object to the "Fawlty Towers" characterisation. It is

clear that the dentist did not return after his first visit to a patient badly hurt in a

car crash.

Fact 6 also should have been made available to the media at the time.

TVNZ described Mrs Cosh's accusations of sensationalism and bias as matters of

opinion. As for the allegation of inaccuracy under standard G1, TVNZ maintained:

In reviewing this story under G1 we point out that some facts in this case are

clear, while others are in dispute (and remain so). "Holmes" ran on both rights

stories which were as accurate as they could be, given available information at

the item. As demonstrated in the programme, attempts to check facts on 30

June met with a stone wall.

Ms Cosh has, over a period of approximately six weeks, assembled a version of

events which, she claims, puts the hospital's position. We still do not know her

sources, or the veracity of the "facts". Yet she claims she is right and the team

of professional reporters and producers on "Holmes" are wrong.

As a footnote on the subject of accuracy, TVNZ referred to Mrs Cosh's comment

about a complainant who had been exempted by TVNZ from paying the licence fee.

Denying first that any complaint had been received and secondly that TVNZ could

not authorise an exemption, TVNZ concluded that Mrs Cosh's unchecked remark was

"hearsay, rumour and nonsense".

In her reply dated 25 October 1994, Mrs Cosh said that she had seen both

programmes, expressed disappointment at TVNZ's attitude and maintained that the

programme complied neither in spirit nor the letter with the requirements for balance

and impartiality.