BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The methods used to control protesters at the Asian Development Bank Conference

in Auckland were discussed when Police Assistant Commissioner Brion Duncan was

interviewed by presenter Bill Ralston on 3 National News between 6.00–7.00pm on 4

May 1995.

D V Blomfield complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the item was

unbalanced and was solely concerned with discrediting the police.

Explaining that the clash between police and protesters had been covered as a news

story, and pointing to the current affairs nature of the segment complained about, TV3

said that the issue had been dealt with in a way which did not breach the standards.

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Blomfield referred his complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, 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 Asian Development Bank conference in Auckland was the scene of some

protests. The police efforts in controlling the demonstration encountered some

criticism and, in the current affairs segment of 3 National News on 4 May 1995, the

police practices were surveyed when presenter Bill Ralston interviewed Police

Assistant Commissioner Brion Duncan.

Mr Blomfield objected to the tone of the interview and complained to TV3 that the

item was unbalanced and had been concerned only with discrediting the police.

TV3 assessed the interview under standards G6 and G14 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The former requires broadcasters:

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

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

The latter reads:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

Maintaining that the interview complained about was a current affairs segment, and

that the clash between the police and the protesters had been dealt with earlier in the

programme as a news story, TV3 said the interview involved the presenter seeking the

Assistant Commissioner's reaction to a series of opinions.

TV3 argued that the presenter made it clear that his questions were based on personal

observations, and that the interviewee was given every opportunity to give the police

point of view.

The Authority was first required to decide whether standard G14 was applicable. It

applies only to news, and although the interview complained about occurred during

TV3's "News' hour", the segment principally (and obviously) deals with current

affairs. Accordingly, the Authority did not accept that standard G14 was relevant. It

was also noted however that two of the three issues referred to in standard G4 –

objectivity and impartiality – are also requirements in standard G6 and, furthermore,

were the principal concerns raised by Mr Blomfield.

Should the standard require a broadcaster not only to display impartiality – in the

sense of treating each side equally – but also to be impartial – in the sense of being

without prejudice – then the Authority would uphold the complaint. The presenter's

feelings towards the police on this occasion were clearly partial. Nevertheless, while

his concern at the methods used by the police were apparent, in the Authority's

opinion his questions were fair and amounted, as TV3 explained, to "polite

persistence".

There were, in addition, other matters which contributed to the debate, ensuring that

the broadcast complied with the requirements in standard G6 for fairness and balance.

Assistant Commissioner Duncan dealt with the questions in a professional manner,

and pointed out firmly that the clips which were shown could justifiably be

interpreted in an alternative manner to the one advanced by the presenter.

In summary, the Authority decided that, although the perspectives advanced by the

disputants were clearly visible, viewers were able to form their own opinions of the

merits of the presenter's case against an equally persuasive interviewee. Accordingly,

it concluded that the broadcast had not breached the overall requirement of standard

G6 for balance.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
17 August 1995

Appendix

D V Blomfield's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 4 May 1995

Mr Blomfield of Waikanae complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd (through the

Authority) about an item on that evening's 3 National News when presenter Bill

Ralston interviewed Police Assistant Commissioner Brion Duncan. Mr Blomfield

wrote:

This supposed "news" item was in my view totally lacking in balance and

appeared to be concerned only with discrediting the Police and we are left to

assume the hundreds or possibly thousands of protesters are quite blameless.

The police, unlike the media and the protesters, he added, were not there by choice

and deserved better treatment.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 15 June 1995

TV3 advised Mr Blomfield that the complaint had been assessed under standards G6

and G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It explained that Mr Ralston's segment dealt with current affairs issues and that the

clash between the protesters and the police at the Asian Development Bank

Conference had been covered extensively as a news story earlier in the broadcast.

The item complained about, TV3 continued, involved Mr Ralston expressing his

opinion that there had been an unacceptable level of police aggression directed towards

the protesters and showing video-taped incidents to support his contention. Mr

Duncan was asked to comment on each.

TV3 recorded:

l Mr Ralston made it clear the interview was based on his personal

observations at the scene.

l The interview was in the current affairs segment of the programme.

Earlier news material had provided balanced coverage.

l Without supporting either the Police or the protesters the [Complaints]

Committee felt that four video taped inserts did raise some questions

about Police methods in the minds of most reasonable viewers.

l Assistant Commissioner Brion Duncan was given every opportunity to

give the Police point of view.

l Mr Ralston's demeanour was one of polite persistence.

For the above reasons, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint. It also noted that Mr

Ralston had referred to "60 protesters", not "hundreds or possibly thousands" as the

complaint alleged and, in view of video clips, he would have been derelict in his duty

had he not questioned the police about the methods used.

Mr Blomfield's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 17 June

1995

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Blomfield referred his complaint to the

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

TV3's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26 June 1995

TV3 advised that it did not wish to comment further.

Mr Blomfield's Final Comment - 29 June 1995

Pointing to the TV3's advertising of the 6.00pm "news hour", Mr Blomfield asked

why should a segment became "current events" when that description happened to

suit TV3's purpose.