BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Drag racing in the streets of Manukau City was the subject of an item on Newsnight

broadcast on TV2 on 15 August 1995 at 10.45pm.

Sergeant C A Maude complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item

glorified an illegal and undesirable activity and lacked balance because it contained no

comment from the police, the Council or about damage done to the roads.

In its response, TVNZ acknowledged that some aspects of the programme were

unsatisfactory and upheld the complaints that it was unbalanced and that it depicted a

criminal activity in a manner which invited imitation. It declined to uphold the

complaint that it failed to respect the principles of law. In upholding a significant part

of the complaint, it advised that both the reporter and the producer had been notified

of the breach of standards. Dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ, having

upheld the complaint, Sergeant Maude referred the 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 action taken

was insufficient and ordered the broadcast of a summary of its decision.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its usual practice, the

Authority determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

A story about illegal drag racing at night on the city streets of Manukau was broadcast

on Newsnight on TV2 on 15 August 1995 at 10.45pm. The item showed a number of

young people and their cars who apparently were frustrated at the lack of a facility to

participate in their sport of drag racing and who had to resort to using city streets to

race their cars, even though it was against the law. A spokesperson for the group

reported on negotiations with the council to secure an appropriate place to race.

Sergeant Maude complained to TVNZ that the item glorified an illegal activity and he

deplored that there was no comment made on the damage done to the road, the danger

posed to pedestrians and others by the racing and of the consequences to businesses

by the vandalism which was associated with the behaviour portrayed. He also

complained that because the item showed drivers breaching sections of the Transport

Act and the Crimes Act, TVNZ had failed to respect the principles of law which

sustain our society.

Describing the item as a genuine attempt to show an unusual aspect of South

Auckland nightlife, TVNZ reported that it had examined it in the context of standards

G5, G6 and G9 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards

require broadcasters:

G5  To respect the principles of law which sustain our society.

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

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

G9  To take care in depicting items which explain the technique of crime

in a manner which invites imitation.

TVNZ acknowledged its concern that the item appeared to condone the activities of

the drivers, both in the script and in the reaction of the studio presenters and that it

failed to ask questions about the anti-social aspects of the drivers' behaviour. To the

complaint that standard G5 was breached, TVNZ responded that because the item

made clear that the activities were illegal, it had complied with that standard. Turning

next to standard G6, TVNZ acknowledged that the item should have asked some

critical questions of the drivers, in order to achieve balance. Because it failed to do so,

TVNZ concluded the item breached standard G6. Finally TVNZ referred to standard

G9. It accepted that the approving tone of the item could be construed as an

invitation to others to imitate an illegal activity and upheld the complaint that standard

G9 was breached.

TVNZ advised Sergeant Maude that it concluded the item was unsatisfactory and that

its decision would be drawn to the attention of the reporter and producer. It advised

that they would be informed that uncritical reporting of illegal activities was not

acceptable. It apologised for the deficiencies in the item.

As he was dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ, Sergeant Maude referred the

complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. In his view,

merely to reprimand the reporter and producer was totally inadequate. He sought an

appropriate announcement on a forthcoming Newsnight programme acknowledging the

breaches.

TVNZ's response to this suggestion was that the matter had already been dealt with

internally and that it considered it unwise to broadcast an on-screen correction since

that would require re-visiting the story.

The Authority agreed with TVNZ that the item was deficient and in breach of

broadcasting standards. However, it was of the view that the breaches warranted more

than an internal reprimand, and that a public acknowledgment of the breaches was

appropriate. While it acknowledged that to some extent the story would have to be

re-visited, the Authority did not believe that would be an impediment, since this

would be done in conjunction with an admission of the seriousness of the breaches.

Consequently, it upheld the complaint that the action taken by TVNZ was not

sufficient.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that

Television New Zealand Ltd's action, having upheld the complaint that the

broadcast of the Newsnight item on TV2 on 15 August at 10.45pm was

unbalanced and showed a criminal activity in a manner which was easy to

imitate, was insufficient.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. As will be apparent from the decision, the Authority believes

that an order is appropriate in this instance. The following order is imposed.

Order

Pursuant to s.13(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders

Television New Zealand Ltd to broadcast a brief summary of its decision,

approved by the Authority, arising from the broadcast of an item on Newsnight

on 15 August 1995. The broadcast shall be made on a Newsnight programme

within one month of the date of this decision, or at such other time or on some

other programme as approved by the Authority.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
19 December 1995

Appendix

Sergeant C A Maude's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 21 August

1995

In a letter addressed to the Authority and forwarded to Television New Zealand Ltd,

Sergeant C A Maude of Auckland complained that the broadcast of an item on

Newsnight on TV2 on 15 August at 10.45pm was in breach of broadcasting standards.

The item concerned illegal drag racing in the streets of Manukau City and, according to

Sergeant Maude, the story purported to be a request for Council to supply an area

where drag racing could be done legally and not on city streets. He complained that

there was no balanced reporting because there was no comment from the police, the

council, firms which have their properties vandalised and from other road users. In his

view, the item glorified its subject by showing what the dragsters do and further, by

showing it in a manner which would encourage others to imitate the activity.

Sergeant Maude reported that the Manukau police were constantly being called upon

to control this undesirable behaviour at the expense of other more pressing duties. He

stated that he was appalled by the content of the programme.

He also added that the spokesperson for the dragsters, who was interviewed about a

suitable site for such racing, had been asked 18 months previously to attend a meeting

to discuss with council whether an area could be put aside, but no one turned up.

Sergeant Maude requested that the Authority investigate this item of news and

censure the producer.

In a second letter, dated 31 August 1995, Sergeant Maude clarified that the standards

which he alleged were breached were standards G5, G6 and G9

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 20 September 1995

In its response to the complainant, TVNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint

under standards G5, G6 and G9 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It

described the item as a genuine attempt by the programme to show an unusual aspect

of night life in South Auckland.

However, TVNZ reported that it felt concern at the uncritical manner in which the

subject was tackled. It observed:

There seemed to be a general atmosphere of approval for the drivers, both in

the script and in the reaction of the studio presenters ("I never knew such

delights existed"). There seemed to be some questions about the anti-social

aspects of the drivers' behaviour which went unasked.

Turning to the standards raised, TVNZ noted that it was made clear in the item that

the behaviour of the drivers was illegal and that was reinforced by the shot of the

police car arriving and the comment "the cops always come - some are busted, others

flee". TVNZ considered that in acknowledging the illegal nature of drag racing, it had

complied with standard G5.

In its assessment of the standard G6 complaint, TVNZ stated that it felt the behaviour

of the young drivers required that critical questions be asked. While it considered that

Sergeant Maude's suggestion that either the police or the council should have been

asked to comment was reasonable, it believed that balance could have been achieved

had a more critical line of questioning been adopted during the interviews with the

drivers. It concluded that standard G6 had been breached.

TVNZ reached a similar decision with respect to standard G9. It accepted that the

approving tone of the item could be construed as an invitation to others to imitate an

illegal activity.

All in all, the committee concluded this was an unsatisfactory item and upheld

your complaint as a breach of standards G6 and G9. The item has already

been the subject of discussion in the "Newsnight" area and the committee's

decision will be drawn to the attention of the reporter and producer concerned.

It will be made clear to them that uncritical reportage of illegal activities is not

acceptable. We stress that it is an abasing experience for journalists to be

found by a committee of their peers to have fallen down on basic standards.

TVNZ apologised for the obvious flaws in the item.

C A Maude's Referral to the Authority - 22 September 1995

Dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ, Sergeant Maude referred his complaint

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

While he was pleased with the fact that TVNZ found the contents of the item

unsatisfactory, Sergeant Maude was not happy with the action taken with respect to

the reporter and producer. He wrote:

To merely reprimand the producer and reporter internally seems to me to be

totally inadequate.

In his view, an appropriate comment should be made by the studio presenter at the

beginning of a Newsnight programme.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 4 October 1995

TVNZ expressed its belief that internal disciplinary action was the appropriate course

to take. It considered that it would be unwise to make an on-screen correction as that

would require re-visiting the story to some extent for the correction to make sense to

viewers.

It reported that the disciplinary action outlined in its earlier letter had been taken and

that the reporter had freely acknowledged error. TVNZ observed that the procedure

of internal disciplinary action was one with which Sergeant Maude, as a member of the

police, would be familiar.

It concluded:

In summary, we believe this matter was dealt with briskly and firmly by

TVNZ's internal system - and we hope the Authority will endorse the action

taken. We think it demonstrates this company's commitment to dealing

seriously with viewer complaints.

C A Maude's Final Comment - 19 October 1995

Sergeant Maude repeated that in his view an apology to viewers was an appropriate

remedy. Referring to TVNZ's suggestion that the police disciplinary system was

similar to its own, Sergeant Maude stated that within the Police force, the people

wronged are notified of the outcome of disciplinary action. He added:

In this instance however, the persons misinformed are the public and should be

notified of an apology in the manner they were misinformed in the first

instance.