BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The forthcoming visit to New Zealand of the Dalai Lama was dealt with in an item on

Newsnight broadcast on TV One at 9.40pm on 27 August 1996. He was profiled in an

item on 60 Minutes broadcast at 7.30pm on 8 September 1996. Each programme

reported that China had invaded Tibet in 1950 and that the Dalai Lama went into self-

exile in 1959. The news item noted that the Chinese government opposed the Dalai

Lama's visit to New Zealand.

Mr Tuohy complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that each programme was one-

sided and inaccurate. They omitted to report, he said, that Tibet had been part of

China since the 13th century and that the Dalai Lama went into exile following a failed

coup. The news item, he added, omitted to give the reasons for the Chinese

government's opposition to the visit.

On the basis that the facts contained in each programme were accurate and that the use

of the word "invasion" to describe the events in 1950 was considered correct

internationally, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Tuohy referred the complaints to the

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold both complaints.

Decision

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

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

Media coverage of the forthcoming visit by the Dalai Lama to New Zealand included a

news item on Tonight on 27 August and a profile in a segment broadcast on 60

Minutes on 8 September. Each item alluded briefly to the history of Tibet. Both

reported that Tibet had been invaded by China in 1950 and that the Dalai Lama went

into self-exile in 1959.

The news item reported in addition that the Chinese government opposed his visit to

New Zealand. The 60 Minutes programme said that the Chinese government disputed

the Dalai Lama's chosen successor, the Panchen Lama, and showed pictures of the

alternative Panchen Lama chosen by the Government. That broadcast also said that it

was necessary to protect the Dalai Lama from threats to his life made by the Chinese.

Mr Tuohy complained to TVNZ that both broadcasts were unbalanced and had

covered the political dispute between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government in a

one-sided and tendentious way.

Mr Tuohy maintained that Tibet had been part of China since the 13th century and

what was described as an "invasion" in 1950, actually involved the extension of the

government's authority to the outlying parts of the country after the civil war. The

Dalai Lama went into exile, he continued, after his participation in an attempted coup.

Mr Tuohy also complained that the news item did not explain the reason why the

Chinese government opposed the visit.

Mr Tuohy considered that the aspect of the 60 Minutes segment which referred to the

Panchen Lama was misleading as important facts were omitted. Overall, he considered

that the items, including the suggestion that the Chinese government was attempting to

assassinate the Dalai Lama, relied heavily on insinuation and aspersion. The approach

adopted, especially in the 60 Minutes item, was anti-communist and designed to

arouse support for Tibetan independence and hatred and contempt for the Chinese

government.

As redress for the alleged transgressions, Mr Tuohy sought a public acknowledgment

from TVNZ that these items were unbalanced and misleading.

TVNZ assessed the complaints under standards G1 and G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. They requires 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.

In its response to the criticism of the use of the term "invasion" to describe events in

1950, TVNZ argued that it was not an inappropriate term given the history of Tibet

since the 13th century. Tibet, it said, had evolved into an autonomous region for

which the term "invasion", or perhaps "annexation", was appropriate for the events in

1950. It considered that the 60 Minutes item had dealt with the issue of the Panchen

Lama advanced by the Chinese government with appropriate cynicism. Visual

evidence showed the extent of security considered necessary for the Dalai Lama and

the news item had reported the Chinese government's opposition to the Dalai Lama's

visit to New Zealand to the extent that reasons had been given.

When he referred his complaints to the Authority, Mr Tuohy maintained his

criticisms that the items had adopted a "Western" interpretation of history. Why, he

asked, had TVNZ not adopted the same critical approach to the "Western" version as

it had to the "Chinese" account? The approach adopted, he argued, saw the situation

in Tibet as a contest between "Good" and "Evil" and one where the viewers were

informed of the conflict only from the "Good" perspective.

In its report to the Authority on the complaint about the item on Tonight, TVNZ

maintained that its version of history was accepted everywhere but, it seemed, in

Beijing. TVNZ's Programme Standards manager wrote:

In double checking this story as a result of the referral I find the description

given on "Tonight" is consistent with the description contained in current

editions of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" and with historical volumes at the

University of Auckland Library.

TVNZ described history as "culturally relative" in its report to the Authority on the

referral about the 60 Minutes item and asserted that the view contained in the

broadcast was that held by disinterested historians within the cultural background

reflected in the broadcast.

There are two standards raised in these complaints: standard G1 requiring accuracy

and standard G6 imposing a requirement for balance. As it is unlikely that the

Authority will be able to determine the disputed historical points in a way which

would satisfy mainstream historians from either perspectives, it has subsumed the

accuracy issues under standard G1 into the standard G6 requirement for balance.

Mr Tuohy complained that TVNZ did not report the reasons why the Chinese

government opposed the Dalai Lama's visit to New Zealand. TVNZ said it reported

the opposition, and the reasons to the extent that they were given. By doing so, the

Authority does not accept this aspect of the broadcast contravened the standard.

In determining the balance requirement raised by these complaints, the Authority is

confronted with the same issue which arose under the accuracy requirement. That is,

there is unlikely to be agreement between the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama

about many political or indeed religious issues which divide them. The Authority

considers that to comply with the requirements for balance and fairness in standard

G6 in these circumstances, it is important to acknowledge that there are different

perspectives.

The Authority does not dispute Mr Tuohy's claim that most of the material given in

the items he complained about was presented, at least, initially, as advantageous to the

Dalai Lama's interpretation of events. This was particularly apparent in the item on

60 Minutes which was presented as a profile of the Dalai Lama. However, the items

did not stop there. To varying degrees given the length of each item, both made it clear

that the Dalai Lama's account on a number of points was challenged by the Chinese

government. The Authority does not accept that the disagreement between the Dalai

Lama and the Chinese government was advanced as a battle or contretemps between

"Good" and "Evil". To the extent that the issues covered involved a disagreement, the

Authority considers that the opposing viewpoints were advanced as if each contained

some realistic merit.

As noted above, both items were, in part, a profile of the Dalai Lama. Accordingly,

not unexpectedly, his account of the disputed matters tended to be advanced first.

Nevertheless, from both the questions put to him and the observations in the

commentary in each case, it was apparent that many of the matters he raised were

issues which the Chinese government disputed. Thus, as the items ensured that both

perspectives were introduced, the Authority does not accept that standard G6 was

breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 December 1996

Appendix I

Mr Tuohy's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 28 August 1996

Brendan Tuohy of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

news item broadcast on Newsnight at 9.40pm on 27 August which referred to the

forthcoming visit of the Dalai Lama to New Zealand. Mr Tuohy wrote:

This item failed to meet the broadcasting standards in that it was unbalanced,

giving a view of the political dispute between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese

government in a one-sided and tendentious way. It also breached the standards

in that it was inaccurate.

Elaborating on his contentions, Mr Tuohy said that Tibet had been part of China since

the 13th century and the "so-called invasion" of 1950 involved the extension of the

government's authority to the outlying parts of the country after the civil war. The

use of the term "invasion", he wrote, was calculated to arouse hostility against the

Chinese government.

The omission of the Dalai Lama's involvement in an attempted coup in 1957, he

added, created a misleading impression of the reasons for his self-exile. Mr Tuohy

continued:

The Chinese government's opposition to the Dalai Lama's visit to NZ was

mentioned, but no reasons for it were given, ie leaving the clear impression that it

is just an extension of the government's alleged murderous hostility to the lama.

Maintaining that the New Zealand's government claim that the Dalai Lama's visit to

New Zealand was strictly religious was false, Mr Tuohy sought an admission that the

item was misleading, and a reasonable opportunity for a Chinese government

spokesperson to provide balance.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 6 September 1996

Assessing the complaint under standards G1 and G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ argued that the item was "a straight forward

backgrounder on the forthcoming visit of the Dalai Lama". The item did not purport

to give a history of his dispute with the Chinese government and it was not interested

to explain all the nuances for and against the Chinese actions in the 1950s. It

continued:

We consider it is a fact that the Dalai Lama is in exile. It is also a fact that China

took control of Tibet in 1950. We use the word "invasion" which most

historians would consider was a correct description of what occurred. It is also a

fact that the Dalai Lama fled Tibet after a series of internal revolts which

cumulated in the unsuccessful uprising of 1959. Two days later his Summer

Palace was bombed. China now controls Tibet and actively attempts to

dissuade other countries from recognising the Dalai Lama in any form.

As it did not regard the item as biased or an endorsement of the Dalai Lama's struggle,

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Tuohy's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 1 October 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Tuohy referred the complaint to the

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

lengthy letter, he maintained that the item was unbalanced and inaccurate and in breach

of standards G1, G6 and G14.

Dealing first with the complaint about one-sidedness overall, Mr Tuohy argued that

although the item reported the Chinese government's opposition to the Dalai Lama's

visit, no reason was given for its opposition. Nevertheless, the Dalai Lama's version

of events was advanced as correct. There was no need for all the "nuances" of the

dispute, he said, just the views of the contending sides. The one-sided and partial

report, he wrote, lead to bias and inaccuracy.

Mr Tuohy then dealt in some detail with the events in 1950 and questioned TVNZ's

claim that most historians would describe the incident in 1950 as an "invasion". He

persisted with his complaint that TVNZ's brief summary of the events in the 1950s

was misleading, unbalanced, partial and unfair.

Mr Tuohy also continued to argue that the item did not deal adequately with the

Chinese government's opposition to the visit on the grounds that the Dalai Lama used

his religious position to further his political struggle. While the visit included a

religious aspect, Mr Tuohy contended:

In fact, the visit was used by the Dalai Lama and the organisers to press openly

and vigorously for support from New Zealanders, including the government, for

the Dalai Lama in his conflict with the Chinese authorities.

He continued by explaining:

The point is that by ignoring the Chinese government's opposition to the

political agenda of the visit, a false light was cast on the dispute with the NZ

government. The Chinese government's opposition was made to appear as just

another extension of the villainy that the item attributed to them throughout.

And the real difficulty that faced the NZ government in having "religious"

meetings during an overtly political visit was glossed over.

Pointing out that his complaint was based on his concern about the complete exclusion

from the item of the Chinese point of view, Mr Tuohy said that TVNZ's failure to

acknowledge the Chinese viewpoint amounted to partisanship. He concluded:

That is why I proposed as a resolution of my complaint that TVNZ should give

an opportunity for someone from the Chinese government side to put their

point of view. The balancing information that their representative could give

would be valuable to viewers. But even more importantly, screening it would

show that the TV news treats all parties to disputes, however unpopular they

may be, as full human beings with their own genuine perspectives and

understanding of the situation.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 15 October 1996

Explaining that the item set the scene for the Dalai Lama's visit to New Zealand,

TVNZ said the complainant seemed to be concerned that the item ignored the Chinese

position on his status.

While it acknowledged that history could be seen from a modern perspective, TVNZ

maintained that its summary was accepted virtually everywhere but in Beijing. It

reported that its description coincided with that in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" and

in university history books. While claimed by Chinese dynasties in the 13th century,

Tibet had evolved as an autonomous theist state until 1950 when Chinese troops

swept into Tibet in an action which, TVNZ maintained, could justifiably be described

as an invasion. An article for the Listener dated 28 September was attached reporting

events in a similar way to that broadcast by TVNZ.

TVNZ added:

For the record TVNZ did contact Chinese Embassy officials in Wellington

before the broadcast and their insistence that the Dalai Lama's visit to New

Zealand should not go ahead ("so that Sino-New Zealand relations can be

developed smoothly with no interference") was reported in the introduction to

the item.

Because it did not want to be a vehicle for "propaganda", TVNZ said it approached

the Chinese government line with some cynicism in view of the findings of

independent historians.

Mr Tuohy's Final Comment - 26 October 1996

Mr Tuohy's final comment was contained in his letter referring his complaint about

the 60 Minutes item to the Authority (see Appendix II). He made the following

comment specifically in relation to the news item he had complained about. Pointing

out that TVNZ had adopted a critical view of the history he recounted but had not

treated the account it put forward with the same scepticism, Mr Tuohy said TVNZ's

history was the "Western" version. He pointed out that the "Western" history of the

cold war was not disinterested, and that the British version was influenced by the

history in Hong Kong and by its invasion of Tibet in 1904 for the official reason "to

protect Tibet from the Russians".

Appendix II

Mr Tuohy's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 9 September 1996

Brendan Tuohy of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

item on the Dalai Lama broadcast on 60 Minutes at 7.30pm on 8 September 1996. He

noted that he had complained about an earlier item about the Dalai Lama on Tonight on

27 August 1996 and, because he considered that their inaccuracies and biases were

shared, he asked that both complaints be considered together.

Referring specifically to the item on 60 Minutes, Mr Tuohy said it was inaccurate

when it alleged that Tibet had been an independent state until its annexation by China

in 1950. Moreover, the programme had put forward a partial view to suggest that the

"atheist" Chinese government had hypocritically appointed a rival Panchen Lama (the

successor) to thwart the rightful candidate chosen by the Dalai Lama. Pertinent facts,

he said, had been omitted in the interests of presenting an anti-communist view. He

continued:

For the rest of the item questions of factual inaccuracy are largely irrelevant,

since it relied so heavily on insinuation and aspersion, with the very minimum of

direct claims. The bias of the article was so obvious that the interviewer didn't

event pretend to wear a mask of impartiality. His role as anti-communist

partisan was quite explicit. The item was clearly calculated to arouse feelings of

hatred and contempt for the Chinese government, to present Tibet under the

People's Republic as a hell on earth, and to arouse support for the Tibetan

independence movement.

He regarded the item's insinuation that the Chinese Government was trying to

assassinate the Dalai Lama as an example of a misleading impression created by the

broadcast. Further, material from Peoples Republic of China was presented as

untruthful propaganda.

On the issue of Tibetan autonomy emphasised in the item, Mr Tuohy recorded some

matters of history which justified a limited view of Tibet as autonomous.

Nevertheless, he concluded:

But Tibetan autonomy did not extend to whether the sovereignty of the central

government should be recognised or not: this was one area where Chinese

authority was exercised directly. Tibetan rulers had to acknowledge their

subordination within the Chinese state and they did so.

He repeated a point made with regard to the complaint about the news item - on the

question of the Chinese view of the Dalai Lama's visit, TVNZ did not record the

reasons for the Chinese opposition.

Alleging a breach of standards G1 and G6, Mr Tuohy sought a public acknowledgment

by TVNZ that the item was unbalanced and misleading.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 1 October 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ commented that the

views advanced by Mr Tuohy differed from those held by disinterested historians on

whom the item was based.

Describing China's claim to Tibet in the 13th century as a simplification of the facts,

TVNZ argued that it had since evolved as an autonomous existence quite separate

from Chinese authority. In 1950, TVNZ continued, regardless of the terminology

used, tens of thousands of Chinese troops swept into Tibet. It was an "invasion" or

an "annexation".

TVNZ pointed out that the item referred, with the appropriate cynicism, to the

alternative Panchen Lama endorsed by the Chinese. It also recorded:

As to the Dalai Lama's safety, we observe that the threat to him is recognised

world wide. In New Zealand he was protected by the Diplomatic Protection

Squad, while heavily armed Indian guards are in evidence in the film as the Dalai

Lama was shown meeting Tibetan refugees. What is quite clear (and one need

only consider the concerted effort made by the Chinese authorities to try to

prevent Australia formally greeting the Dalai Lama) is the frenzied manner in

which the government in Beijing reacts to the Dalai Lama's various trips around

the world, and his media appearances.

Maintaining that balance, fairness and impartiality did not amount to the

unquestioning recital of information supplied by official sources, TVNZ declined to

uphold the complaint, reporting:

We suggest that the 60 Minutes item gave the Chinese authorities a fair hearing,

and acknowledged their viewpoint. We believe TVNZ avoids any accusation of

being an "accessory" in this context by treating those viewpoints with the

cynicism they deserve.

Mr Tuohy's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26 October

1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Tuohy referred the complaint to the

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

Noting that the item had presented the events in 1950 "as the invasion of an

independent country", Mr Tuohy said that the 60 Minutes item, unlike the Tonight

broadcast, could not give a lack of time as the reason why relevant material was

omitted. He repeated his account given in Appendix I about the events in 1950.

Overall, he wrote:

In my complaint I pointed out that the item presented a relentlessly one-sided

perspective on the dispute between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities,

and of the present situation in Tibet. In their reply TVNZ seemed to accept an

obligation to present both sides of the dispute despite their view of the Chinese

government side as "evil".

He disputed strongly TVNZ's claim that the item had given the Chinese government a

fair hearing and he argued that the tone of TVNZ's reply disclosed the following

approach:

Because they view the situation in Tibet as a contest between Good and Evil,

TVNZ are in reality completely unable to present the views of the "Evil" side,

even in a "cynical" way. Those views simply disappear altogether, or appear

only through the prism of the views of the "Good" side. This inevitably leads

to bias and untruth.

Mr Tuohy summarised the point:

In my view, there can be no large-scale historical conflict in which good and truth

are to be found on one side only, and evil and falsehood on the other. That is

why both sides of conflicts should be presented fairly; to the extent that this is

achieved the informed audience are in a position to make up their own minds

about the facts and the moral positions of both sides. That is why the

broadcasting standards specify impartiality, fairness and balance rather than that

programmes should be right-thinking, and on the side of the "good guys".

By way of conclusion to the referral, Mr Tuohy pointed out that he had based his

complaints on his memory of the broadcasts as the time for making a complaint would

lapse by the time he had purchased copies from the broadcaster. He suggested that

tapes be made available to the complainant at an earlier stage of the complaints

process in order to give the complainant the opportunity to decide whether there was

indeed some substance to matters which it was intended to contest.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 5 November 1996

Requesting that the Authority take into account its responses to Mr Tuohy's

complaint about the Tonight item, TVNZ repeated that that history was viewed in a

culturally relative manner. It also enclosed the three paragraph statement provided by

the People's Republic of China Embassy outlining the reasons for its opposition to

the Dalai Lama's visit. That statement, TVNZ contended, was covered on the

programme.

In view of the number of formal complaints received each year (about 250) TVNZ

considered impractical Mr Tuohy's suggestion to make tapes available to

complainants. On this occasion, in view of the promotion the item received it

considered that Mr Tuohy could have recorded the programme if he felt it might be

necessary. TVNZ concluded:

Mr Tuohy offers what we regard as a red herring when he refers to the deadline

for complaints. TVNZ has consistently accepted an "intention to complaint

formally" as being sufficient to comply with the 20 working days deadline; the

Authority will also be aware that, except in extreme circumstances, TVNZ has

regularly used its discretion to accept formal complaints after the deadline has

expired. Mr Tuohy had the opportunity to purchase a copy of the tape had he

wanted to do so.

Mr Tuohy's Final Comment - 18 November 1996

In response to TVNZ's reference to the philosophical concept of "episteme", Mr

Tuohy argued that it amounted to an attempted justification to give a "one-sided"

view of the conflict between the supporters of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese

government. Balance, he argued, was required.

As for the statement by the Chinese embassy, Mr Tuohy maintained that it was not

adequately reported in the Tonight item and it was not referred to during the 60

Minutes programme.

He then dealt with TVNZ's reaction to his suggestion that tapes of programmes

complained about be supplied to complainants. He believed that should complainants

be more fully informed of the process, it would not entail the expense in time and

resources to which TVNZ referred.