BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Pictures of a protest march against the Employment Contracts Act were included in an

item reviewing the employment policies of some of the political parties advanced for

the forthcoming election. The item was included in One Network News broadcast

between 6.00–7.00pm on 12 September 1996.

Mr Hayward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item suggested that

the march was a recent event whereas it was filmed some five to six years ago. As he

was clearly identifiable, Mr Hayward said the broadcast of the item had caused him

considerable embarrassment.

Acknowledging that the film used was some five years old and that its broadcast had

breached company policy by failing to identify it as archive material, TVNZ upheld

the complaint that Mr Hayward had been referred to unfairly. It apologised to him.

Staff involved, it added, had been reminded of the company's policy regarding the

identification of archive material.

Dissatisfied with the extent of the action taken, Mr Hayward referred the complaint to

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the action

taken was insufficient.

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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The employment policies of the main parties at the forthcoming election were dealt

with on One Network News broadcast on 12 September. The item included some

footage from a protest march demonstrating against the Employment Contracts Act.

Saying that he was clearly identifiable as a marcher in the protest, Mr Hayward

complained to TVNZ that the broadcast had caused him considerable embarrassment

as it was not reported in any way that the footage was archive material from a march

which took place some five to six years ago.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G1 and G4 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. They require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

Acknowledging that the item failed to identify the footage as archive material filmed

some five years ago, TVNZ upheld the complaint that Mr Hayward had been referred

to unfairly. Apologising to Mr Hayward from any embarrassment caused, TVNZ

reported that company policy required that archive material be identified as such. The

staff involved in the item, it added, had been reminded of this policy.

Mr Hayward agreed with TVNZ when it argued that it was acceptable to use archive

material when it was correctly identified. However, as he did not regard the apology

as sufficient in view of the embarrassment he had suffered, Mr Hayward referred the

complaint to the Authority.

The Authority expects TVNZ to display more vigilance to ensure that similar errors

do not recur. However, it considers that TVNZ's acknowledgment of the mistake and

apology to be sufficient on this occasion.

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

action taken was insufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 December 1996

Appendix

Mr Hayward's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 30 September 1996

Clive Hayward of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about a

news item broadcast on One Network News between 6.00-7.00pm on 12 September

1996.

The item, he wrote, referred to some action against the Employment Contracts Act

and showed a protest march against the Act without acknowledging that the

demonstration was filmed some five to six years ago. Mr Hayward continued:

I was clearly identifiable in this film and this has caused me much

embarrassment among family, friends and business associates.

Mr Hayward concluded that it was misleading and dishonest not to identify the

material as a library item.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 10 October 1996

Assessing the complaint under standards G1 and G4 of the Code of Broadcasting

Practice, TVNZ acknowledged that it was at fault in not indicating, either by way of

commentary or caption, that the pictures of the protest march were archive material

and were five years old.

It pointed out that failure to identify the material in this way involved a breach of its

policy about indicating that archive material was being used. TVNZ conceded that it

was unfair to Mr Hayward. It advised him that the complaint was upheld, apologised

to him and said that the staff involved had been reminded of the company policy.

Despite the breach of this occasion, TVNZ maintained that provided the material was

properly identified, then its use would have been justified as historical material.

Mr Hayward's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 6 November

1996

Upon receipt of TVNZ's letter, Mr Hayward wrote to TVNZ and expressed gratitude

for the apology. He also acknowledged that it was acceptable to use appropriately

identified historical material. Nevertheless, in view of the embarrassment he had

suffered through the use of unacknowledged archive material, he did not consider the

apology sufficient on this occasion. He sought TVNZ's comments on this point.

As he did not receive a reply to this letter which expressed his dissatisfaction, Mr

Hayward referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

TVNZ's Response to the Authority 20 November 1996

TVNZ advised that it did not wish to comment further.