BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A studio debate between Susan Wood, the presenter, Pam Corkery MP and Muriel

Newman MP, in which Dr Newman was asked to defend the contents of her new

cookbook was broadcast on Holmes on 2 June 1997 at 7.00pm.

Mr Miller of Invercargill and Mrs Smith of Whangarei each complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the discussion was unfair to Dr Newman, and

was unbalanced and partial. The complainants both maintained that the debate

amounted to a malicious attack on her, and that the presenter acted unprofessionally

by revealing her bias against Dr Newman.

In its response, TVNZ advised that it considered Dr Newman was given a fair and

balanced hearing and, noting that she "competently deflected" criticism from her

political opponent, that her point of view was well articulated. Accepting that the

debate was boisterous and at times drifted off the point, TVNZ maintained that Dr

Newman was given an adequate opportunity to respond to the criticism of the book

and the suggestion that it was patronising to the poor. It declined to uphold the

complaints.

Dissatisfied with that decision, the complainants each referred their complaint to the

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaints that the item was

unfair to Dr Newman.

Decision

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

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

A studio interview with Muriel Newman MP, marking the publication of her

cookbook "Feasting on the smell of an oily rag" was conducted by presenter Susan

Wood. Pam Corkery MP also took part in the discussion. The interview was

broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on the Holmes programme on TV One at

7.00pm on 2 June 1997. During the item Dr Newman was asked about her reasons for

writing the book, and to respond to the criticism that its tone was "patronising to the

poor".

Mr Miller of Invercargill and Mrs Smith of Whangarei both complained to TVNZ that

the interview was unfair, biased, and poorly conducted, and that the presenter failed

to act impartially. They each objected to the derisory comments made both by the

presenter and Ms Corkery about some of the recipes, including the one on how to boil

carrots. Both complainants pointed out that the recipe had not been read out in full

and included more than just throwing carrots in water, as implied by the presenter.

Mr Miller and Mrs Smith also took exception to the presenter giving her personal

views on the book and its contents, and to her taking sides with Ms Corkery against

Dr Newman. They also objected to a discussion of the book's price.

TVNZ advised that it considered the complaint against standards G4 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

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

any programme.

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

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

Before addressing the specifics of the complaints, TVNZ asserted that while Holmes

was a current affairs programme, it fell into a different category than other current

affairs programmes. It described the programme as having become established as

"personality driven", adding that its presenters were encouraged to provoke debate by

seeding discussion with personal viewpoints.

It considered that Dr Newman was given a fair and balanced hearing and that her point

of view came through strongly. It did not deny that the debate was boisterous, or that

at times it strayed from the point and became political rather than analytical. To the

criticism that the presenter introduced her personal views about the book's content,

TVNZ responded that it was clear that she was giving her personal view, and

maintained that it was acceptable because Dr Newman was given an opportunity to

respond to it fully.

TVNZ suggested that the complainants had missed the point of the debate, and

rejected Mrs Smith's assertion that the item was to be a simple interview for a new

cookery book. What was at issue, according to TVNZ, was the content of the book

and the suggestion that it was patronising to the poor. The discussion about its price

was relevant, TVNZ asserted, because the book was being sold to those who could

least afford it.

On the issue of standard G4, TVNZ concluded that Dr Newman was not treated

unfairly. Although she was asked some hard questions, it considered she was treated

justly and fairly. With respect to the complaints about lack of balance and

impartiality, TVNZ responded that it believed Dr Newman was given ample time to

respond, and did so competently. It saw no reason why the presenter's views could

not be advanced, provided that it was clear they were personal views. TVNZ

maintained that Dr Newman was given the same opportunity to respond as she would

have had if the presenter had confronted her with someone else's views. It declined to

uphold the complaints.

In reaching its decision on the complaints, the Authority takes into account the

following factors: the structure of the discussion, the roles of the guests, the content

of the discussion and the presenter's role.

Interest in the item was generated by the fact that a new MP was the co-author of a

cookbook designed for those on low incomes. On the day of the book's launch she

was invited to discuss some aspects of the book which were deemed by the presenter

to be controversial and patronising, such as basic recipes on how to cook carrots, and

ideas for breakfasts which included toast and marmite. Pam Corkery MP also took

part in the discussion, and together she and the presenter challenged some of the

presumptions made in the book about a lack of knowledge of basic food preparation,

and questioned Dr Newman's purpose in writing it. Dr Newman was, as TVNZ

noted, given an opportunity to describe the book's focus, and to point out that many

people lacked knowledge of basic recipes which were both economical and nutritious.

However, the Authority notes, the item quickly degenerated into what it regards as a

pointless squabble in which the presenter and her guest attacked Dr Newman

personally, made dismissive and derisory remarks about the book, and questioned her

motives in writing it. In the Authority's view, the structure of the discussion was

inherently unfair to Dr Newman because the challenge to the book and its contents

came equally from presenter Susan Wood and guest Pam Corkery MP. Although Dr

Newman was a capable media performer, she was disadvantaged by the attack by both

other participants.

When it applies the standards on this occasion, the Authority decides to subsume the

complaint about the breach of standard G6 – the standard relating to balance and

impartiality - under standard G4, which is the standard dealing with fairness. It

considers the allegations about lack of balance and impartiality are eclipsed by the

clear breach of fairness. However when it considers the breach of standard G4, it

takes into account the unfairness which arose because of the presenter's apparent

partiality.

The Authority rejects TVNZ's contention that on this occasion the expression of the

presenter's personal opinion did not result in her treating the interview subject

unfairly. It is the Authority's view that the presenter failed to demonstrate

objectivity and adopted a partisan approach which was inappropriate in the

circumstances. Because the role of adversary and critic was undertaken by the studio

guest, Pam Corkery, a political opponent of Dr Newman, the Authority considers the

presenter's role should have been confined to ensuring that a balanced and fair

discussion ensued. In the event it did not, and because it resulted in unfairness to Dr

Newman, the Authority upholds the complaint that standard G4 was breached.

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

broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of an item on Holmes on 2 June 1997

between 7.00–7.30pm breached standard G4 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld a complaint the Authority may make an order under s.13 of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. It does not intend to do so on this occasion because of the

relatively inconsequential nature of the item.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
25 September 1997

Appendix I

R J A Miller's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – undated

Mr Miller of Invercargill complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on

Holmes broadcast on 3 June 1997 at 7.00pm.

A debate between the presenter, Susan Wood, Pam Corkery MP and Muriel Newman

MP concerned a cookbook written by Dr Newman. In Mr Miller's view, it appeared

to be a destructive squabble which attempted to demolish the book and showed no

fairness or objectivity. He complained that the presenter did little to maintain order

and showed her impartiality by siding with Ms Corkery.

He contended that no attempt was made to clarify the point of the interview, or to

facilitate an ordered discussion on anything.

Mr Miller considered the interview was unfair, biased, and poorly conducted.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 11 June 1997

TVNZ advised that it considered the complaint under standards G4 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Before addressing the specifics of the

complaint, it noted that Holmes, while regarded as a current affairs programme, fell

into a different category than the more orthodox current affairs programmes and that it

had become established as "personality driven" in which the journalist was encouraged

to provoke debate by seeding discussion with personal viewpoints. It added that

expressing an opinion did not preclude an interviewer from treating an interview

subject in a fair and balanced manner.

After close examination of the item, TVNZ advised that it believed Dr Newman was

given a fair and balanced hearing.

TVNZ noted that the item began with the presenter spelling out some of the more

controversial recipes to be found in the book, such as how to boil carrots, and

suggestions for breakfast which included toast and marmite. The debate began with

Dr Newman explaining the rationale for publishing the book and insisting that the

criticisms were unjustified because many young people starting out did not have a lot

of knowledge about cooking.

In TVNZ's view, Dr Newman's point of view came through strongly in the book and

it considered the inevitable political sniping from Ms Corkery had been competently

deflected. It continued:

The debate was boisterous. We do not deny that. At times it did drift off the

point, becoming political rather than analytical, but that is always a risk in live

television where the studio guests are politicians as well as being articulate and

experienced media performers.

With respect to the presenter's comment that she personally found some of the

content of the book offensive, TVNZ responded that the remark was obviously

personal and that it was acceptable because Dr Newman was given an opportunity to

respond.

TVNZ considered that Mr Miller had missed the point of the debate. It noted that

what was at issue was the content of the book and the suggestion that it was

patronising to the poor.

With respect to the complaint under standard G4, it concluded that Dr Newman was

not unfairly treated, and that she was given ample time to respond and did so

competently.

On the matter of balance (standard G6), TVNZ considered both guests were treated

justly and fairly, adding that Dr Newman made a number of points which Ms Corkery

appeared unable to challenge. As far as the complaint that it was not impartial,

TVNZ responded that it saw no reason why the presenter's views should not be

advanced, provided that it was clear they were personal views.

TVNZ concluded that it was satisfied no standards were breached.

R J A Miller's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – received 18

June 1997

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

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

He maintained that the debate was an outrage and that his view was shared by many.

He noted that callers to talkback radio had condemned the item as tabloid television

journalism of the worst kind. He suggested that the Authority seek from TVNZ the

correspondence it had received about the matter.

Mr Miller rejected the implication in TVNZ's letter that because the item was

"personality driven", it was subject to a lesser standard of impartiality and fairness

than other current affairs shows.

In his view, the role of the host was to present both sides of an issue and in so doing

allow the audience to form an opinion without bias or prejudice. He considered the

presenter went too far when she said: "...some of this stuff I find personally

offensive..." When the presenter stated a personal view as a matter of fact, Mr Miller

argued that she thus sided with Ms Corkery, resulting in the balance being heavily

weighted against Dr Newman.

In Mr Miller's opinion, it was not the role of the host to state personal preferences.

He argued that particularly when a programme was "personality driven" the host's

opinion carried a great deal of weight in the minds of the audience.

Because the debate was unbalanced, Mr Miller continued, it was an unfair assault on

Dr Newman's integrity, and although she handled herself creditably, he did not believe

the media should create victims as it did in this case.

Mr Miller also took exception to the reference to boiling carrots and, noting that the

host and Ms Corkery had ridiculed the suggestion, pointed out that the entire recipe

was not read out. Equally unbalanced in his view was the reference to toast and

marmite, which he pointed out was simply one item from a list of suggestions. He

considered the extracts were so selective as to be demeaning, unbalanced and unfairly

representing the contents of the book. He quoted the description from the back cover

of the book which stated:

Feasting off the smell of an oily rag doesn't assume you know how to cook

already! It's a great little guide for everyone – flatters, youngsters, dads

cooking on mum's day off, and even 'real blokes' will be able to prepare

delicious mouth-watering meals without a lot of fuss and bother (no excuses

now, guys!).

In his view the producer and host did not read the back cover, or chose to ignore it.

He also noted that Ms Corkery was not asked whether it was unreasonable to expect

low income earners to grow their own fruit and vegetables - a recurring theme in the

book. In Mr Miller's view, that was a basic question, and should have been asked.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 24 June 1997

In a brief response, TVNZ pointed out that Dr Newman knew she was going into a

studio debate in which she would be asked to defend the content of her book and she

also knew how the introduction to the item would be framed.

With respect to Mr Miller's contention that it was not the host's job to express

personal preferences, TVNZ responded "Says whom?" It accepted that in certain

circumstances that may be correct, but in the genre of programmes such as Holmes it

saw nothing wrong with the expression of such views, provided they were clearly the

views of the host. It considered it a more honest approach than a question which may

begin with "some would say...".

TVNZ believed the extracts quoted from the book were reasonable and accurate. It

felt it was risible to suggest that carelessness or censorship was involved in leaving out

parts of the recipe on how to boil carrots.

Mr Miller's Final Comment

Mr Miller did not respond to the invitation to make a brief final comment.

Appendix II

L Smith's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 6 June 1997

Mrs Smith of Whangarei complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, through the

Broadcasting Standards Authority, about the interview with Dr Newman on Holmes

on 2 June 1997 at 7.00pm.

Mrs Smith considered that Dr Newman was treated disgracefully by Susan Wood, the

presenter, who "attacked Dr Newman shamelessly and unfairly."

In Mrs Smith's view, the role of a presenter was to act impartially and fairly and she

considered that Susan Wood failed in that responsibility. She also believed it was

unfair to take extracts from the book out of context.

With respect to the reference to cooking carrots, Mrs Smith pointed out that the text

included more than just throwing carrots in water, as implied by the presenter. The

reference to toast and marmite, she continued, was merely one of a number of ideas for

breakfasts. Mrs Smith continued:

The extracts were hardly balanced reporting and clearly set out to humiliate Dr

Newman and lined up Pam Corkery to assist. That is not good or fair

journalism – it is a disgrace.

In conclusion, Mrs Smith described the item as "a nasty – sneering – offensive and

premeditated attack with political undertones...".

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 13 June 1997

TVNZ's response was almost identical to that to Mr Miller and is summarised in

Appendix I.

Mrs Smith's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 5 July 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mrs Smith referred the complaint to the

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

Mrs Smith repeated that in her view, the item was a vicious attack on Dr Newman.

She noted that the Holmes show had intended to film the launch of the book that day,

but instead of filming the launch, Dr Newman was asked to take part in the show that

evening. However, she pointed out, the presenter did not even mention the launch of

the book, and instead made a malicious attack on Dr Newman.

Mrs Smith repeated that the recipes for boiled carrots and toast and marmite for

breakfast were not quoted in full and were taken out of context.

Mrs Smith rejected TVNZ's view that the Holmes programme was in a different

category than other news and current affairs shows. In her view, standards were there

to be observed.

Mrs Smith asked the Authority to request from TVNZ all the letters of protest it

received, as she knew that many had been sent. She enclosed a copy of a letter to The

Dominion on 10 June.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 23 July 1997

TVNZ advised that it had nothing further to add to its letter of 13 June.