BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Week in Parliament, broadcast on National Radio each weekend, summarises

some of the events and exchanges in Parliament which have occurred during the

preceding week. The programme broadcast on 21 June 1997 carried actuality of the

Treasurer's (Hon Winston Peters) attack on the Alliance, and included the response

from Labour MP Michael Cullen. The Alliance, it was reported, had joined in the

attack.

On behalf of the Alliance, its Media Director, John Pagani, complained to Radio New

Zealand Ltd that the item was unbalanced and failed to present all significant points of

view. It did not include the responses from the Leader and Deputy Leader of the

Alliance, he said, and it misrepresented what had occurred.

When RNZ failed to respond within the statutory time period, the Alliance referred

the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Apologising for the delay which had occurred for a variety of reasons, including its

move to new premises, RNZ declined to uphold the complaint. It explained that The

Week was not broadcast as a balanced account of the week's events in Parliament, but

as a report of the highlights and the main events. Further, it stated, the Alliance's

spokespersons' contribution had been broadcast by RNZ in The Day in Parliament on

the day the debate occurred.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to the item complained about and have

read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). They have also listened to a

tape of the broadcast of The Day in Parliament which carried the contribution to the

debate by the Alliance speakers. On this occasion, the Authority determines the

complaint without a formal hearing.

A summary of some of the events which have occurred in Parliament during the

previous week is contained in the National Radio programme, The Week in

Parliament, broadcast during the weekend. A review of the day's events is covered in

The Day in Parliament broadcast in the early evening each day that Parliament is

sitting.

John Pagani, Media Director with the Alliance, complained to RNZ about the

broadcast of The Week in Parliament at 12.15pm on Saturday 21 June. While the item

contained coverage of an attack on the Alliance and its leader, he said that it failed to

include any balancing comment from the Alliance. The programme was thus unfair in

its allocation of time, and lacked balance in the presentation of significant points of

view.

Stating explicitly that he was not advocating a stopwatch approach to balance, Mr

Pagani wrote:

Rather I am suggesting that, if the programme is going to carry a lengthy and

detailed attack on the Alliance, it should be very careful to air some response to

that attack. I am also suggesting that in this instance the Alliance contribution to

the debate in question merited better coverage in its own right, especially as

measured against the other speeches carried. Thirdly, I suggest that in any case

the report of the Alliance's position should be an accurate summary.

In conclusion, Mr Pagani expressed concern at the "staggering lack of balance and

professionalism" displayed by the daily and weekly editions of these programmes to

the Alliance.

RNZ advised that the complaint would be investigated, but when it failed to respond

to the substance of the complaint after two months, Mr Pagani referred the complaint

to the Authority.

In its response to the complaint about the content of The Week in Parliament

broadcast on 21 June, RNZ explained some of the process involved in the compilation

of The Day and The Week. It contended:

1. "The Day in Parliament" and "The Week in Parliament" do not pretend,

either of them, to be an exhaustive, balanced record of everything which

has happened, point by point. These programmes aim rather at drawing a

picture of unusual or "high-spot" events, at the same time informing the

listeners of new and important legislation, and explaining its thrust and

significance.

2. The Company believes it is in order to take into consideration the

confirmed principle that "balance" need not necessarily be achieved in the

same broadcast.

On the basis that the complaint was essentially one of imbalance, RNZ assessed it

under s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act. It requires broadcasters to maintain

standards consistent with:

(d) The principle that when controversial issues of public importance are

discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are

given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme

or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

RNZ maintained that The Week involved comment rather than news and current

affairs, commenting that it was reporting what it described as "the especially

unbalanced nature of the actual proceedings". Further, actuality from Mr Anderton

(Leader of the Alliance) had been included in The Day broadcast on the preceding

Thursday. It declined to uphold the complaint.

In his final comment, Mr Pagani argued that because The Day and The Week were

broadcast at different times, and as the complaint referred only to The Week, it would

be a breach of natural justice for the Authority to take the contents of The Day into

account when assessing the complaint.

As for the specific broadcast complained about, Mr Pagani pointed out that it failed to

record that the Alliance had moved a motion of no confidence. Moreover, it failed to

record that the Alliance had put together an independent contribution to the debate,

rather than join Labour's attack, as the item alleged.

As the programme complained about was one in a series funded by the Office of the

Clerk, Mr Pagani referred to the Clerk's report for 1996 where it was recorded that

the series was meant to be a full report of Parliamentary events. It was not intended,

despite RNZ's contention, to be a comments programme. Mr Pagani wrote:

Radio New Zealand seems to be wanting to argue that it felt the proceedings

were unbalanced, making impossible any attempt on its part to cover the

proceedings in a balanced way. If it did feel the proceedings were not balanced,

it is still not excused from attempting to cover them in as fair a way as possible.

It is certainly not permissible to make its coverage even more unfair.

He concluded:

This issue has been pursued because there is an important issue of principle at

stake. Radio broadcasts about controversial issues should be fair and balanced.

This is a particularly important requirement for a programme which is funded

by public money to fulfil a particular role separate from the role of political

commentary.

The programme should have reflected the Alliance involvement in the debate

accurately. It didn't. It should have outlined the important matters the Alliance

was involved in. It didn't. Having carried an extensive attack on the leader of

the Alliance and the participation of other party leaders in the debate it should

also have carried some of the Alliance's contribution. It didn't.

Clear statutory standards apply which have been breached.

The Authority records its displeasure at RNZ's failure to respond to the complaint

within the statutory time limit. As Mr Pagani notes, such a delay might well reduce

the impact of any penalty imposed should the complaint be upheld. It was a concern

about the effect of delays on the complainant which apparently partly motivated the

reduction by Parliament, in 1996, of the statutory time limit from 60 to 20 working

days. The Authority is disappointed that RNZ has to be reminded of the need for

diligence to ensure that the time period is complied with.

The Authority does not altogether accept RNZ's contention that balance is not an

essential aspect of The Week in Parliament. While it may include an element of

comment, the Authority regards the programme as being one which needs to deal with

views and current affairs in a balanced way, and it believes that balance is an

expectation held by listeners.

The Authority's task is to determine complaints about programmes and, when dealing

with complaints about an alleged lack of balance, to ascertain whether reasonable

efforts have been made to provide balance "within the period of current interest". The

definition of the phrase depends very much on the circumstances of the complaint

with which the Authority is dealing.

While it is reasonably clear that the period may well cover broadcasts at a similar time

on consecutive days, on this occasion it involved an early mid week evening

programme, and one shortly after midday at the weekend.

The Authority acknowledges that the programmes are linked. The weekend

programme summarises the daily broadcasts, and as the format, approach and subject

matter are dependent one on the other, the Authority considers that the relationship

between the programmes must be taken into account in its assessment of this

complaint.

The Authority notes that Mr Pagani's complaint does not include the broadcast of

The Day on the preceding Thursday which included some actuality from Mr

Anderton. Apportioning, as explained above, some weight to the issue of the

relationship between the items, the Authority is required to decide whether the

contraction of the comments carried in The Day, to the summary contained in The

Week, amounted to a breach of standards. Another way of approaching its task is to

ask whether the possible implication contained in The Week, that Mr Anderton took a

low profile in the debate, was fair, or a misrepresentation as Mr Pagani alleged.

The Authority accepts that in the context of this programme, which amounted to a

precis of highpoints of the week in Parliament, there was of necessity a contraction of

the material covered earlier in the week. The weight given to the various components

was one of editorial discretion. The Authority does not believe it is necessary or

desirable to instruct compilers of such items to apportion set ratios of content, and it

considers that there was no misrepresentation of the facts in the contraction which

occurred, nor, indeed, any implication that the Alliance had not joined the debate and

performed effectively.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 December 1997

Appendix

The Alliance's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 30 June 1997

John Pagani, the Media Director of the Alliance political party, complained to Radio

New Zealand about the item The Week in Parliament broadcast at 12:15pm on

Saturday 21 June 1997. The item, he wrote, contained an extensive attack on the

Alliance and its leader but failed to include an Alliance response or a balancing

comment. He added that it was also unfair, and lacked a balance in the presentation of

significant points of view.

The programme summarised some of the events in Parliament in the preceding week

and on this occasion, Mr Pagani said, it carried an attack on the Alliance by the

Treasurer, Winston Peters MP, and a response from Labour MP Michael Cullen. The

programme's presenter noted that the Alliance added to Labour's attack, which was

followed by an extract from the leader of ACT. Although both the leader and deputy

leader of the Alliance had spoken in the debate, Mr Pagani pointed out that the

programme did not carry the Alliance's defence of itself.

Mr Pagani stated that it was a gross misrepresentation to report that the Alliance

joined in Labour's attack, as the Alliance moved a no-confidence motion against the

government in the debate. Further, the item confused the two distinct issues of the

government's ethics, and its tight-fistedness.

Arguing that RNZ had breached both broadcasting standards and the Radio New

Zealand charter, Mr Pagani said that he was not advocating a stop-watch approach to

journalism. Rather, when an item carried a detailed attack on the Alliance, he believed

that it was necessary to broadcast some of the response.

Mr Pagani concluded:

Finally, I might point out that this is not the first time I have been deeply

concerned at the staggering lack of balance and professionalism displayed in this

programme. Both the daily and the weekly editions conspicuously and

repeatedly downplay or omit the Alliance contribution to debates and

repeatedly fail to give a fair account of Alliance statements in Parliament.

RNZ's Initial Response – 5 August 1997

RNZ advised the Alliance that the enquiries into the complaint had been completed

but the Complaints Committee had yet to meet to determine it. Given the relocation

of the RNZ operation then under way, RNZ advised that it was taking advantage of

the extra 20 working days allowed to answer complaints when circumstances

necessitated.

The Alliance's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 11

September 1997

Dissatisfied that RNZ had not responded to the substance of the complaint within the

statutory time limit, on behalf of the Alliance, Mr Pagani referred it to the

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

He sought a determination on both the issue raised in the complaint and on RNZ's

failure to comply with its statutory obligation. Concern was expressed that RNZ's

inaction could result in the broadcaster not being called to account.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 18 September 1997

RNZ stated that it had prepared a response to the complaint which, however, had not

been sent by the time the Alliance referred it to the Authority. RNZ apologised to

both the complainant and the Authority and explained that the delay was caused by

ill-health, some official information requests, and an error in the calculation of days.

Further, RNZ's shifting to new premises had contributed to the delay. RNZ's

Complaints Co-ordinator (Richard Hereford) wrote:

In offering its apologies to the Authority, and requesting that the Authority

should convey an apology to Mr Pagani, I should like if I may to assure the

Authority of our continued cooperation in formal complaint matters, both with

complainants and with the Authority itself.

As for the substance of the complaint, RNZ said it had been assessed under s.4(1)(d)

of the Act.

On the basis that the programme complained about, The Week in Parliament, involved

comment rather than news or current affairs, RNZ emphasised that the programme

was not intended to be a full report of Parliamentary events. That was the task of

Morning Report, Checkpoint, and news bulletins. The Week programme included

some of this material but, on this occasion, had omitted the actuality of Mr

Anderton's proposed amendments. Moreover, RNZ stated, the two Parliamentary

review programmes, The Day and The Week in Parliament, were intended to be

reviews, rather than balanced reports, adding:

Indeed, the Committee believed it relevant to note the essentially unbalanced

nature of the actual proceedings which are the subject of the reviews.

Pointing out that Mr Anderton's actuality had been broadcast on the preceding

Thursday, RNZ maintained that s.4(1)(d) had been complied with. Expressing the

opinion that standard R21 did not apply to this complaint, and that the formal

complaints process did not extend to the Charter, RNZ declined to uphold the

complaint.

The Alliance's Final Comment – 7 October 1997

On behalf of the Alliance, Mr Pagani stated that RNZ had abandoned the argument

that the programme was fair and balanced, and now maintained that it was entitled to

broadcast an unbalanced item in the specific circumstances. The Alliance, Mr Pagani

wrote, did not accept that approach.

Dealing first with the delay, Mr Pagani noted that it reduced the range of acceptable

remedies and, he pointed out, the apology had not been communicated directly.

As for the complaint, Mr Pagani said the referral applied only to the specific

broadcast complained about. He disputed RNZ's use of The Day in Parliament as a

defence to The Week in Parliament. Moreover, he stated, the contents of the former

did not release RNZ from its responsibilities regarding the latter. Referring to s.10 of

the Broadcasting Act, Mr Pagani suggested that consideration of The Day would

violate the rules of natural justice. In addition, he argued that The Day was not

broadcast within the period of current interest as it was broadcast on Thursday

evening while The Week was broadcast at lunchtime on Saturday. He wrote:

The whole purpose of repeating material in summary form at the end of the

week is surely to reach a new audience. After all, why would the same material

be repeated for the same audience?

Mr Pagani then advanced the argument that even if it was within the period of current

interest, that broadcast did not relieve The Week of its obligation to meet the

standards, commenting:

Presentation of material in an unbalanced and unfair way is simply a breach of

broadcasting standards and it is outrageous to rely on an entirely different

programme previously broadcast to justify a breach of the standards.

Having rejected RNZ's case, Mr Pagani said that it had to be accepted that the

programme complained about was not balanced and fair. That case, he recalled, had

been made in his letter of 30 June. Repeating some points, Mr Pagani said that the

item breached the standards when it excluded Mr Anderton's remarks which had been

broadcast during The Day.

Mr Pagani stated that the letter of complaint had referred to the Radio Code and the

Charter, and he expressed his opinion that the complaint should be upheld. Not to

uphold it, he said, would fail to record that the Alliance had moved a No Confidence

motion, while the coverage received elevated the contributions of some other

politicians. The Alliance had not joined in Labour's attack, but had advanced a

independent contribution which covered a number of points. He observed:

The programme's sloppiness in reflecting the Alliance's contribution to the

debate is reflected in its confusion of an attack on the government's ethics with

an attack on the government being "tight-fisted". These two themes are not at

all connected.

Insisting that standard R21 applied to all broadcasters regardless of RNZ's preferred

approach, Mr Pagani considered that it was particularly applicable in this complaint

as it referred to the fair allocation of time.

Mr Pagani also maintained that the formal complaints process applied to the Charter.

Turning to the broadcast complained about, Mr Pagani said it was funded directly by

the Office of the Clerk. The Clerk's report for the year ended June 1994 included the

remarks that the programmes:

"use excepts from the parliamentary broadcast and include background

explanations of the business being transacted by the House. They do not contain

comment on the issues presented or interviews with participants." [Emphasis

added].

The Report for the year ending June 1996 included a similar comment, and Mr Pagani

wrote:

Once the true nature of the programme is recognised, it is clear that Radio New

Zealand has made a serious error in viewing the programme as a "political

comment programme, not a detailed point-by-point report programme" [sic],

and in stating that the weekly programme is not intended to be a full report of

Parliamentary events.

A full report of Parliamentary events is exactly what the programme is meant to

be. It is not a comment programme.

As for RNZ's point about the unbalanced nature of the actual proceedings, Mr Pagani

stated that the proceedings were not unbalanced in any sense which was relevant to

the complaint. He said:

Radio New Zealand seems to be wanting to argue that it felt that proceedings

were unbalanced, making impossible any attempt on its part to cover the

proceedings in a balanced way. If it did feel the proceedings were not balanced,

it is still not excused from attempting to cover them in as fair a way as possible.

It is certainly not permissible to make its coverage even more unfair.

Moreover, he contended, RNZ's comment amounted to an admission that the

broadcast was not balanced.

In conclusion, Mr Pagani said it was important that broadcasts which dealt with

controversial issues were fair and balanced. The specific broadcast did not reflect the

Alliance's involvement accurately and, as a consequence, the standards had been

breached.