BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The issue of the use of animals in research, and the rise in the level of activism of animal

rights protesters were dealt with on an item on 60 Minutes on 16 November 1997 at

7.30pm.

Mr Eden of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster,

that the programme was not balanced, impartial or fair. He maintained that it favoured

the position of the scientist featured, and was against the anti vivisection campaigners,

who were portrayed as violent, irrational people likely to use intimidation to assist their

cause.

TVNZ rejected the assertion that a bias was shown in favour of the scientist. It

emphasised that the item's focus was on someone who was a target of the animal rights

campaign, and that it fairly and accurately portrayed the views of the animal rights

groups.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to uphold his complaint, Mr Eden referred it to

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

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

Decision

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

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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Opposition to animal research and the tactics used by some animal rights protesters

were the subject of an item on 60 Minutes which was broadcast on TV One on 16

November 1997 at 7.30pm. The item included footage of an internationally recognised

researcher, Professor Gluckman, described by the reporter as an "heroic pioneer" whose

research, which used animals, had potential benefits for babies born with serious defects.

Two animal rights activists were questioned about the tactics used by some in the

animal rights movement to draw attention to the use of animals in research. The item

also included footage of an incident in the UK in which a bomb was placed in the car of a

researcher, and concern was expressed by law enforcement authorities in New Zealand

about the increased level of activism of protesters here.

Mr Eden, an animal rights activist who had been interviewed as part of the preparation

for the programme, complained that it was not balanced, impartial or fair because it

showed a bias in favour of Professor Gluckman, and against anti vivisection

campaigners. In particular, he objected to the description of the Professor as an heroic

pioneer and to the accusation that activists harassed him. He suggested that the footage

of the presenter beside a sick baby, one described as potentially benefiting from the

research undertaken, was an unethical way of getting sympathy for the researcher and

his work. He also objected to the inclusion of footage from the UK showing the

aftermath of a bomb attack on an animal researcher's car. Mr Eden said that the

bombing incident happened over 15 years ago and had been condemned by the whole

animal rights movement. In his view, it had not been an appropriate example of the

tactics of the Animal Liberation Front or any other group. There was plenty of news

coverage of nonviolent (but illegal) rescues of animals available, he argued. Mr Eden

maintained that Professor Gluckman's involvement in vivisection was minimised in the

programme. He noted that for the past twenty years the Professor had been involved in

many animal experiments at the Auckland School of Medicine and, as head of the animal

research department, had also been responsible for overseeing the thousands of animals

which were used at the medical school. He maintained that the whole tone of the

programme favoured Professor Gluckman, who was shown doing work which saved the

lives of sick babies, as against "a small bunch of irrational violent nutters" who

supported the use of violence against anyone who disagreed with them.

Mr Eden complained that anti vivisectionists and animal liberation activists were

portrayed as irrational violent people likely to be involved in terrorism and intimidation.

In his view, that had the effect of encouraging discrimination against those who had a

political belief in animal liberation or anti vivisection, and was in breach of standard

G13.

Further, he complained that the programme was inaccurate, lacked objectivity and was

not impartial. Referring to the interview with a veterinarian who had been targeted by

activists, he suggested that, had her claim that she had no idea why she was a target been

checked, it would have been revealed that she had been a long time member of the

committee which oversees and approves all animal experimentation in New Zealand. He

considered the failure to check that information was a breach of standard G15.

Mr Eden considered, he said, that the whole programme was presented in such a manner

as to cause unnecessary panic or alarm to viewers, particularly to parents with young

children, who might be led to believe that animal rights activists were intent on terrorist

tactics to stop research which might cure a sick child.

Mr Eden also considered that the editing of the programme implied that activists in New

Zealand supported blowing up cars, and that ordinary vets were being threatened by

activists. In his view, this was a distortion of the overall views expressed and a breach

of standard G19.

He complained that standard G20 was breached because the antivivisection view was

not presented fairly.

Finally, he argued that the portrayal of the violent forms of protest breached standards

V1, V2 and V13 of the Violence Code.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the standards nominated. Standards G4, G6 and

G13 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.

G13  To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of

the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational

status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or

political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast

of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or

current affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

The other standards read:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G15 The standards of integrity and reliability of news sources should be kept

under constant review.

G16  News should not be presented in such a way as to cause unnecessary

panic, alarm or distress.

G19  Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure the

extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event

or the overall views expressed.

G20  No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested

parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to

present all significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can only

be done by judging every case on its merits.

V1  Broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that any violence shown is

justifiable, i.e. is essential in the context of the programme.

V2  When obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve heightened

impact, realistic violence – as distinct from farcical violence – must be

avoided.

V13 The use of library footage containing violent incidents, be it from a battle

field, sports venue or elsewhere, should be used only when its repetition

is necessary to illustrate the issue being discussed.

TVNZ dealt first with Mr Eden's complaint that he was unfairly treated because he and

the other animal rights activists felt misled about the intentions of the programme at the

time they were approached for an interview. It was TVNZ's understanding they were

told the programme would deal with the rise in the level of activism by animal rights

groups in recent times. In its view, that was exactly what the programme was about.

TVNZ considered that it was possible that Mr Eden felt unfairly treated because

nothing from the interview with him was used in the programme. It explained that the

segments which were chosen were based on editorial judgment and that the views he

expressed were kept in mind by the reporter during the compilation of the item.

TVNZ noted that Mr Eden's principal concern was that standard G6 was breached. It

rejected his claim that the item showed a bias in favour of Professor Gluckman and

against anti vivisectionists. It made no apology, it said, for using the term "heroic

pioneer" to describe his research. In TVNZ's view, it accurately reflected the fact that

Professor Gluckman's research had far reaching and beneficial effects for babies born

with serious defects.

TVNZ denied that it was unethical to show pictures of the reporter with a sick baby,

and that it was a way of getting sympathy for Professor Gluckman. It emphasised that

it was simply a way of showing who might benefit from his research programme.

TVNZ pointed out that the programme did not conceal the fact that the Professor used

animals in his research, and that the nature of the experiments was discussed in some

detail. Furthermore, it added, two animal rights activists were questioned specifically

about Professor Gluckman's research, and were then given the opportunity to discuss

their philosophy on animal rights, and the use of animals in research. TVNZ noted that

the two people interviewed had both been arrested for holding a protest demonstration

outside Professor Gluckman's home.

With respect to the complaint that the programme distorted the work of the Animal

Liberation Front by resorting to library footage of a bombing incident in Britain, TVNZ

pointed out that the incident occurred in 1990, not 15 years ago as Mr Eden claimed. It

noted that the footage illustrated that the experience overseas was animal activists were

not always non violent, and cited a number of other incidents where people and

property had been harmed. TVNZ suggested that Mr Eden's claim that the activists

were non violent protesters was somewhat naive. It considered it appropriate to show

the more extreme edge of activism, because with the increasing number of incidents of

property damage in Auckland alone, the potential for more extreme behaviour was very

high. TVNZ said it was satisfied there was no breach of standard G6.

Turning to standard G13, it advised that it did not share Mr Eden's view that the

programme represented the protesters as violent, irrational people. It suggested that the

programme showed the extreme activists to be a group prepared to resort to illegal

activity if necessary, and proud to bear their criminal convictions. It considered that

because the material was factual, it was exempt from standard G13 under clause (i), and

further noted that clause (ii) allowed for the expression of genuinely-held opinion.

TVNZ advised that it had considered the standard G14 issues under standards G4 and

G6.

With respect to the complaint under standard G15, TVNZ reported that it had checked

the background of the vet who was featured. Also it said, it had asked the two activists

interviewed why she was a target of activists. Neither offered any information. TVNZ

advised that its inquiries showed that the vet had never practised vivisection, and was

on the ethics committee in the role of watchdog. It rejected this aspect of the complaint.

TVNZ described Mr Eden's reference to standard G16 as "far fetched". It did not

believe the programme would have caused panic, alarm or distress.

It reported that it had been unable to find any evidence of distortion in the manner in

which the programme was edited and therefore found no breach of standard G19.

Turning to standard G20, TVNZ reported that it had already dealt with this aspect and

considered that the views of the animal rights movement were clearly outlined and its

proponents given a fair hearing.

Referring to standard V1, it considered that the standard was not intended to prevent the

broadcast of legitimate news material in a proper context. It considered the scenes were

justifiable in the context of the whole item. It suggested that standard V2 was not

relevant as the material was not used gratuitously.

It also advised that it had concluded that standard V13 was not breached because the

pictures used were appropriate to illustrate the point being discussed.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Eden said that TVNZ's response

confirmed its bias. He took exception to TVNZ's conclusion that animal research was

beneficial to human health and to its response on the matter of the car bombing in the

UK. He emphasised that the tactics used by activists in New Zealand were not violent,

although they were illegal and included property damage and theft of laboratory animals.

Mr Eden concluded with the observation that even if TVNZ found the views of those in

the animal rights movement absurd, it still had a duty to reflect those views accurately.

In his view, it had failed to do so.

The Authority's Findings

In the Authority's assessment, the essence of the complaint is that the item took a

partisan stance because it conveyed animal rights activists as violent, irrational people

prepared to use intimidation to further their cause. Further, the item failed to challenge

or question a presumption that animal research was an essential prerequisite to the

advancement of medical knowledge. In the Authority's view, the relevant standards are

standards G4 and G6, dealing with fairness and balance respectively. Other standards

raised by Mr Eden are dealt with below in the ambit of these primary concerns.

Standard G4 – dealing justly and fairly

The Authority notes that anti vivisectionists had an opportunity to explain their

philosophy and the reasons for their opposition to the work of Professor Gluckman and

other researchers who used laboratory animals in their work. Although the animal rights

activists did not challenge the researcher directly in the programme, he was asked by the

reporter about the necessity to use animals in research. In his response, he appeared to

minimise the numbers of animals used, thus conveying an impression that the

researchers themselves did not use animals unnecessarily.

While not finding it to be a breach of standards, the Authority questions whether it was

fair to describe Professor Gluckman as "by any measure a heroic pioneer", a term which

it considers had the potential to place his opponents in extreme counterpoint. It

acknowledges that his work has been recognised by his peers, for which he has received

some national and international awards, due to its potential to save the lives of babies

with certain birth defects. In contrast, however, the animal rights activists were shown

harassing the researcher, and it was intimated that they were capable not only of using

illegal methods to hinder the work, but also violence and other extreme tactics overseas.

Some illustration of this was provided.

The Authority considers that because the activists themselves were given an

opportunity to put their views, the potential to portray them unfairly was minimised.

Consequently, it finds no breach of standard G4.

Standard G6 – balance, fairness and impartiality

Next the Authority examines whether, as Mr Eden claims, there was a bias in favour of

Professor Gluckman and against the anti vivisection movement.

TVNZ defended its use of the term "heroic pioneer" to describe Professor Gluckman

and maintained that it was justified in the context of his work. It also defended its

depiction of the activists as extremists. The Authority considers that the aspects

shown fairly represented both the work of the researcher and the tactics used by the

animal rights activists to express their opposition to the use of animals in medical

research. The programme provided the opportunity for the views of both sides of the

debate to be put. The activists were questioned at length about their philosophy and

their methods of protest. While, as noted above, the Authority questions the neutrality

of the description of the researcher, it is not prepared to find it breached the requirement

for balance or impartiality when seen in the context of the programme as a whole.

With respect to the complaint that the programme distorted the work of anti

vivisectionists by portraying them as irrational and violent, the Authority accepts that

the incidents portrayed were an accurate reflection of the type of activism adopted by

some in the animal rights movement. When juxtaposed with the pictures of the

terminally ill baby, however, the protest action provided a stark contrast. In

questioning whether that contrast was fair, the Authority concludes that the activists

were firmly of the view that their methods were justified and that animal testing was

never warranted. In those circumstances, the Authority finds no breach of standards.

Standard G13 – discrimination against anti vivisectionists

The Authority rejects the complaint under standard G13. It finds nothing in the

programme which treated anti vivisectionists as inherently inferior, or which encouraged

discrimination against them.

Standard G15 – reliability of news sources

Next the Authority turns to the complaint that it was unfair not to question why a vet,

who had been a target of anti vivisectionists, claimed to be baffled as to why she was so

targeted. The complainant maintained that the vet's involvement in vivisection was well

known, and considered that the reporter should have investigated her claim that she was

unfairly targeted. The Authority considers this matter is more appropriately dealt with

as a balance matter, under standard G6. It considers that it would have been helpful to

have understood the vet's background, as it did appear that she had been arbitrarily

targeted. It considered this aspect when it dealt with the balance complaint above, and

concludes that in the overall context it was a relatively minor matter which did not

threaten the balance requirement.

Standards G16, G19, G20, V1, V2 and V13

The Authority does not find these standards relevant to the complaint, although it has

considered the matters raised under these headings when it dealt with the complaint

about lack of balance.

Conclusion

The programme demonstrated that in doing their work, many animal researchers put

themselves and their families at risk of being targeted by animal rights activists. The

activists' tactics were seen at times to be intimidatory and illegal, and those who were

interviewed showed that they believed such methods were justified.

The contrast between the two opposing views was stark. However, the Authority

concludes that both viewpoints were conveyed fairly, and that the programme was,

overall, balanced and fair. It declines to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
23 April 1998

Appendix

Mark Eden's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – undated

Mr Eden of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about its broadcast

of an item on 60 Minutes on 16 November 1997 at 7.30pm. The item dealt with the

issue of animal research, and focused on the work of one scientist who had been the

subject of protest by animal rights activists.

He maintained that it breached a number of standards in the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice:

1. Standard G4

Mr Eden advised that he was one of four animal liberation activists interviewed for the

programme, and that it was his understanding its focus was to be animal rights activists

and their protest tactics. In fact it was the story of one scientist and the issue of animal

research. None of the activists was aware of this until after their interviews were

recorded. Had they known it was to be about the single issue of vivisection, Mr Eden

contended those interviewed would have talked about that issue specifically, and would

have insisted that the programme interview an activist whose area of expertise was

vivisection.

2. Standard G6

Mr Eden complained that the programme was not balanced, impartial or fair. From the

beginning, the presenter showed a bias in favour of the scientist and against the anti

vivisection campaigners. The scientist was referred to as a "heroic pioneer" while the

activists were accused of "harassing" him.

Mr Eden noted that on several occasions, the presenter was filmed with a sick baby and

said that the scientist's work would save babies like it. Mr Eden wrote:

These shots were not of Gluckman [the scientist] and his work, they were filmed

as a backdrop to the presenter's introduction and explanations. This was an

unethical way of getting sympathy for Gluckman.

The presenter and a police officer then discussed the growth of the animal liberation

movement overseas and the likelihood of it growing in New Zealand. Footage from an

overseas protest was shown in which a vivisector's car was bombed and a child was

injured. Mr Eden pointed out that the incident occurred in the UK about 15 years ago,

and had been condemned by the entire animal rights movement. He argued that it was

not an appropriate example of the tactics of activists. No opportunity was given to

counter this misinformation.

Mr Eden suggested that Professor Gluckman's involvement with vivisection was

minimised on the programme, and noted that he had been involved in many animal

experiments at the Auckland School of Medicine for the past 20 years, and for the last

few years had been head of the animal research department and responsible for

overseeing the thousands of animals used there. Mr Eden added:

The whole tone of the programme favoured Gluckman who was pictured as "an

heroic pioneer", saving sick babies, versus a small bunch of irrational violent

nutters who support the use of violence against anyone who disagrees with

them.

3. Standard G13

Mr Eden argued that the programme portrayed anti vivisectionists and animal liberation

activists as violent, irrational people likely to be involved in terrorism and intimidation,

as opposed to normal legal forms of protest. He contended this may have had the effect

of encouraging discrimination against those who believed in animal liberation or anti

vivisection.

4. Standard G14

Mr Eden argued that the story was inaccurate, not objective and not impartial.

5. Standard G15

Mr Eden questioned the reliability of the information conveyed. He noted that a woman

who claimed she was an ordinary vet wondered why she was targeted by animal rights

activists. In fact, Mr Eden asserted, she had been a long time member of the National

Animal Ethics Advisory Committee which oversees and approves all animal

experimentation in New Zealand. She had in the past publicly criticised anti vivisection

activists and called for anti vivisection films to be banned in schools.

Mr Eden concluded that if she had been targeted, it was because of these activities, and

any responsible journalist would have attempted to find out.

6. Standard G16

In Mr Eden's view, the whole programme was presented in such a way as to cause

unnecessary panic, alarm and distress to viewers, particularly parents with young

children, who might think that animal rights activists were intent on terrorist attacks to

stop research which benefitted sick children.

7. Standard G19

Mr Eden considered that the editing of the programme strongly suggested that blowing

up cars was something activists supported. It also implied that ordinary vets were

being threatened by activists. He contended that both these views were a distortion of

the overall views expressed.

8. Standard G20

The issue was a controversial one and, in Mr Eden's view, 60 Minutes failed to present

it as fairly as possible.

9. Standard V1

The pictures of the bomb injuries to the child were not justifiable in the context of the

programme.

10. Standard V2

The pictures of the child should have been avoided as they were gratuitous.

11. Standard V13

In concluding, Mr Eden repeated that the violence shown was library footage from

England filmed more than 15 years ago, and argued that it was not necessary to illustrate

the issue being discussed (the animal research debate in New Zealand).

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 22 December 1997

TVNZ described the item as one which:

...looked at an increase in activism by those opposed to medical experiments

involving animals, and featured both representatives of the activists, and a

medical researcher whose work has been criticised by animal rights groups.

It responded to the complaint under each standard raised.

1. Standard G4

TVNZ advised that it deduced from Mr Eden's letter that he felt he was unfairly treated

because he felt misled about the intentions of the programme. Its understanding was

that he and the other three activists were told the story would deal with the rise in the

level of activism by animal rights groups in recent times. In TVNZ's view, that was

exactly what the programme was about.

It also seemed possible to TVNZ that Mr Eden felt unfairly treated because his

interview was not used in the programme. It explained that the decision to use other

interviewees was an editorial judgment, based on the lucidity of the arguments. A

decision not to use a pre-recorded interview, TVNZ continued, was not a breach of

standard G4. It thanked Mr Eden for his contribution, and assured him that his views

were kept in mind during the compilation of the report.

2. Standard G6

TVNZ rejected Mr Eden's view that the item showed a bias in favour of Professor

Gluckman, and against anti vivisectionists. It pointed out that the programme could not

have been made without featuring someone who was a target of the animal rights

campaign.

It made no apologies for using the term "heroic pioneer" to describe Professor

Gluckman. In its view, it accurately reflected that his research over the years had the

potential for producing far reaching and beneficial effects for babies born with serious

defects.

Showing the reporter with a sick baby was not unethical, TVNZ maintained, or a way of

garnering sympathy for Professor Gluckman. It reminded Mr Eden that television was a

visual medium and it was simply a way of showing someone who would stand to

benefit from the research programme.

TVNZ denied that the programme concealed the fact that Professor Gluckman used

animals in his research. It noted that the nature of the experiments were discussed in

some detail and Professor Gluckman was heard to say himself that he wished such

experimentation was not necessary. It noted that the reporter's questions provided

balance here, as did the interviews with the two animal rights campaigners, both of

whom were familiar with Professor Gluckman's work.

To the suggestion that the programme distorted the work of the Animal Liberation Front

(ALF) by resorting to a library picture of an incident which happened over 15 years ago,

TVNZ responded that in fact the incident occurred in 1990. Further, it did not accept

that the ALF confined itself to non-violent activity. It cited a number of examples of its

more extreme activities, such as arson, intimidation and vandalising property. TVNZ

suggested it was naive to imply that extreme activists were non-violent protesters. It

considered it was appropriate to show the more extreme edge of ALF activity, because

with the growing number of incidents of property damage in Auckland alone this year,

the potential for more extreme behaviour was high.

TVNZ denied that Professor Gluckman's involvement in vivisection was minimised. It

believed his research and his use of animals was made clear. It declined to uphold this

aspect.

3. Standard G13

TVNZ did not share Mr Eden's view that the programme presented animal activists as

"violent, irrational people". It responded:

The programme, clearly concerned with the more extreme activists, showed them

to be a group prepared to resort to illegal activity if necessary and proud to bear

their criminal convictions. Sub clause (i) in G13 allows for material which is

factual. Sub-clause (ii) allows for the expression of genuinely held opinion which

covers comments made in the programme by those who have been the subject of

animal liberation activism.

4. Standard G14

TVNZ responded that this standard was covered above.

5. Standard G15

TVNZ reported that the background of the vet was checked, and the two animal rights

activists were asked to explain why she had become a target. Neither offered any

information.

TVNZ reported that the vet [Ms Smith] was on the Ethics committee as a watch dog.

She had never practised vivisection, and could think of no reason why she should

become the target of a bomb threat. It suggested Mr Eden's comments amounted to

unfounded innuendo.

6. Standard G16

TVNZ considered Mr Eden's reference to standard G16 to be far fetched. It did not

believe the programme would panic or alarm anybody.

7. Standard G19

TVNZ did not find any evidence of distortion in the manner in which the programme

was edited.

8. Standard G20

TVNZ advised that it had already dealt with the matter raised by Mr Eden under this

standard. It maintained that the views of the animal rights movement were clearly

outlined and given a fair hearing.

9. Standard V1

In TVNZ's view, this standard did not prevent the broadcast of legitimate news in a

proper context. It considered the historical scenes shown were justifiable in the overall

context of the item.

10. Standard V2

TVNZ did not consider the standard relevant, adding that the material was not used

gratuitously.

11. Standard V13

In TVNZ's view, the standard was not breached because the pictures used were

appropriate to illustrate the point being discussed and helped put the animal liberation

movement into an international context.

TVNZ concluded that there was no breach of standards.

Mr Eden's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 12 January 1998

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

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

Mr Eden reiterated his complaint that the programme showed bias towards one side of

the animal research debate. He explained that the debate about vivisection was whether

it saved lives or not. The anti vivisectionists considered that animal research was a

dangerous and misleading research method which would not lead to any benefits to

human health. The researchers claimed that it would lead to health benefits. Those were

the two sides of the debate.

Accordingly, Mr Eden argued, for TVNZ to state that the research was "beneficial",

"successful" and that babies "stand to benefit from the professor's research programme"

confirmed their bias. He wrote:

A balanced programme would have presented both sides of the debate in a

neutral way, but TVNZ seem convinced that animal research is as useful and

necessary as Mr Gluckman claims. The 60 Minutes item presented the pro

vivisection side as the truth and fact. In their reply to my complaint, TVNZ

again stated as fact ...that animal research is beneficial to human health.

Mr Eden considered that this demonstrated that TVNZ was in breach of standard G6

because it had not dealt with this controversial issue in a balanced, impartial and fair

manner.

Mr Eden corrected TVNZ's impression that he had said that Professor Gluckman's use

of animals was "concealed" when in fact he had said it was minimised.

With respect to the activities of the ALF, Mr Eden pointed out that the incident that

was shown was not representative of the tactics of the activists. He advised that he and

many other activists fully supported the use of non violent property damage and

"theft" of laboratory animals. They did not support actions which were aimed at

hurting people. He acknowledged that the actions of the ALF were illegal, but

emphasised that they were not violent. He objected to the implication in the programme

that the animal movement supported the use of violence.

Referring to the examples provided by TVNZ of animal rights protests, Mr Eden

provided additional information, which he said demonstrated that none caused injury to

any person. He said he stood by his original complaint that there was no substance to

the accusation that the ALF and the animal rights movement generally supported the use

of violence, as was implied in the programme. He added:

The fact that activists in the UK (and here) are under surveillance from the police

and other security forces means they are suspected of illegal activities, not

necessarily violent activities. This seems to be a difficult concept for TVNZ to

grasp.

To TVNZ's response that it was appropriate to show the extreme edge of ALF activity,

Mr Eden noted that the car bombing incident was not claimed by the ALF but by

another group, and that its action was condemned by every group in the UK animal

movement.

Mr Eden concluded by noting that all other aspects of his original complaint still stood.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 28 January 1998

TVNZ advised that it had little to add to its earlier letter. It wrote:

We consider absurd Mr Eden's apparent belief that it is all right to use arson and

fire bombings in pursuit of a campaign provided nobody gets hurt. We remind

the Authority that the word "terrorism" does not apply only to activities in

which people are maimed and killed, although in the cases described the potential

for that result was clearly present.

TVNZ added that its concerns about the activities of the ALF were not a figment of its

imagination. As the programme described, the New Zealand Police had expressed

concern about such activities spreading to this country, and were closely watching

developments abroad.

Mr Eden's Final Comment – 3 February 1998

Commenting on TVNZ's reference to terrorism, Mr Eden observed that this was the

first time in the process of the complaint that the word terrorism had been used by him

or by TVNZ. He said he failed to see how it was relevant. He argued that TVNZ's

definition of terrorism was so vague it could also have included the activities of the

army, air force, navy and the police.

Mr Eden said he did not expect TVNZ to agree with his views, or anyone else's. What

he did expect was that when he and others in the animal rights and anti vivisection

movements were approached that TVNZ accurately reflected those views. He wrote:

TVNZ believe that some of the opinions held by people in the animal liberation

movement are absurd and criminal, but they have a duty to represent those

views fairly. They have failed to do this. Animal liberation and anti vivisection

campaigners were misrepresented as supportive of the use of violence against

people, both in the original documentary and in TVNZ's replies to my complaint.