BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A rally was held in Wellington on 10 December 1997 protesting against some of the

government's policies. The speakers were Maxine Gay of the NZ Trade Union

Federation, Ross Wilson from the NZ Council of Trade Unions, and MPs Laila Harre

and Peter Hodgson. Actualities from the speeches of the latter three were included in

that day's Checkpoint, broadcast on National Radio between 5.00–6.00pm each

weekday.

Mr Scott complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the omission of

any reference to Ms Gay, and the omission of her significant contribution, were

breaches of the broadcasting standards relating to balance and accuracy.

In response, RNZ explained that an original item covering the rally had been prepared

for broadcast, which had included some actuality from Ms Gay, but it had to be edited

to comply with time restraints. It maintained that the omission of the reference to Ms

Gay in the 5.00pm bulletin, and the omission later of some actuality from her speech,

did not result in a broadcast which breached the standards. There had been reference

to Ms Gay in other bulletins, RNZ said, and the points she made at the rally were

dealt with satisfactorily from the balance perspective given the actualities carried of

the other speeches. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Scott 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.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to the Checkpoint item complained

about, and to the parts of the National Radio news bulletins at 5.00 and 6.00pm that

day which referred to the rally. They have also read the correspondence (summarised

in the Appendix). In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a

formal hearing.

The government's policy on holidays was the focus of a rally at Parliament on 10

December 1997. The speakers were Maxine Gay of the Trade Union Federation,

Ross Wilson of the Council of Trade Unions, and MPs Laila Harre and Peter

Hodgson.

Actualities from the speeches of the latter three were included on Checkpoint.

Checkpoint is a current affairs programme which is broadcast by RNZ on National

Radio between 5.00 and 6.00pm each weekday.

Mr Scott complained to RNZ about the omission of Ms Gay's comments. Pointing

out that she had drawn the biggest response at the rally, he described the omission as

censorship, and argued that the broadcast breached standards R9 and R16 of the Radio

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Standard R9 requires broadcasters:

R9   To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

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

reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in the same

programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

Standard R16 reads:

R16   News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

In its response to Mr Scott, RNZ advised that its Complaints Committee had

considered the following matter:

The Editorial Policy Manager reported on the complaint, and also obtained and

consolidated the reports of staff concerned. At the request of the Committee,

he initiated discussions with all staff likely to be involved in such last-minute

duration issues. Some improved options have been identified to be available

under such last-minute, pressure-of work duration adjustments.

While the Complaints Committee is unable to agree that any inaccuracy or

unfairness in terms of the Statutory Standards occurred in the present case,

there is no doubt that the reporter who had prepared the original "wrap-around"

had put together a more complete story than that which went to air. The nature

of radio news and "breaking" current affairs coverage is such that similar

situations will regularly arise in the future.

Noting that its Complaints Committee fully supported the editorial right to cut and

shape a programme, RNZ added:

As often with topical immediate radio news, the item became available towards

the "last minute". All radio programmes are subject to tight timing to meet exact

schedules and overall duration of a programme must be right, although a

producer can take a flexible approach to the duration of individual parts. It

should be understood that Checkpoint is a programme consisting partly of

ready-recorded "packages" to be played in on cue; of live presentation; and

sometimes of a live report on link or line. A producer is responsible for on-air

presentation, and last-minute adjustments required.

For the programme in question, the "package" put together by the reporter was

longer than the "space" which had been left for it. It therefore had to be cut, and

cut in the most rapid way possible, since air time was almost reached. The

editorial/production decision was taken to cut the Trade Union Federation

content because (i) it was the duration to be saved; and (ii) it involved the

smallest number of edits possible (two), tying up as briefly as possible two

recorders required for imminent programme presentation.

RNZ pointed out that the organisational role of the TUF and Ms Gay's participation

had been referred to in the introduction of the Checkpoint package, and in the news

bulletin at 6.00pm.

In view of its editorial practices, RNZ declined to uphold the complaint under

standard R16. As Ms Gay's views had supported and elaborated on the matters

advanced by the other speakers from whom extracts were broadcast, RNZ did not

accept that the balance requirement of standard R9 had been contravened.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Scott, pointed out that, despite

the conclusions reached by RNZ through what he described as its "verbal

gymnastics", the focus of his complaint was the suppression of Ms Gay's significant

point of view.

In its report to the Authority, RNZ contended that the substantive issues raised by

Mr Scott had been addressed. Some of the matters covered in the report to Mr Scott,

it acknowledged, did not deal with issues which he had raised. However, as it had

explained to him, he had been sent a copy of the decision on another complaint about

the same matter which had raised a broader range of issues, and had alleged breaches of

a greater number of standards.

On the issue of censorship, RNZ advised the Authority:

The Company has not responded specifically to allegations of "censoring",

"suppression" and the like. It regrets that listeners should seriously take and

hold such a position from which to make a complaint, but does not believe it

likely to be useful to incorporate denials of such accusations in a formal

complaint response. In the Company's view, far more important than such

responses is the identification of the need to ensure staff understanding of the

need to take care that, when last-minute cuts for duration are made, material so

removed does not require to be restored in briefer form.

In its consideration of the matters raised by Mr Scott in this complaint, the Authority

does not perceive any matters which would endanger the requirements in standard

R16 for accuracy, objectivity and impartiality. Accordingly, that aspect is not

upheld.

Under standard R9, Mr Scott alleged that the item was unbalanced as it did not

contain Ms Gay's views.

RNZ has explained that her contribution was included in the package prepared for

broadcast but, because of time restraints, it had been deleted from the coverage of the

rally which was broadcast during Checkpoint. The Authority accepts this explanation

as to the reason why actuality from Ms Gay was not included in the item. The

Authority is satisfied that there is no element of censorship as alleged by the

complainant.

The Authority acknowledges, and accepts, that the editorial practices in themselves

are not a matter of broadcasting standards, and that they thus are procedures with

which it is not directly concerned. The Authority may become involved, however,

when it is required to determine a complaint that a broadcast is unbalanced, and it is

alleged that the issue being considered was not dealt with in a way which showed

balance, impartiality and fairness. These are the criteria under which the Authority

determines Mr Scott's complaint on this occasion.

The most straightforward way to determine the balance of the item would be to listen

to the extracts from Ms Gay's speech which were prepared for broadcast, but which

were deleted because of time constraints. That is not possible because RNZ advised

that the material is no longer available.

In these circumstances, the Authority assesses the other material contained in the

correspondence. It notes that RNZ maintained that Ms Gay's views were similar to

those of the speakers who were broadcast. It also notes that Mr Scott, in his initial

letters of complaint about the broadcast and which referred to censorship, did not

specifically cite significant content in Ms Gay's speech which differed markedly from

that of the other speakers. Neither did he raise such specific content in his letter of

referral to the Authority which dealt with a number of matters covered by RNZ.

Accordingly, while the Authority notes that Mr Scott considered Ms Gay to be the

speaker who was received most enthusiastically at the rally, it has no reason to believe

from the correspondence it has read that she advanced a significant point of view

which was not addressed by any of the other speakers. In these circumstances, the

Authority does not accept that the balance requirement in standard R9 was

contravened.

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

The Authority concludes by dealing with an issue raised by RNZ in the

correspondence in relation to the other complaint it received about the Checkpoint

item. It is not a matter raised by Mr Scott. However, the Authority brings it up to

ensure that its approach to the issue is known when the standard is raised in a

complaint.

The standard in issue is R21 which reads:

R21  It shall be the responsibility of each station to be fair in the allocation of

time to interested parties in controversial public issues. In exercising this

responsibility a station will take into account the news value of the

viewpoints offered and previous allotment of air time.

On the basis that standard R21 historically arose from and was applied to community

station coverage of local issues, and that it implied stop-watch programming which is

at variance with normal news procedures, RNZ suggested that it was no longer

relevant.

The Authority is not necessarily convinced that the standard should be repealed at

this stage. It does not accept that the standard implies stop-watch news

programming. Indeed, in decisions on complaints when the issue of the time allocated

to the different sides of an argument has been raised, the Authority has explicitly

stated that the quality of the argument, not its quantity, is the criterion on which

compliance will be assessed (eg decision 18/92, 14.5.92). There may be a case for

clarifying the purpose of this standard but that is a matter best pursued through the

consultation process.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
30 April 199

Appendix

M Scott's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 11 December 1997

Mr M Scott of Wellington complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about the coverage

on Checkpoint, on 10 December 1997, of a rally against the government's policies

called jointly by the NZ Trade Union Federation and the NZ Council of Trade

Unions.

Mr Scott said that the four main speakers were Maxine Gay, president of the Trade

Union Federation, Ross Wilson, acting president of the Council of Trade Unions, and

Members of Parliament Laila Harre and Peter Hodgson. Pointing out that Ms Gay

had drawn the biggest response, Mr Scott said that her comments, unlike those from

the other three, were not carried by Checkpoint. Mr Scott described this as

censorship, and said that such gagging corresponded with the tactics under Thatcher in

Britain or Pinochet in Chile.

In a second letter dated 18 December, Mr Scott complained formally about breaches

of accuracy and balance in the Checkpoint broadcast, and nominated standards R9 and

R16 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Mr Scott reiterated the points made in the earlier letter, adding that Ms Gay's name

was not mentioned in the news at 5.00pm, unlike the other speakers, and although she

was named at 5.30pm, nothing more about her participation was reported. Noting

that Ms Gay had made some important points, Mr Scott concluded:

In view of the impact of the issues involved on the lives of working people

throughout the country and in view of the critical importance of the role

National Radio plays in providing an independent and impartial news service to

the public, I hope that this matter will not be trivialised but taken seriously and

successfully resolved.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 21 January 1998

Explaining that it had also received a complaint from Mr Michael Gilchrist of the

Trade Union Federation along similar lines, RNZ sent Mr Scott a copy of its decision

to Mr Gilchrist.

The letter to Mr Gilchrist noted that the complaint had been assessed under standards

R5, R16, R9 and R12/13, and declined in full. RNZ noted that its Complaints

Committee had attached the following memorandum to its report.

The Editorial Policy Manager reported on the complaint, and also obtained and

consolidated the reports of staff concerned. At the request of the Committee,

he initiated discussions with all staff likely to be involved in such last-minute

duration issues. Some improved options have been identified to be available

under such last-minute, pressure-of work duration adjustments.

While the Complaints Committee is unable to agree that any inaccuracy or

unfairness in terms of the Statutory Standards occurred in the present case,

there is no doubt that the reporter who had prepared the original "wrap-around"

had put together a more complete story than that which went to air. The nature

of radio news and "breaking" current affairs coverage is such that similar

situations will regularly arise in the future.

RNZ's report initially considered the extent that the standards cited by Mr Gilchrist

were applicable. This was not applicable to Mr Scott's complaint which confined its

concern to standards R9 and R16, which RNZ accepted were relevant.

RNZ's Complaints Committee then gave full support to the editorial right to cut and

shape a programme, provided that balance was not affected.

With regard to standard R16, the Complaints Committee "categorically" rejected the

suggestion of censoring. RNZ, it continued, unlike the situation encountered in some

newspapers, had no "editorial policy". On this occasion, the reporter who attended

the event put together a package including four cuts of actuality recorded at the rally.

It continued:

As often with topical immediate radio news, the item became available towards

the "last minute". All radio programmes are subject to tight timing to meet exact

schedules and overall duration of a programme must be right, although a

producer can take a flexible approach to the duration of individual parts. It

should be understood that Checkpoint is a programme consisting partly of

ready-recorded "packages" to be played in on cue; of live presentation: and

sometimes of a live report on link or line. A producer is responsible for on-air

presentation, and last-minute adjustments required.

For the programme in question, the "package" put together by the reporter was

longer than the "space" which had been left for it. It therefore had to be cut, and

cut in the most rapid way possible, since air time was almost reached. The

editorial/production decision was taken to cut the Trade Union Federation

content because (i) it was the duration to be saved; and (ii) it involved the

smallest number of edits possible (two), tying up as briefly as possible two

recorders required for imminent programme presentation.

RNZ then pointed out that Ms Gay's participation and the organisational role of the

TUF had been referred to in the introduction to the longer Checkpoint Package, and to

in the bulletin at 6.00pm. Taking into account the references which were included at

the different stages, RNZ did not accept that a breach of standard R16 had occurred.

Turning to standard R9, RNZ recorded that it did not now have available the material

recorded but not broadcast. Noting that balance referred to points of view, not

people, RNZ wrote:

However, the Committee had available a full report from the News Policy

Manager, and also from the reporter who covered the rally. The Committee

began consideration of this part of the complaint by examining the thrust of the

address given by Maxine Gay. It was apparent to the Committee that the TUF

views put forward by Ms Gay were not in competition with those of the CTU,

and while the Committee noted the opinion expressed in the complaints that

Maxine Gay had made points differing from those expressed by the three other

speakers, the Committee was unable to accept that in this instance she had

expressed views "in competition" or in contradiction.

Because Ms Gay's views had supported and elaborated the opinions of the other

speakers, rather than advance contrary views, RNZ did not accept that the balance

requirement in s.4(1)(d) of the Act, or standard R9, had been contravened.

After dealing with the standards R12/13, R5 and R19 aspects of the complaint, RNZ

declined to uphold the full complaint.

Mr Scott's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Received 10

February 1998

Dissatisfied with RNZ's response, Mr Scott referred the complaint to the

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

Maintaining the matters raised in his original letter of complaint, Mr Scott made two

specific points about RNZ's reply.

First, he expressed surprise that the tape of Ms Gay's contribution had not been

retained. "A full report from the News Policy Manager, and also from the reporter is

no substitute", Mr Scott wrote.

Secondly, Mr Scott maintained that RNZ had not answered the points in the original

letter. However, he added, "by a remarkable feat of verbal gymnastics", RNZ had

decided that Ms Gay had received appropriate credit for organising the protest. That

was not a point of his complaint, the complainant stated, adding that he had expressed

concern rather, that Ms Gay's significant point of view was suppressed.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 18 March 1998

While addressing the specific points made by Mr Scott, RNZ commented:

The Authority will, of course, understand that these comments are all additional

to the substantive formal decision, which remains the core of the Company's

response to the complaint. With regard to the Company's original decision,

while a complaint of breach of statutory standards was not upheld, the

Authority is invited to note that the Company recognises the potential risk of

the type of editorial decision under review and has taken action accordingly.

Turning to Mr Scott's comment about the tape, RNZ pointed out that there was no

statutory obligation to retain material which is not broadcast. RNZ added that the

reporter's notes and recollection of the event had been retained and were available for

inspection if necessary. RNZ also referred to the practical limitations of retaining

material in full.

As for Mr Scott's other point, RNZ noted that its letter of 21 January dealt with two

distinct complaints. Nonetheless:

The Company believes that nothing substantive was left not addressed. The

question of credit for the organising of the rally was a response to the TUF

complaint, which had suggested that reports had omitted to report that fact.

That suggestion is not attributed to M Scott. Nevertheless, it is relevant to the

Scott complaint that steps were taken within the 1-hour cycle to report Maxine

Gay's participation in the rally and the TUF's co-organising role.

To assist the Authority understand the matters raised in the earlier report sent to Mr

Scott, RNZ enclosed a copy of the complaint it had received from Mr Gilchrist as

Acting Secretary of the NZ Trade Union Federation.

On the issue of censorship, RNZ observed:

The Company has not responded specifically to allegations of "censoring",

"suppression" and the like. It regrets that listeners should seriously take and

hold such a position from which to make a complaint, but does not believe it

likely to be useful to incorporate denials of such accusations in a formal

complaint response. In the Company's view, far more important than such

responses is the identification of the need to ensure staff understanding of the

need to take care that, when last-minute cuts for duration are made, material so

removed does not require to be restored in briefer form.

Mr Scott's Final Comment

Mr Scott did not respond to the Authority's invitation for a final comment on RNZ's

report.