BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The results of a poll of voters prior to the Taranaki–King Country by-election were

reported on One Network News broadcast on 13 April 1998 between 6.00–7.00pm.

The Christian Heritage Party's Executive Director complained to TVNZ on the

party's behalf that the poll was misleading both in the way it was presented, and in

the questions asked of voters. It pointed out that voters were asked which of five

candidates they would vote for, when in fact there were 20 candidates standing for

election. It argued that the results were therefore inaccurate and misleading, and thus

in breach of broadcasting standards.

TVNZ responded that its coverage of the by-election reflected the main opinion

trends, and emphasised that the main news content of the election story lay with the

five parties listed in the poll. It did not accept that the broadcast was unbalanced or

unfair in its depiction of the poll relationship of the parties, and declined to uphold

the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, the Christian Heritage Party referred the

complaint 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.

One month before the Taranaki–King Country by-election, the results of a poll of

voters, conducted on behalf of TVNZ, was reported on One Network News. The

item, broadcast on 13 April 1998 between 6.00–7.00pm, revealed that among the 500

voters polled, the National candidate was the front runner, with the Labour and ACT

candidates attracting the same level of support in second place, the Alliance candidate

in fourth place and the New Zealand First candidate in fifth place. Of those polled,

25% said they were undecided, according to the report. In the item, TVNZ's political

editor emphasised that it was the battle for second place in the polls which would

attract the most interest, as the National Party candidate was clearly the frontrunner.

The Executive Director of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) on its behalf

complained to TVNZ that the poll was misleading in both the way in which it was

presented, and in the questions asked. As such, it argued, it contravened standard

G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It sought remedial action from

TVNZ.

The CHP noted that the question stated:

The following candidates have confirmed they are standing for the 

            Taranaki–King Country electorate:
           

Shane Arden for National

Kevin Campbell for Alliance

Owen Jennings for ACT

Robin Ord for NZ First

Max Purnell for Labour

            Which candidate would you vote for?
           

            If DON'T KNOW:

            Which candidate are you most likely to vote for?

The CHP contended that the question "leads voters, distorts the free presentation of

what might be the reality in the election, and is therefore unethical." It pointed out

that the question gave respondents only five choices of candidates, when in reality

there were about 20 candidates who had confirmed they were standing for the election.

The Party submitted that TVNZ had a duty to report the facts fairly and without

bias. It considered this essential, it wrote, because polls had the ability to interfere

with election results. Furthermore, according to the CHP, publicising the results of

this poll at that stage of the election campaign had done the Party immeasurable harm.

It considered that the results were inaccurate and misleading, and would have led

voters to conclude that only five candidates were effectively in the running for the

position, it wrote.

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint in the context of standards G1,

G6 and G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standards G1 and G6

require broadcasters:

G1   To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

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

The other standard reads:

G14   News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

TVNZ emphasised that from a journalistic perspective, the interest in the by-election

was not in the performance of the twenty individual candidates, but in the movements

in support for the major political parties and the consequences of those movements in

the wider political scene. It stressed that the telephone poll was conducted before the

list of candidates had closed, and before a preliminary list was available. It said that it

had selected National, Labour, ACT and the Alliance because it considered they would

realistically dominate the final result. New Zealand First was included because, as the

coalition partner, there was considerable interest in its performance.

TVNZ said that its market research company rejected the accusation of bias, and

emphasised that its philosophy was to retain neutrality. It had to work with

incomplete information on the number of candidates, and had not shown undue

preference for any party, TVNZ continued.

TVNZ reiterated that the most important criterion in any news story was that there

should be inherent news value, and argued that it was not the media's task to act as

publicity agent for political parties or candidates. TVNZ maintained that the political

reality was that the CHP did not have a realistic chance of winning, or of making a

major impact on the election result. Therefore, it argued, its editorial decision not to

include all twenty candidates in the poll was justified.

As for the CHP's claim that the poll result had caused it "immeasurable harm", TVNZ

responded that it did not see how the report showing the relative positions of the

major parties could have affected public opinion.

With reference to standard G1, TVNZ emphasised that the standard related to what

was broadcast and that for a breach to occur, the information would have to be

demonstrably inaccurate. That was not the case, it argued.

Turning to standard G6, TVNZ reiterated that the news value in the story was

attached to four political parties, plus an ailing coalition partner, and did not accept

that the broadcast was unfair or unbalanced in its depiction of the poll relationship

between the parties.

As far as standard G14 was concerned, TVNZ did not accept that its references to the

poll positions of the main parties were other than objective and impartial.

When the CHP referred the complaint to the Authority it disputed TVNZ's assertion

that the interest in the by-election was in the movements of the major political parties.

It pointed out that its supporters had numbered almost 100,000 nationally in the last

election and said those supporters were entitled to know how the CHP was

performing. It submitted that TVNZ had a duty to use empirical data to support any

editorial decision it made, especially during an election campaign.

Referring to TVNZ's argument that the final election result was eventually dominated

by the same four leading parties, the CHP submitted that perhaps TVNZ had been

instrumental in achieving that result by focusing on those parties, and on New Zealand

First (which polled below the CHP on election day). It objected to TVNZ's failure to

give voters a feel for all of the parties which were offering alternatives, and described

as "utter nonsense" TVNZ's argument that to include all twenty candidates in the poll

would have obscured the opinion trend.

In concluding, the CHP reminded the Authority that in the final result it had been

ahead of New Zealand First. It urged the Authority to consider the need for voters to

hear from all candidates and let them determine the story, not TVNZ.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority deals first with the complaint that the poll was inaccurate and

misleading and thus in breach of standards G1 and G14.

The Authority understands the CHP's argument that a defective polling instrument

can lead to an incorrect and misleading conclusion. It notes that the focus of the poll,

at a relatively early stage of the election campaign, was on the relative performance of

the four major parties and New Zealand First. It was apparent that National was the

frontrunner and, according to the report, the real battle in the campaign was for second

place. At the time of the broadcast, Labour and ACT were tied for second. Another

feature of interest was the performance of New Zealand First, the party which had

run second in this electorate in the general election. It was also of interest on the

national political scene because of the possible implications to the coalition

government.

The CHP's argument was that because the minor parties were omitted from the poll,

the result was misleading and inaccurate and in breach of standard G1. The Authority

does not agree that the validity of the questionnaire is a matter of broadcasting

standards. The standards issue is whether the report which was broadcast was an

accurate summary of the poll results. The Authority finds that the results were

accurately reported, irrespective of the fact that only five candidates were listed in the

question. On this ground, the Authority finds no breach of standard G1. It has

subsumed the accuracy component of standard G14 under this standard.

The Authority next turns to the complaint that TVNZ's poll was unfair and in breach

of standards G6 and G14 because it effectively excluded the CHP as a contender in the

campaign. It notes first that the item was broadcast at the beginning of the month-

long election campaign. At that time National was regarded as a clear frontrunner and

Labour and ACT were vying for second place. The item clearly identified the real

battle as being for second place, and the surprise, at this stage of the campaign, was

how well ACT was polling. Given that this report was broadcast to a nationwide

audience, the Authority accepts that it was legitimate for it to focus on the national

political ramifications of the by-election, rather than to provide an update of the

relative positions of all of the parties contending for the seat. While the Authority

acknowledges that the performance of the CHP candidate would have been of interest

to CHP supporters, it considers that it was not realistic to suppose that the CHP

candidate would be one of the contenders for second place in the by-election.

The other aspect of unfairness contended by the CHP was that TVNZ manufactured a

news story from the data obtained from a defective poll. It argued that it was unfair

that respondents were not asked to consider the CHP candidate when asked who they

would vote for. As noted above, the Authority takes into account that the item was

being broadcast to a national audience, and that the details of the minor candidates'

polling were of limited relevance to those outside the electorate. It therefore accepts

TVNZ's argument that there was little news interest in the CHP in the by-election,

and acknowledges its editorial decision to focus on those parties which were

demonstrably of national interest. The Authority notes that New Zealand First was

included in the poll because of its strong showing in the previous election, and also

because of its position as coalition partner. The fact that it ultimately polled lower

than the CHP became a separate news story.

The Authority concludes that it was not unfair to exclude the CHP, along with a

number of other minor parties, from the poll, particularly as the information which

was sought was the relative showing of those parties which had a realistic chance of

affecting the election's outcome. The inclusion of New Zealand First was decided on

for different reasons, as explained above. The Authority finds no breach of either

standard G6 or G14.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
6 August 1998

Appendix

The Christian Heritage Party's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd –
20 April 1998

Through its Executive Director, the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about its report on One Network News on 13 April 1998

between 6.00–7.00pm on the results of a poll in the Taranaki–King Country

electorate prior to the by-election.

The CHP complained that the poll was misleading both in the way it was presented

and in the questions asked to gain responses. Therefore, it argued, it breached

standard G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The CHP noted that the question named five candidates and respondents were asked

which candidate they would vote for. It argued that the question led voters and

distorted the reality of the choices available because it gave respondents only five

candidates to choose from, ignoring the other 15 or so candidates who had confirmed

they were standing in the electorate.

Despite the bias in the question, the CHP noted, 2.6% of respondents declared that

they would vote for a candidate other than the five on the list.

It continued:

TVNZ has a duty to report the facts fairly and without bias. This is essential

in an election where polls have the ability to interfere with election results.

This poll was a sham and I am surprised that an ethical company like Colmar

Brunton allowed themselves to be part of such an unethical and misleading

poll.

          

Your publicising the results in the manner you did at that point in the election

campaign has done our party immeasurable harm. The results are inaccurate

and misleading and will have led voters who heard your poll results to

conclude that only five candidates were effectively in the running for the

position of elected representative of that electorate in Parliament.

The CHP asked how TVNZ intended to redress its biased and unbalanced reporting.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 30 April 1998

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standards G1, G6 and G14

of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It advised that in considering the complaint, it was noted that news imperatives were

very different from the imperatives of those involved in mounting an election

campaign. It argued that from a journalistic perspective, the national interest in the

by-election was not in the performance of the 20 individual candidates but in the

movement in support for the major political parties.

Turning to the poll results, TVNZ observed that it was a "snap poll" intended only to

provide a brief, general snapshot of the electorate's thinking at that time. Five

hundred voters were telephoned at random on three consecutive nights, providing a

result which had a margin of error of 4.4%.

It stressed that the poll was conducted before the list of candidates had closed, and as

a consequence neither the Electoral Commission nor the Electoral office was able to

offer even a preliminary list for the polling company to work with. The poll went

ahead with the names of the National, Labour, Alliance, NZ First and ACT

candidates, TVNZ continued. It explained that National, Labour, the Alliance and

ACT were selected because in the professional editorial judgment of TVNZ, they

were the parties which would realistically dominate the final result. At the same time,

their performance would have broad political consequences. NZ First was included

because of the implications of the coalition partner's showing in the by-election.

TVNZ noted that some 2.6% of respondents nominated a candidate other than those

listed. However, it added, that figure was not included in the item because of the news

imperatives cited above.

TVNZ advised that its market research company rejected the allegation of bias,

advising it was not its intention to exclude any party from a political poll. It noted it

had to work with incomplete information on the number of candidates, and did not

show undue preference for other parties.

TVNZ pointed out that a full list of candidates was available for the poll shown on

One Network News on 29 April, and that the same leading four parties dominated the

result.

In relation to its handling of the poll results, TVNZ noted that the most important

criterion in any political story was that the material should have an inherent news

value. It noted that it was not the role of the media to act as publicity agent for

political parties or candidates.

With regard to the fact that no complete list of candidates had been available, TVNZ

advised that its news staff had decided that the poll should answer the basic question

"who is out in front?" and should point to any indicators in the result which might

have wider ramifications. It continued:

With respect, The Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand did not have a

realistic chance of winning or making a major impact on the result of the by-

election. In an election in which up to twenty candidates were expected to

stand that is a judgement which TVNZ and all other media groups were called

upon to make. This does not represent bias by TVNZ. It simply reflects the

political reality which is what news viewers expect of their news services.

TVNZ did not accept the CHP's view that in naming only five candidates, the poll

ignored the other 15 candidates. It maintained that the inherent news content of the

election story lay with those five parties, unless some extraordinary event occurred to

change that. It continued:

To have reflected the full ballot paper in the broadcast would have been to

obscure the main opinion trends. We understand twenty candidates is a record

in New Zealand; clearly editorial judgement had to obtain.

TVNZ did not consider the poll was either inaccurate or biased, given that the

complete list of candidates was not available.

While it recognised the CHP's concern, TVNZ said it did not see how a poll showing

the relative positions of the five major parties could have caused the CHP

"immeasurable harm". It did not believe voters were unaware of the huge number of

candidates who were standing, nor that they would be persuaded by the item that the

five named were the only candidates. It repeated that for the rest of the country, the

interest was in the five candidates shown. Further, TVNZ pointed out, a later poll

(in which all the candidates were named) showed the race was essentially confined to

four parties. TVNZ maintained:

A poll does not shape opinion. It is up to the political parties to do that.

In considering standard G1, TVNZ emphasised that the figures broadcast gave an

accurate snapshot of opinion at that time. Subsequent polls had confirmed that, it

added. It did not believe standard G1 was infringed.

Referring to standard G6, TVNZ reiterated its argument that news stories about

politics had to have an inherent news value. In its view, where the news value was

clearly related to four political parties, and the "ailing Coalition partner", it did not

accept that the broadcast was unbalanced or unfair in its depiction of the poll

relationship among those parties.

Turning to standard G14's requirement for accuracy, TVNZ noted that had been dealt

with in relation to standard G1. As far as objectivity and impartiality was concerned,

it did not accept that its references to the poll positions of the main parties was other

than objective and impartial.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

The CHP's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 22 May 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, the CHP referred the complaint to the

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

The CHP disputed TVNZ's assertion that interest in the by-election was not in the

performance of the 20 individual candidates, but in the movements in support for the

major political parties. It noted that TVNZ had provided no proof for this assertion.

The CHP submitted that the movement of support was but one aspect that the public

was interested in. It pointed out that its support at the last election had numbered

close to 100,000 people and suggested that those people would have been interested

not just in trends, but in how the CHP was performing.

The CHP maintained that the classification by TVNZ of its poll as being a "snap

poll" was flawed. It emphasised that its complaint did not relate to the voting sample,

nor how quickly the poll was conducted.

The CHP suggested that TVNZ had tried to excuse its "biased" question by stressing

that the telephone poll was conducted before the list of candidates had been closed. If

that was so, it asked, where did TVNZ obtain its information about the candidates it

listed? If it was from press releases, it pointed out that its candidate had released a

press statement well before the poll was taken, and was among the first candidates to

register.

The question put to voters was:

The following candidates have confirmed they are standing for the 

Taranaki–King Country electorate:

Shane Arden                 for National

Kevin Campbell             for Alliance

Owen Jennings             for ACT

Robin Ord                      for NZ First

Max Purnell                   for Labour

            Which candidate would you vote for?
           

If Don't Know:

Which candidate are you most likely to vote for?

The CHP maintained that any fair and generous reading of the question suggested that

it was considerably more biased than TVNZ suggested.

While the CHP acknowledged that some editorial judgment was necessary as to which

parties to include, it considered that a more objective basis needed to be used that that

offered by TVNZ.

The CHP submitted that TNVZ had a duty to use empirical data to back any editorial

decision it made. It noted that all the polls revealed there were three levels of support

for parties:

*Those parties above the margin of error (National, ACT, Labour,

Alliance)

*Those within the margin of error: (CHP, NZ First, Greens and Legalise

Cannabis)

*All other parties and individuals who were under 1%

It noted that in all the polls taken, there was a clear difference between levels 2 and 3,

and asked why this was not used to make the professional judgment TVNZ claimed to

have taken.

The CHP submitted that if a biased question was asked, a biased result would be

given. It noted that respondents were not given the option to select other candidates.

With respect to Colmar Brunton's alleged defence of the poll, which included the fact

that it had incomplete information on the number of candidates, the CHP wrote:

Surely any professional marketing company should go to extreme lengths to

ensure they have all the information needed to get the question as fair and

unbiased as possible – unless, of course, a certain result is designed by those

commissioning the question. For example, why did they not include: "Any

other candidate standing" as a general option?

The CHP noted TVNZ's reference to the fact that the poll immediately before the

election showed the same result. It submitted that maybe TVNZ was instrumental in

creating that result, arguing that it had persisted throughout the campaign in only

reporting the five main parties, including NZ First, which had eventually polled below

CHP on election day. It continued:
           

From their first poll, which is the subject of this complaint, to the Leaders'

Debate two nights before the election where they invited the Greens and not

us, they failed to give voters a feel for all of the parties offering alternatives.

The CHP suggested that to many viewers, the success of a party was judged by its

television coverage. It said it was not blaming television for the result of the election,

but wanted a fair go, based on empirical data. It noted that TVNZ referred to four

parties dominating the poll the night before the election, whereas the earlier poll

included five parties.

To TVNZ's point that it was not its role to generate news about parties and

candidates, the CHP submitted that was precisely what was done if a poll misled the

respondents. It wrote:

It is noted that one of TVNZ's own commentators expressed surprise on

election night at the Christian Heritage Party's result vis a vis NZ First; hardly

professional coverage to end up with a "surprise" result one would have

thought.

The CHP pointed out that thousands of its members would have been interested in

the result of its candidate.

To TVNZ's argument that the poll implied the coverage should be limited to five

parties, the CHP submitted that standard G6 required TVNZ to show balance,

impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters. It argued there would have

been no news story if TVNZ had not conducted the poll. Therefore, the way the poll

was conducted must be governed by standard G6 and not their "predetermined news

story".

The CHP described as "utter nonsense" TVNZ's argument that to include all 20

candidates in the poll would have obscured the main opinion trend. In its view, it

would have served to highlight trends and allowed the political events to tell the story,

rather than what it called the broadcaster's preconceived expectations.

In concluding, the CHP reminded the Authority of the final results. It beat NZ First,

it wrote, yet its candidate was only given 12 words in total on TV One. The CHP

submitted that the "bias" which was evident in the Leaders' Debate had begun with

this poll. It urged the Authority to consider the need for voters to hear from all

candidates and let them determine the story.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 18 June 1998

TVNZ observed that the CHP appeared to see the item in terms of "coverage"

whereas it saw it simply as news. The difference in their viewpoints was seen where

the CHP said that it had failed to recognise the maxim "success breeds success".

TVNZ responded that it had no interest in promoting the electoral prospects of any

party, and was only interested in reporting news.

TVNZ continued:

The Authority has in the past acknowledged that there is a "chicken and egg"

situation in news reporting at the time of election campaigns. Inevitably news

items on issues in the campaign will draw attention to the political parties

involved in those issues – and will ignore those parties which are not germane

to the news story being told. From a "coverage" point of view that may seem

unfortunate but from a news gathering point of view it cannot be otherwise.

TVNZ emphasised that in its judgment, the interest in poll results in the electorate

was in which party would come second, and what consequences that would have on

the national political scene.

The unusual situation here was that NZ First (which had figured strongly in the

previous election) was polling below the margin of error, it explained. This was in

itself of news value, TVNZ continued, because of the fall in public support for the

party. Normally, TVNZ said it would not have reported the result of a party polling

so low, but in this unique situation, it had to be included.

TVNZ noted that the CHP might well consider itself "hard done by" for not being

included in the poll. However, in TVNZ's judgment, there had never been any

significant news interest in CHP in this election. There was, on the other hand,

interest in NZ First, because it was the Coalition partner, and because of its poor

showing. It acknowledged that the party's members might well have been interested

in its showing, but noted that the performance of the CHP was not going to change the

political landscape. It added that had its level of support climbed, the party's

progress would have been reflected in news programmes.

Again TVNZ stressed that news judgments had to be made, and the emphasis

remained on the national consequences of the by-election.

TVNZ said it apologised if the CHP found fault with the item, but assured the party

that when and if it made a significant mark on the national political landscape, it would

be reported on its news programmes.

The CHP's Final Comment – 1 July 1998

In its final comment, the CHP noted that TVNZ defended its position by trying to

focus on whether an approach was newsworthy. It submitted that there had to be

checks and balances on what might be deemed to be news. It wrote:

We have constantly stated we are not simply after "coverage" per se, but that

there needs to be objective standards applied to election coverage of political

parties.

The CHP commented on TVNZ's assertion that it was forced to report what

happened with NZ First because it was in government. It rejected that argument,

pointing out that TVNZ had made a strong news story out of the fact that the CHP

polled higher than NZ First on election day. It argued that if it was a news story on

election day, then it was difficult to see how it was not before that day. It added:

We would suggest that there is a news story when a minor party, without the

considerable resources of parliamentary funding, beats a coalition partner.

The CHP also noted that TVNZ had incorrectly interpreted its complaint as being

concerned with the general coverage it received as a party. It reiterated that its

complaint related to a specific poll initiated by TVNZ. It was TVNZ which made the

news story, not any political party, the CHP argued, and its complaint was about the

unfair way TVNZ generated data to turn into a news story.

Finally, the CHP noted that TVNZ had failed to address many of the other points it

made. It urged the Authority to carefully check its submission and note the bias.

The CHP advised that it had received a large amount of mail regarding the report.