BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

In Cold Blood, a two hour documentary which explored the similarities between three

recent mass murderers, was broadcast on TV3 at 8.30pm on 16 September 1997. The

item referred to the use of a semi-automatic military style rifle by two of the

murderers, and showed shots of a person using a fully automatic weapon.

A J Dickson and Phillip Dunlop complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network

Services Ltd, that the item was misleading on this point. Mr McMillan referred to

this matter and, in addition, complained that the broadcast had been inaccurate,

misleading, deceptive and alarming on a number of other matters (listed in Appendix

II).

TV3 acknowledged that it had made what it described as "a minor technical error" on

the point raised by the first two complainants. However, on the basis the error was

genuine and it neither misled nor alarmed viewers, TV3 did not consider that it

amounted to a breach of the standards. In addition, it declined to uphold all the

matters raised by Mr McMillan.

Dissatisfied with their decisions, each complainant referred their respective complaint

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

1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaints that the use of a fully

automatic rifle to illustrate a semi-automatic one, was in breach of standard G1 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaints.

Decision

The members have viewed the programme complained about, and have read the

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

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Programme

In Cold Blood, a two hour documentary broadcast as one of the "Inside New Zealand"

series, examined some of the similarities between mass murderers David Gray,

Thomas Hamilton and Martin Bryant. TV3 provided the following summary:

The programme looked at the way these men lived, their possible mental

instability, their victimisation, their family relationships, the way neighbours

treated them, their isolation, the ability of these men to procure weapons, the

power of those weapons and various other aspects of their lives which

contributed to the events which finally took place.

The programme referred to the use of a semi-automatic weapon by two of the mass

murderers. However, on a number of occasions the programme showed a person

firing, or used the sound of a fully automatic rifle being fired. The complainants

pointed out that private ownership of a fully automatic weapon is not allowed in New

Zealand.

The Complaints about the Use of a Fully Automatic Rifle

Each complainant complained to TV3 about this mistake – ie using a fully automatic

weapon to illustrate the use of a semi-automatic. A J Dickson, for example, expressed

concern that at a time when ownership of firearms was under review, an inaccuracy

such as that could be influential, but misleading, in forming public opinion. In Mr

Dickson's opinion, TV3 should be required to acknowledge the mistake publicly, and

apologise for it.

This issue was the focus of the complaints from A J Dickson and Phillip Dunlop, and

one of the matters raised by Robin McMillan. The point was also raised in another

complaint referred to the Authority by A P Doyle of Upper Hutt. However, as this

referral did not comply with the requirements for formal complaints set out in the

Broadcasting Act, the Authority did not have the jurisdiction to accept it.

Nevertheless, the Authority below addresses the point made by Mr Doyle in view of

the similar complaints from Mr Dickson and Mr Dunlop.

The Standards

TV3 assessed the complaint from Mr Dickson and Mr Dunlop under standards G1

and G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The former requires

broadcasters:

G1        To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

The latter reads:

G14      News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

TV3's Response to these Complaints

In regard to the standard G1 allegations, TV3 wrote:

An automatic weapon was shown and referred to as a semi-automatic. This was

not done with the intention to mislead viewers but as the result of a genuine

error, and [TV3's Standards Committee] does not believe the public has been

misled about the destructive power of a military style semi-automatic rifle.

Both guns fire the same kinds of bullets and cause the same kind of damage.

After referring to the comment in the item from the leader of the Armed Offenders

Squad in Dunedin as to the inadequacy of the Squad's weapons in comparison with

the semi-automatic rifle used by David Gray, TV3 continued:

That is the context and the point the programme was attempting to make to the

viewer – the weapon was very destructive, very quickly.

Consequently, although agreeing a technical error was made, the Standards

Committee does not believe that within the context of the programme the viewer

was misled or the facts were distorted and therefore declines to uphold your

complaint under Standard G1.

Turning to the alleged breach of standard G14, TV3 emphasised that the commentary

correctly referred to use by David Gray and Martin Bryant of a military style semi-

automatic weapon. However, it acknowledged that the weapon used to demonstrate

its power was a fully automatic one. TV3 added:

As stated above, this was a genuine error and was not shown with the intention

to deceive viewers. The programme was not deceptive, semi-automatics or full

automatics fire the same kinds of bullets and cause the same kind of damage.

It declined to uphold the complaint that the broadcast involved a breach of standard

G14, for the following reasons:

The ability of these men to procure weapons and the power of those weapons

was one and a bit parts in a programme of nine parts, and within the segment on

weapons both the anti- and pro-gun lobby were given equal voice to state their

positions. The programme was both objective and impartial. It never advised

the viewer what to think but raised the questions and delivered answers from

both sides of the debate, with the viewer being left to draw their own

conclusions.

Each complainant was dissatisfied with TV3's decision. Mr Dickson considered that

the documentary had a "sensationalist" element which, without a correction and an

apology, would alarm the public. Mr McMillan maintained that in the context the use

of fully automatic fire was seriously misleading.

The Other Aspects of the Complaints

In addition to sharing this concern with the other two complainants, Mr McMillan

raised a number of specific complaints (listed in Appendix II) which, he maintained,

suggested that lawful owners of firearms were "inherently strange and dangerous". He

expressed concern that the programme did not make clear that there were valid reasons

for pistols and semi-automatic rifles in New Zealand. Because lawful owners were

thoroughly checked by the Police, he argued that they were entitled to respect.

The Standards

Mr McMillan's original letter of complaint raised 15 points in total which, he stated,

involved breaches of standards G1, G5, G6, G7, G11, G14, G15, G16, G19 and

possibly G13 of the Code. Standards G1 and G14 are recorded above. Standards G5,

G6, G7, G11 and G13 require broadcasters:

G5        To respect the principle of law which sustain our society.

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

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

G7        To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the presentation

             of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence viewers have in

             the integrity of broadcasting.

G11      To refrain from broadcasting any programme which, when considered as a

             whole:

            i)  Simulates news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm viewers.

            ii)  Depicts the actual process of putting a subject into a hypnotic state.

            iii) Is designed to induce a hypnotic state in viewers.

            iv) Uses or involves the process known as "subliminal perception" or any

                other technique which attempts to convey information to the viewer by

                transmitting messages below or near the threshold of normal awareness.

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 others state:

G15      The standards of integrity and reliability of information sources in news,

             current affairs and documentaries should not be presented in such a way

             as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

G16      News, current affairs and documentaries 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 that the

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

             or the overall views expressed.

Mr McMillan's Referral

The various matters which Mr McMillan considered were a breach of the standards

are listed in Appendix II, as is TV3's detailed response. The Appendix also records

the 11 matters which Mr McMillan referred to the Authority. Mr McMillan

elaborated on his specific concerns in the following additional message he sent to the

Authority:

Firearm ownership in New Zealand is for many people both a cultural and

political thing. Firearms, and the safety code, and the techniques of hunting and

target shooting, are often handed from father to son, and have been for many

generations. That was so in the case of my grandfather, my father and my sons,

in my family. Firearms ownership is also political in that Britain and its

Dominions have maintained democracy over centuries through the right – and

indeed requirement – of free men to be armed. In earlier times it might have been

with bows; and in later times firearms. Democracy has not been possible in

many countries where this has not been so. In the case of New Zealand, besides

defending themselves, our early settlers introduced fish and game, and had rights

of fishing and hunting denied them in the motherlands. Freedom to hunt has

been our heritage for many generations.

In belittling and denigrating the lawful owners of firearms some aspects of the

programme "In Cold Blood" attack the political and cultural beliefs of some

250,000 law-abiding New Zealand citizens who have every right to proper

respect. Besides condemning the inaccuracies and untruths in the programme,

this is one of the concerns in guidelines of the Code of Broadcasting Practice

which I ask you to uphold.

TV3's Reports to the Authority

In its reports to the Authority on each complaint, TV3 stressed the points that the

item stated clearly that David Gray used a military style semi-automatic rifle. The

footage of a fully automatic weapon, it continued, was used in relation to the

discussion relating to the power of such weapons. It repeated the point made to each

complainant that the footage was included as a result of a genuine error and, in the

context of the complete two-hour programme, it argued, the issues were not

misrepresented.

In response to the reference that the material was "sensational", TV3 referred both to

the fatal injuries inflicted by the semi automatic rifle used by David Gray, and to the

experiments it had carried out after consulting a Professor in Pathology, and observed

that the programme had, in fact, omitted details and footage to avoid being

sensationalist.

In its reports, TV3 repeated the point that the programme had been checked for

mistakes by a senior police officer, but that the use of a fully automatic weapon to

illustrate the type of damage caused by a semi automatic rifle had been overlooked.

Moreover, it added, at no time had the item suggested that such weapons were

available to New Zealanders. It also reported that changes had since been made to the

programme to ensure that it was correct for any future screenings.

TV3 replied to the specific points raised by Mr McMillan. In summary, and in

addition to the comments about the acknowledged error, TV3 rejected his contention

that the lawful firearm owners were portrayed as inferior in any way. It repeated the

point that the programme examined the similarities between three mass murderers, and

said:

It is difficult for the Standards Committee to comprehend how a serious and

factual two-hour examination of the similarities between three mass murderers

has been interpreted by Mr McMillan to have belittled and denigrated lawful

owners of firearms.

In his final comment, Mr McMillan maintained that the programme was untrue,

misleading and alarming. He listed three examples which, he said, illustrated this

contention, beginning with the point that the broadcast, while referring to semi

automatic weapons, showed fully automatic fire on three occasions. He nominated

some other matters when, he argued, the programme had breached the standards that

he had particularised. In his final comment, he turned to TV3's remark cited above,

and wrote:

If TV3 claims that there was no intention to belittle lawful owners of firearms I

can accept that, but my complaint is not about the intention of the programme.

It is about the effect it had, whether intentional or not, of creating undue alarm

about firearms and disgust for 250,000 lawful recreational New Zealand firearms

owners.

The Authority's findings

Dealing first with the complaint about using a fully automatic rifle to illustrate a semi-

automatic one, the Authority notes that TV3 admitted that it had made a mistake. On

the basis that the error was a "technical" one, and was not intended to mislead or alarm

viewers, TV3 declined to uphold the mistake as a breach of standard G1.

The Authority disagrees with TV3's conclusion. The standard requires factual truth

and accuracy, and while a minor mistake might in the appropriate circumstances be

excused as a technical error, the point was an important issue for the complainants.

When consideration is given to the ongoing debate in New Zealand and elsewhere

about the private ownership of weapons - especially semi-automatic rifles - the

Authority is not prepared to treat the mistake as a technical one which is excusable in

the context of a programme about mass murderers.

While noting that the programme reported that David Gray used a semi automatic

rifle, nevertheless, the Authority concludes that the use of a fully automatic rifle to

illustrate the power of a semi-automatic one, without providing an explanation to

viewers, contravened the requirement for factual accuracy contained in standard G1.

The Authority has no reason to doubt TV3's point that the mistake was unintentional.

TV3 explained that the entire programme was previewed by a senior police officer.

The issues of intention to mislead, or carelessness about misleading, are matters which

are relevant to penalty. As TV3 took care to eliminate any mistakes, and as the

mistake appears to have been a genuine one, the Authority considers that it would be

inappropriate to impose a penalty on this occasion. Furthermore, the Authority

notes with approval that TV3 has taken action to ensure that the mistake is not

repeated should the programme be screened again in the future.

In previous decisions, the Authority has confined standard G14 to news broadcasts as

the requirements contained in this standard are comprehensively dealt with in other

standards – e.g. standards G1 and G6. The Authority sees no reason why it should

not maintain this practice and, accordingly, it declines to uphold the allegation that the

broadcast breached standard G14. A J Dickson and Mr McMillan alleged that the

programme on this point breached both standards G1 and G14. The standard G1

aspect is upheld. As Mr Dunlop confined his complaint to standard G14, it is not

upheld. Nonetheless, he will be aware from this decision that TV3 has been held to

account under the appropriate standard.

In his thorough complaint, Mr McMillan expressed deep concern that the errors,

when taken together, culminated in a programme which failed to acknowledge the

heritage of gun ownership in New Zealand, and consequently, belittled and denigrated

the numerous lawful firearm owners in this country.

In its deliberation of the complaints, the Authority believes that it is important to

understand that In Cold Blood was not a study of guns or other weapons. Rather, it

dealt with a few occasions of abnormal gun use. The programme's focus was to ask

what motivated three mass murderers who used guns, and what can be done to

prevent the recurrence of such horrifying events.

One aspect of the programme, and a relatively small one at that, was to examine the

gun debate – or more precisely – to question the ownership by the public of certain

types of assault rifles. Different perspectives were put, and the case for weapons for

hunting was explained clearly and positively. In the Authority's opinion, the

discussion was balanced. It is inevitable in a discussion about a contentious topic that

not all the participants on either side, and their supporters in wider society, will be

totally satisfied that their case was advanced as carefully and as comprehensively as it

could have been. It is also inevitable that there will be allegations that the opposition

proponents will "distort" and "twist" the facts.

To deal with the conflicting views and disputed interpretations of the facts and the

regulations, a programme maker may use an unbiased expert. On this occasion, as

noted, a senior police officer previewed the programme. Such an expert may not pick

up all the errors – e.g. the use of a fully automatic weapon – but it shows that the

programme maker has taken its responsibilities about the issue of balance and other

standards matters seriously.

In advancing his case against the programme, Mr McMillan complained that some of

the technical details provided in the programme were misleading, outdated or incorrect,

and some of the comments failed to acknowledge the valid use of both pistols and

rifles. TV3 has responded to, and denied, each specific allegation, and, overall,

disagreed that lawful firearm owners were belittled or denigrated.

The Authority has examined each particular aspect of the complaint and, in particular,

has examined carefully the impression given about the registered owners of firearms.

It concludes that the programme dealt with the ancillary topic of the gun debate in a

balanced manner, and that in summary neither the detail nor the general thrust could be

considered to treat this group unfairly.

In conclusion, the Authority points out that the abnormal use of weapons was the

focus of the broadcast, not the firearms debate, and because TV3 exercised care in

presenting material on the debate, the Authority does not uphold Mr McMillan's

complaint beyond the point cited above.

For the reasons above, the Authority upholds the complaints from A J Dickson

and Robin McMillan that the broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd of In Cold

Blood on 16 September 1997 breached standard G1 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaints.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may require an order under s.13(1) of the

Act. For the reasons given in the decision, the Authority decides not to impose an

order on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority.

Sam Maling

Chairman

12 March 1998

Appendix I

A J Dickson's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 17 September 1997

A J Dickson of Tauranga complained to TV3 Network Services, through the

Broadcasting Standards Authority, about the documentary In Cold Blood, broadcast

as part of the "Inside New Zealand" series, at 8.30pm on 16 September 1997.

The broadcast, Mr Dickson said, repeatedly showed a man firing a fully automatic

rifle and thus gave the impression that such rifles were legally in private ownership in

New Zealand. However, as such rifles had never been legal in private ownership in

New Zealand, he maintained that the item was misleading.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 31 October 1997

Explaining that In Cold Blood was a two hour examination of a number of similarities

between three mass murders and the murderers, TV3 assessed the complaint under

standards G1 and G14.

Dealing first with the requirement for factual accuracy in standard G1, TV3

acknowledged that an automatic weapon was shown and referred to as a semi-

automatic. TV3 explained:

This was not done with the intention to mislead viewers but as the result of a

genuine error, and the Committee does not believe the public has been misled

about the destructive power of a military style semi-automatic rifle. Both

guns fire the same kinds of bullets and cause the same kind of damage.

Inspector Dave Campbell, Head of the Armed Offenders Squad who tried to

contain David Gray stated on camera, "When the AOS went down there we

had three rifles like this. These are 5 shot bolt action rifles but they were no

match for the weapon Gray had. He had a semi-automatic rifle and that fired

30 rounds and he could fire those shots as quickly as he could pull the trigger".

That is the context and the point the programme was attempting to make to

the viewer – the weapon was very destructive, very quickly.

Consequently, although agreeing a technical error was made, the Standards

Committee does not believe that within the context of the programme the

viewer was misled or the facts were distorted and therefore declines to uphold

your complaint under Standard G1.

Turning to standard G14, TV3 said that the programme reported, correctly, that

David Gray and Martin Bryant both used a military style semi-automatic rifle. In

explaining the power of the weapon, an automatic rifle was demonstrated. As noted,

this was a genuine error. However, as both weapons used similar bullets and caused

the same kind of damage, TV3 maintained that the standard had not been breached.

As the content relating to the ability of these men to procure such weapons

constituted only one and a bit parts of a nine part programme, and as both the anti-

and pro-gun lobbies gave their opinions, TV3 considered the programme to be

objective and impartial. It declined to uphold the complaint.

A J Dickson's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Received 7

November 1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr Dickson referred the complaint to the

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

Referring to TV3's acknowledgment of the factual error, A J Dickson observed that

the private ownership of firearms was currently a political issue in New Zealand. It

was a debate in which public opinion was important, and as In Cold Blood contributed

to that debate, A J Dickson believed that factual accuracy was highly relevant. The

portrayal of an automatic weapon which was not available for private ownership in

New Zealand deserved an apology. Showing the destructive efforts of a .223 on a

piece of jelly in a programme about the psychology of mass murderers, A J Dickson

wrote, meant that In Cold Blood had "a sensational element".

TV3's Report to the Authority – 22 December 1997

TV3 disagreed that the programme showed a fully automatic weapon while referring

to the type of weapon used by David Gray. It was stated explicitly during the

programme, TV3 added, that David Gray and Martin Bryant used a military style

semi automatic weapon, and such a weapon was shown at that time.

The footage of a fully automatic weapon, TV3 continued, was used in relation to the

discussion as to the power of such weapons. TV3 maintained that the incorrect

footage, which was the result of a genuine error, did not involve a misrepresentation of

the issues dealt with in the two-hour programme.

As for A J Dickson's comment about sensationalism, TV3 explained that the

programme examined the similarities between three mass murderers. Records

reviewed during the preparation of the programme noted that the destructive power of

David Gray's weapon was "appalling", and the details of the actual injuries inflicted

could have been included if the intention had been to take a sensationalist approach.

Nevertheless, in order to illustrate the weapon's power, a professor of pathology who

specialised in the analysis of gun shot wounds (Professor Delahunt) suggested the use

of gelatine in a laboratory experiment. TV3 wrote that:

...it did not find this to be sensationalist, but rather a measured and low key

demonstration of the way a bullet passes through mass, information the

audience was entitled to know and understand.

Another experiment with a watermelon was not included in the programme as the

explosion was considered sensationalist, and TV3 commented:

The Standards Committee has not included these details in our previous

correspondence because of the sensitivity of the details of the victims.

However, the Committee believes the non-inclusion of this information in the

programme clearly shows the programme production was treated in a sensitive

and non-sensationalist manner, given the horrific details the production team

was privy to during the course of the research for the programme.

As for the error of fact, TV3 maintained that it did not involve a misrepresentation in

the context of the programme. The programme, it said, stated clearly that David Gray

used a semi automatic: the programme did not state that automatic weapons were

available to ordinary citizens. Furthermore, TV3 added, steps had since been taken to

ensure that the error was corrected in future screenings.

In conclusion, TV3 asked that the details of the injuries to David Gray's victims be

excluded from the Authority's decision.

A J Dickson's Final Comment – 1 February 1998

Explaining that the delay in a reply had occurred because of a holiday, Mr Dickson

maintained that viewers were misled by the programme when it showed fully

automatic weapons being fired. The demonstration of the detrimental effects of a

.232, Mr Dickson wrote, was sensationalist, as it was considered inadequate in New

Zealand for deer or chamois. It had been adopted by the armed forces in some

countries as its use tended to wound rather than kill and, as a consequence, used up

more of the enemy's resources.

As the programme was screened at a time when the firearms law was being reviewed,

Mr Dickson believed that it was designed to advance the cause for more restrictive

firearm laws. The admitted inaccuracies, he concluded, should be put right.

Appendix II

R McMillan's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 21 September 1997

Robin McMillan of Wellington complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the

"Inside New Zealand" documentary, In Cold Blood, broadcast by TV3 at 8.30pm on

16 September 1997. Mr McMillan said that the programme lacked balance, and as

some of the information given was untrue, it was likely to mislead and alarm viewers.

The programme was introduced by reference to the similarities between a mass

murderer in New Zealand (David Gray at Aramoana) and two other mass murderers

overseas. The item then referred to four other mass murderers in New Zealand but

failed to mention the weapons used. The commentator then said "Should we destroy

the weapons of mass murder" and there was a shot of semi-automatic rifles being

destroyed. Mr McMillan considered this treated gun owners as inferior. He also

claimed that only a minority of mass murders in New Zealand were committed with a

firearm.

Mr McMillan proceeded to analyse the programme and noted:

* References to a semi-automatic weapon on several occasions were followed by

a sound clip of fully automatic fire.

* The destructive power of a fully automatic weapon was shown after a

reference to a semi-automatic weapon. Only the Police and the military, he

pointed out, were allowed fully automatic weapons.

* Contrary to the comment of a person in Aramoana, AK47s and other

automatic weapons were not available to ordinary New Zealanders.

* The anti-gun lobbyist's (Philip Alpers) comments on the "fit and proper"

requirement were incorrect.

* The problem relating to the number of unregistered weapons was not balanced.

* A rifle was aimed at the camera, and thus at the viewer, when it is a criminal

offence to point a firearm at a person.

* The comment about rifle registration predating the computer age was incorrect.

* The reference to the number of people killed by a gun in New Zealand omitted

to note that most of these deaths were suicide.

*Mr Alpers was incorrect when he stated that the usual type of gun killing was

committed by a licensed male gun owner without a history of mental illness or

violent criminal behaviour.

* Some of the comments on the current registration system for gun owners were

misleading.

*As for the academic who said that there was no place for pistols and military

assault weapons, and that they were toys for peculiar people, Mr McMillan

wrote:

These remarks, and some earlier ones of Greg Newbold about some of his

associates, who have illegal pistols, are quite improper, suggesting that

lawful owners of these firearms are inherently strange and dangerous. The

programme failed to make it clear that there were valid and lawful reasons

for the existence of both pistols and semi automatic rifles (whether

originally of military design or not) in New Zealand. For instance, some

2000 law abiding New Zealanders are members of pistol clubs, regularly

shoot competitively and have provided splendid representation for their

country in Olympic and Commonwealth competitions. Likewise, many

thousands of law abiding New Zealanders use semi automatic rifles

originally of military design for hunting because they are inexpensive and

eminently suitable for hunting in New Zealand bush conditions. Other

New Zealand citizens lawfully use military semi automatic rifles in target

competition. These people have been rigorously checked by police to

ensure they have no criminal record and are of sound and sensible

disposition. They are not criminals or murderers and deserve proper

respect.

Breaches of standard G1, G4, G6, G7, G11, G14, G15, G16, G19 and possibly G13,

were alleged.

Mr McMillan's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 24 October

1997

As he had not received a response to the formal complaint within 20 working days,

Mr McMillan referred it to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act

1989.

TV3's Response to the Authority – 31 October 1997

TV3 forwarded the Authority a copy of its letter to Mr McMillan dated 29 October.

It pointed out that its response to Mr McMillan was only a day late, for which it

apologised.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 29 October 1997

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TV3 explained:

As a general comment, it is important to remember In Cold Blood was a two

hour examination of the similarities between three mass murderers, what led

them to commit these crimes and what, if anything, we the general public can

do to prevent such events ever happening again. The programme looked at the

way these men lived, their possible mental instability, their victimisation, their

family relationships, the way neighbours treated them, their isolation, the

ability of these men to procure weapons, the power of those weapons and

various other aspects of their lives which contributed to the events which

finally took place.

Moreover, TV3 said, it was apparent from the complainant's comments that he

appreciated the programme's overall premise.

TV3 proceeded to deal with Mr McMillan's specific points. As for the references to

other mass murders, TV3 said the item's introductory statement referred to semi-

automatic weapons and three specific murderers and, thus, the shot of the burning

rifles was appropriate.

With regard to some other matters raised by Mr McMillan, TV3 replied:

* To David Gray's victims the difference between a fully and semi-automatic

weapon was inconsequential.

* The use of a automatic weapon to demonstrate the power of a semi-

automatic was a genuine mistake. In TV3's opinion, it was a minor technical

error which would not have misled the public. Both semi-automatic and

automatic weapons were very powerful weapons. Further, the programme

stated clearly that David Gray used a semi-automatic weapon.

* TV3 did not accept that Mr Phillip Alpers, the anti-gun lobbyist, was

incorrect in his comments.

* Pointing out that the focus of the item was on social and mental health, not

gun ownership, TV3 considered that segment on guns was balanced with the

views from both sides of the debate.

* A police detective held the gun pointed at the camera during a photo

opportunity for the press.

* The number of people killed by a gun was a statistical fact and appropriate

in context.

* Mr Alpers' statement about a typical gun killing was taken from a report he

was commissioned to prepare by the Police Association. TV3 pointed out

that the entire programme was viewed by Police Assistant Commissioner Ian

Holyoake before broadcast, and he had not advised on these alleged errors.

* In response to the criticism of the academic's comment, TV3 wrote:

It was very clear in the programme that both Dr Greg Newbold and

Professor Paul Mullen were talking about "some" men who collect

weapons for reasons of personal inadequacy. John Howatt actually

criticised the programme – for focussing on those people who go "mad

with guns" and that "legal law abiding gun owners should be left to get

on with their lives".

TV3 declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr McMillan's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 3 November

1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mr McMillan referred his complaint to the

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

listed 15 points where he disputed TV3's ruling.

1)  While agreeing with TV3's description about the item's premise, that did not,

Mr McMillan wrote, justify incorrect, misleading or alarming statements.

2)  The reference to the other mass murders in New Zealand, and the shots of the

burning semi-automatic weapons, implied that a rifle was the weapon of a

mass murderer.

3)  He accepted TV3's point that it was for the viewer to reach a conclusion on

the material advanced.

4)  Mr McMillan expressed the opinion that it sounded like fully automatic fire.

5)  Showing a fully automatic weapon rather than a semi-automatic one, was

seriously misleading.

6)  Mr McMillan accepted that after a false statement from Mr Alpers, the correct

position had been advanced.

7)  Policemen, Mr McMillan observed, were not above the law.

8)  The fact that the rifle aimed at the camera was held by a police officer did not

excuse the offence, and the hackneyed shot was offensive.

9)  Mr McMillan did not accept TV3's excuse about the computer age.

10)  While not disputing the fact on average every four days someone was killed by

a gun, it was misleading, he persisted, not to refer to death by suicide.

11)  Showing fully automatic firearms in relation to a statement about the numbers

who owned semi- automatic weapons was misleading and alarming to viewers.

12)  Mr McMillan stood by his complaint that Mr Alpers' remark about people

who use rifles to kill was untrue and misleading.

13)  He accepted TV3's point.

14)  The item, Mr McMillan maintained, had been misleading.

15)  On the final point, Mr McMillan concluded by writing in regard to the

academic's comment:

I do not accept this. Professor Mullen's words were: "There is no

place in our society for pistols and military assault weapons. We as a

society cannot afford to indulge a few peculiar people in such toys.

His second sentence indicates that people who want "such toys" are

"peculiar".

This portrays lawful firearms owners in this country as inherently

inferior. Likewise, the earlier remarks of Greg Newbold in the

programme about some of his associates who have illegal pistols cast

discredit on all people who have pistols. The programme failed to

make it clear that there are valid and lawful reasons for the existence of

pistols and semiautomatic rifles. Lawful owners of these firearms have

been rigorously checked by police in a way that no other civilian in

New Zealand is subject to. They are not criminals or murderers and

deserve proper respect.

In a brief second letter dated 6 November, Mr McMillan commented:

Firearm ownership in New Zealand is for many people both a cultural and

political thing. Firearms, and the safety code, and the techniques of hunting

and target shooting, are often handed from father to son, and have been for

many generations. That was so in the case of my grandfather, my father and

my sons, in my family. Firearms ownership is also political in that Britain and

its Dominions have maintained democracy over centuries through the right –

and indeed requirement – of free men to be armed. In earlier times it might

have been with bows: and in later times firearms. Democracy has not been

possible in many countries where this has not been so. In the case of New

Zealand, besides defending themselves, our early settlers introduced fish and

game, and had rights of fishing and hunting denied them in the motherlands.

Freedom to hunt has been our heritage for many generations.

In belittling and denigrating the lawful owners of firearms some aspects of the

programme "In Cold Blood" attack the political and cultural beliefs of some

250,000 law-abiding New Zealand citizens who have every right to proper

respect. Besides condemning the inaccuracies and untruths in the programme,

this is one of the concerns in guidelines of the Code of Broadcasting Practice

which I ask you to uphold.

TV3's Report to the Authority – 21 January 1998

TV3 maintained that as it had explained to A J Dickson (see App.1), it had omitted

material which could be alarming to viewers. It repeated that the programme

compared three particular mass murderers, and that it had not been a study of mass

murders in New Zealand.

Dealing with the specific points raised in the referral, TV3 noted first that did not

accept Mr McMillan's claim that most lawful firearm owners would find it offensive

to have a gun pointed at them because of the absence of any evidence.

TV3 argued that Mr Newbold's comment about the computer age was his genuine

belief, and considered that a reference to firearms related accidents and suicides was

implicit in the statement made during the programme that "on average, every four days

someone is killed by a gun".

It acknowledged that incorrect footage of a fully automatic rifle had been used, but

persisted in its opinion that viewers would have been neither misled nor alarmed. Mr

McMillan's assessment of Mr Alper's qualifications, TV3 continued, did not overrule

the fact that he had been hired by the Police Association to conduct a study for it on

gum law.

Standing by its comments about Professors Cooke and Mullen, TV3 did not accept

that the programme portrayed gun owners in New Zealand as inferior, or as murderers

or criminals, or that the programme which it described as a serious study of three mass

murderers, belittled lawful owners of firearms.

TV3 concluded:

The Standards Committee reiterates its belief that the error of showing a fully

automatic rifle was of a minor technical nature and as the result of genuine error.

The Assistance Commissioner of Police, Ian Holyoake viewed the programme

for accuracy before it went to air, but unfortunately that error was not detected.

It the Standards Committee believed viewers had been deliberately misled or

that, in the context of the complete two-hour programme, the inclusion of this

footage had resulted in a misrepresentation of the issues covered, then the

Committee would most certainly have ordered a statement of correction be

made.   TV3, in conjunction with the programme producer, has made

arrangements to replace the incorrect footage for any repeat screenings of the

programme and believes this action to be sufficient remedy on this occasion.

Mr McMillan's Final Comment – 23 January 1998

Mr McMillan raised eleven points. He began:

1. 

I persist in my belief the programme did present information that was

untrue, misleading or alarming. There are a plethora of examples, but I will

mention just three here in a concern for brevity.

The first of the three examples given was the showing of fully automotive fire three

times. He acknowledged that the commentary referred to semi-automatic weapons on

each occasion, but maintained that the second clip of fully automotive fire in particular

gave a misleading and untrue impression as to what a semi-automatic weapon was

capable of.

The programme was also misleading in suggesting that military style semi automatic

weapons were involved in the four mass murders.

Thirdly, he referred to the comment made by a person involved in the Aramoana

tragedy, that AK47s had no place in New Zealand. He explained that such a weapon

was not used by David Gray and Martin Bryant and is not available in New Zealand.

2.  The second point noted above, Mr McMillan added, also responded to TV3's

argument that the programme failed to mention other mass murders because military

style semi automatic weapons were not the focus.

3.  Moreover, Mr McMillan wrote, the sound track used from Aramoana could lead

people to believe they were hearing fully automatic fire because the shots were close

together and regular.

4.  In response to TV3, Mr McMillan repeated the point that the programme

showed automatic fire repeatedly.

5.   Mr McMillan maintained it was both offensive and an offence to have a firearm

pointed at you.

6.  Contrary to TV3's claim about the beginning of the computer age, he argued that

by 1983 many New Zealand homes made use of computers.

7.  Referring to the statement made during the broadcast that "on average, every

four days, someone is killed by a gun", Mr McMillan did not accept TV3's claim that

viewers would understand that this included suicides as well as murders.

8.  Mr McMillan considered that the implication in the programme that 4000 New

Zealanders owned and used fully automatic weapons was alarming. It was also

untruthful, as such weapons could be lawfully used only by the police and the

military. Indeed, he observed, there was an estimated 60,000 semi automatic firearms

in the country and not one had been involved in a murder since 1992.

9.  Mr McMillan insisted that he was entitled to question the use of Phillip Alpers

as an authority on firearms, in view of Mr Alpers lack of qualifications.

10.  As firearm owners in Scotland are not vetted and licensed as in New Zealand,

Professor Cooke's comments on the relevance of the Scottish system to New Zealand

were not relevant.

11.  Professor Muller's observation about owners of pistols and military assault

weapons implied that all firearm owners in New Zealand were "strange, inferior and

dangerous".

Mr McMillan concluded:

If TV3 claims that there was no intention to belittle lawful owners of firearms I

can accept that, but my complaint is not about the intention of the programme.

It is about the effect it had, whether intentional or not, of creating undue alarm

about firearms and disgust for 250,000 lawful recreational New Zealand firearms

owners.

Appendix III

Mr Dunlop's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 24 October 1997

Phillip Dunlop of Pokeno complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the

documentary In Cold Blood, broadcast as one of the "Inside New Zealand" series at

8.30pm on 16 September 1997.

The broadcast, Mr Dunlop wrote, featured a fully automatic '"SLR" rifle being fired.

However, David Gray, Thomas Hamilton and Martin Bryant had not used fully

automatic weapons, Mr Dunlop wrote, and they were not legally available in New

Zealand other than to the armed forces. Accordingly, the item misrepresented the

facts and was in breach of standard G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 29 October 1997

TV3's response was similar to that contained in Appendix I where it is recorded that it

declined to uphold the alleged breach of standard G14.

Mr Dunlop's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 24 November

1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's reply, Mr Dunlop referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

TV3's Report to the Authority – 22 December 1997

TV3 repeated that the use of incorrect footage was the result of a genuine error. It had

not been detected by Police Assistant Commissioner, Ian Holyoake. The incorrect

footage had now been replaced for any future screenings and, TV3 concluded:

The Committee regrets the incorrect footage was shown in error but believes, in

the context of the complete two-hour programme, the inclusion of this footage

would not have resulted in a misrepresentation of the issues covered.

Mr Dunlop's Final Comment – 19 January 1998

Questioning whether TV3's error was in fact genuine, Mr Dunlop considered that it

was despicable that TV3 offered the excuse that a senior police officer did not detect

the mistake. He also questioned police impartiality on the issue of gun control as it

had employed "anti gun extremist Phillip Alpers" to research the gun issue.