BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A meeting in Howick to discuss immigration addressed by the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters MP, was reported in an item on TV3's news programme, Nightline, at about 10.40pm on Tuesday 13 April 1996.  The item also reported that a meeting in a nearby school hall had been cancelled by the school when the advertising said it was for “New Zealanders only”.

Mrs Gates complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the item was inaccurate, partial, and distorted as it suggested that Mr Peters was involved in the meeting which was cancelled.

Acknowledging that the item included some visual dislocation, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint as the commentary had clearly explained the different events.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Mrs Gates referred her 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 viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix).  As is its practice, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item on TV3’s Nightline on 13 April 1996 dealt with a meeting in Howick on the issue of immigration addressed by the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters MP, and a meeting proposed in nearby Pakuranga which was cancelled after it was advertised as being “for New Zealanders only”.  The item finished with another reference to Mr Peters’ meeting.

Mrs Gates complained to TV3 that the issues covered in the item were inadequately distinguished and, consequently, that a false impression was given.  The misleading impression, she wrote, implied that the entire sequence referred to Mr Peters and New Zealand First.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standards G14 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.  They require broadcasters:

G14   News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

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.

Pointing out that the item dealt with two distinct matters, TV3 explained that the commentary made a clear distinction between Mr Peters’ meeting and the cancelled meeting which had been planned by the Government Accountability League.  The item, TV3 reported, included comments from Mr Peters, a spokesperson from the Asian community, the principal of the school which cancelled the booking for the Government Accountability League’s proposed meeting, and a League spokesperson.

TV3 maintained that the item was balanced, accurate and impartial, as required by standard G14.  It also argued that the script complied with the requirements of standard G19.  However, TV3 continued, the item contained “an element of visual dislocation”.  It proceeded to assess whether the dislocation distorted the event reported in such a way as to amount to a breach of standard G19, and concluded:

It is the TV3 Complaints Committee’s view that the script did make a clear distinction between the two meetings and that those commenting were clearly identified, albeit briefly.  The Committee decided that any visual confusion was outweighed by these factors.  Therefore the TV3 Complaints Committee does not uphold your formal complaint with regard to G19 of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice.

Nevertheless, because of the concern about the brevity of the captions and the “potential visual dislocation”, TV3 advised Mrs Gates that the attention of its Director of News and Current Affairs had been drawn to the Complaints Committee’s findings.

In her referral to the Authority, Mrs Gates emphasised TV3’s Complaints Committee’s concern that the item used images from Mr Peters’ meeting while talking about the League’s failed meeting.  Mrs Gates pointed out that the Committee considered that to be:

... sloppy and not up to the standards required by 3 National News in terms of editing and journalistic craft.

Combining this comment with the one about “visual dislocation”, and taking into account the action taken by TV3, Mrs Gates argued forcefully that her complaint should be upheld.  She stated:

My opinion is that the man from the Government Accountability League was identified SO briefly that I blinked and missed the caption.  How did deaf people (and my husband is one of them) get on if they couldn’t HEAR “the reporter’s clear and unequivocal distinction” between the meetings?

In reaching its decision on this complaint, the Authority notes that television is a medium in which image is combined with sound.  Both being essential attributes, it is inappropriate to assess an item on either sound or images alone.  While it accepts that the visuals in themselves on this occasion could lead to some confusion as to the matters covered in the item, the Authority agrees with TV3 that the combination of both sound and image ensured that the viewer had a correct understanding of the matters dealt with.

The Authority is also in agreement with TV3 when it described the editing of the item as “sloppy”.  However, it is of the view that any confusion which occurred was not deliberate on TV3’s part.  It considers that the item dealt with matters of considerable public interest which were fully explained given the total reportage of the sequence. Accordingly, the Authority does not accept that the broadcast breached either standard G14 or G19.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
22 August 1996

Appendix

Mrs Gates’ Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 23 February 1996

Sylvia Gates of Ashburton complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about an item broadcast on Nightline, at about 10.40pm on Tuesday 13 April 1996, which she said breached standards G14 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Noting that the item dealt with a meeting in Howick attended by the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters MP, Mrs Gates said that the item referred to “another group” who had been refused permission to use a nearby school for a meeting as it had advertised the meeting as being “for New Zealanders only”.  An unnamed ginger headed man was shown speaking to a reporter although, she wrote, a briefly seen caption probably gave the man’s name and/or organisation.  That clip was preceded and followed by shots of Mr Peters’ meeting.

Mrs Gates said that there was no explanation that the three clips were not part of the same item and, consequently, it was implied that they all referred to Mr Peters  and New Zealand First.  She concluded:

This was an extremely misleading piece of reporting and/or editing and I think TV3 was remiss in this segment of the news by creating this false impression.

TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 27 May 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TV3 advised that the item reported Mr Peters’ public meeting as he had been making controversial statements about immigration, and the meeting was held in an area with a high number of Asian immigrants.  It continued:

At the same time another meeting, ostensibly a public meeting but one which the organisers advertised as being open only to “New Zealanders”, was planned to be held in the nearby Pakuranga College hall.  On being advised of the nature of the invitation the Principal of Pakuranga College cancelled the hall booking.  The two events merited coverage by 3 National News.

TV3 maintained that the item made "a clear and unequivocal distinction" between the two meetings.  Included, it added, were comments from Mr Peters, from a spokesperson for the Asian community, the principal of Pakuranga College who cancelled the proposed meeting of the Government Accountability League, and a spokesperson from the League.

As the item had been accurate, objective and impartial, TV3 declined to uphold the aspect of the complaint which alleged a breach of standard G14.

Explaining that it shared some concern about the item's editing, TV3 wrote:

It is clear images of “Winston Peters’” meeting were used while the reporter talked about the failed Government Accountability League meeting.  This, in the view of the [Complaints] Committee, is sloppy and not up to the standards required by 3 National News in terms of editing and journalistic craft.

Nevertheless, as the item clearly distinguished between the meetings, and the comments were fair and accurate, TV3 decided that the visual dislocation did not distort the event so as to amount to a breach of standard G19.

In conclusion, TV3 thanked the complainant for bringing the matter to its attention and, while declining to uphold the complaint, wrote:

However, the Committee is sufficiently concerned by your comments; by the brevity of the captions and the potential visual dislocation of the editing to formally bring your complaint and the Committee’s findings to the attention of TV3’s Director of News & Current Affairs and thereby to the attention of the reporter and producers involved.

Mrs Gates’ Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 19 June 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mrs Gates referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Referring to TV3’s concerns, Mrs Gates wrote:

My opinion is that the man from the Government Accountability League was identified SO briefly that I blinked and missed the caption.  How did deaf people (and my husband is one of them) get on if they couldn’t HEAR “the reporter’s clear and unequivocal distinction” between the meetings?  They admit in para 16 that they were “sufficiently concerned .... by the brevity of the captions and the potential visual dislocation of the editing” to FORMALLY bring my complaint to the attention of all their staff, and yet they refuse to acknowledge my FORMAL complaint.

The visual dislocation, she exclaimed, was not potential but actual.  In view of TV3’s admissions, she also disputed its claim that the item was accurate, objective and impartial, asking:

How this Committee can agree with me on about every point I raised, but yet refuse to uphold my formal complaints, is puzzling!

As the broadcast breached the standards, she considered that an apology to the parties concerned and the public was appropriate.

TV3’s Response to the Authority – 11 July 1996

TV3 advised that it did not wish to comment further.