BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The proposed regulation of electricity lines companies was the subject of a news item screened between 6.00–7.00pm on 13 July 1999 on 3 News. After an analysis of both the government and opposition viewpoints, the reporter concluded that the government’s attempt to stop power price hikes was proving unsuccessful. On 6 August a 3 News report focused on tax policies. The political editor stated that the Treasurer had trivialised the issues and got his figures wrong when he had briefed the press. She reported that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had "demolished" the Treasurer’s figures. The weekly political round-up during 3 News on 13 August 1999 dealt with the defence and management seminar, INCIS, National’s 5-step plan linking education, business and research, and Labour’s standing in the polls.

Mr McLean complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that all of these reports lacked balance because on each occasion the reporter took a partisan stance on the issues being reported. Among other things, he objected to the reporter’s assertion that "the government’s electricity reforms are now in tatters" in the first item, and to what he described as the political editor’s partisan and unbalanced editorialising in the second. Mr McLean argued that the weekly round-up item on 13 August had used negative emotional language to describe the government’s actions. Further, he contended, the material selected to illustrate the competing viewpoints did not fairly represent both sides of the story. He said he believed the items all demonstrated TV3’s consistent bias against the government.

TV3 responded first that the report on the electricity reforms on 13 July did not state that the reforms themselves were "in tatters", but that "the government’s plan to stop power price hikes is now in tatters". In its view, at the time of the broadcast, that was a correct statement. The phrase referred to the fact that the legislation was opposed by Labour, the Alliance and ACT and that the government was unlikely to get the necessary support to pass it. In relation to the broadcast on 6 August, TV3 said it was satisfied the segment was clearly the "personal and expert view" of the political editor. As for the weekly round-up on 13 August, TV3 reiterated that the segment was clearly the political editor’s opinion, and was not dissimilar to a column in a magazine or a newspaper. It also suggested that a party in government was more likely to be scrutinised than an opposition party. TV3 declined to uphold any aspect of the complaints.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed tapes of the items complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

13 July item

The Complaint

The proposed regulation of electricity lines companies was the subject of a news item on 3 News broadcast on 13 July 1999 between 6.00–7.00pm.

Mr McLean complained to TV3 that following the presentation of the government and opposition viewpoints on the proposal, the reporter’s analysis had been biased against the government. He noted that the reporter had failed to take up points made by the government, but had wholly followed the opposition attacks on government policy. Mr McLean complained about the bias in the reporter’s conclusion that "one thing is clear, the government electricity reforms are in tatters". The editorialising, Mr McLean argued, was not presented as a personal or TV3 viewpoint, but as fact. He wrote:

The effect of such a presentation whereby the reporter editorialises at greater length than reporting, and concludes with such a strong and partisan statement makes the programme lack balance between the competing political viewpoints, and is not fair to the viewpoint rejected by the reporter.

TV3 advised that it had considered the complaint under standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard requires broadcasters:

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

Quoting from the item, TV3 noted that Mr McLean’s recollection of the phrase used by the reporter was incorrect. He had not said that the reforms were in tatters, but that "the government’s plan to stop power price hikes is now in tatters." TV3 maintained that at the time of the broadcast, that was a correct statement. The report, it noted, said that the government’s legislation was being opposed by Labour, the Alliance and ACT, and that without the support of New Zealand First, the legislation would not be passed. Winston Peters, leader of New Zealand First, was quoted as saying that the legislation was "a dead duck" and Max Bradford, Minister of Energy, was reported as having ruled out extending price controls to retail companies. TV3 declined to uphold the complaint.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr McLean argued that although he may have misquoted the comment, the substantive point remained that the alternative viewpoint – that opposition parties stopped the legislation for purely political considerations – was not mentioned. The broadcast, he said, canvassed the factual situation, with time spent on both the government and opposition viewpoints. However, he argued, the reporter’s analysis did not take up points made by the government, but wholly followed the opposition attacks on government policy. He repeated that the editorial comment was presented as fact.

Mr McLean restated his opinion that the effect of such a presentation – where the reporter failed to acknowledge that other equally valid viewpoints existed – was not fair to the viewpoint rejected by the reporter.

In its brief report to the Authority relating to each of the complaints, TV3 pointed out that Mr McLean was a former National Member of Parliament. Given that an election campaign period was about to begin, it suggested that the timing of Mr McLean’s comments might have been more than coincidental.

In his final comment, Mr McLean noted that TV3 had taken over a month to respond to the complaint and to provide the Authority with a copy of the tapes of the items. Next he responded to TV3’s suggestion that it was coincidental that there was an election campaign on and that he was a former MP. Both those matters, Mr McLean wrote, were public knowledge. He suggested that the fact that TV3 sought to focus on the person complaining rather than defending the programme could well have been an acknowledgment that it had no case to offer.

However, Mr McLean continued, the election was relevant to the extent that fairness in political programmes was clearly of most significance close to an election. In his view, it would be helpful to have the matter determined by the Authority as soon as it conveniently could, and before the election.

The Authority’s Findings

This item, the Authority notes, concerned the impasse which resulted because opposition parties had declined to support legislation proposed by the government which would impose price controls to prevent electricity lines companies from raising prices. Mr McLean contended that the reporter’s analysis revealed a bias against the government because he omitted its perspective and instead focused on the opposition attacks on government policy. The Authority observes that the government’s stated aim in introducing the electricity reforms had been to keep prices down, or at least static. In that context, it considers it not unreasonable that the reporter interpreted the government’s inability to garner support for the legislation as being a blow for the reform process. In the Authority’s view, the essence of the story was not the political motivation behind the opposition parties’ withdrawal of support, but the effect on consumers of the government’s inability to curb lines companies from raising prices. It concludes that the report’s focus on the effect of the impasse did not breach the requirement for balance and declines to uphold the complaint under standard G6.

6 August item

The Complaint

The tax proposals which had been announced by the Treasurer earlier in the week were dealt with in one of the items included in the weekly round-up of political news on Friday 6 August on 3 News. The reporter concluded that the Treasurer had trivialised the issues, and had got some of the figures wrong. She reported that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had "demolished the Treasurer’s figures".

Mr McLean complained to TV3 that neither the substance of the figures nor the responses were given even in summary form so that viewers might judge for themselves. He said that the footage selected of the Treasurer had been hardly adequate for him to present his viewpoint, while that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had been well chosen to present his view.

In Mr McLean’s view, it was not possible to say from the material presented who was right. He contended that even if the reporter had disagreed with the Treasurer’s figures, she had a responsibility to present them at least as adequately as the response. Her "partisan and unbalanced editorialising" was clearly a breach of the code, he wrote.

Mr McLean also made the point that even when reasonably equal time was given to both opposing viewpoints – as had occurred here and in the 13 July item – an unfair and unbalanced item could ensue if the material selected did not present one case adequately, and if partisan editorialising followed.

He maintained that reporters should not permit their personal views to override their duty as broadcasters.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standard G6, which is cited above. It advised that it was satisfied that the item complained about was clearly the personal and expert view of its political editor. It noted that the segment, titled "The Week in Politics" had been a regular feature of its Friday night bulletins for some time. It claimed it was not dissimilar to a column in a newspaper or a magazine.

When he referred the matter to the Authority, Mr McLean repeated his view that the item lacked balance and was unfair because the viewpoints hostile to the government were fully presented but those favourable were not.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority acknowledges TV3’s argument that this segment of the news hour is clearly delineated as a regular feature of its broadcasts and has an established format as a weekly wrap-up slot. As a commentary piece, it is based on the assumption that viewers would be familiar with the detail of the issues raised during the week.

The Authority begins with the observation that the role of TV3’s expert commentator in this segment is to provide analysis and interpretation of the major political events of the week. On this occasion, she concentrated on the political response to the release of the government’s proposal to reduce taxes. She noted that Michael Cullen, the Labour party spokesperson on finance, had responded by personalising the issue and attacking Treasurer Bill English. In her view, such an attack was justified because the Treasurer had underestimated the audience at what she called his "cute little press conference" when he had attacked Labour’s tax policy, and he would not have expected a "big media backlash". She did not explain, in this item, exactly how this rebuke had been earned, but it was clear to the Authority that in the context of the week’s political events, the Treasurer’s press conference had received reasonably extensive coverage, and that viewers who had followed the matter would have known exactly what she was referring to.

In the Authority’s view, the commentator’s analysis did not transgress any broadcasting standards. It considers that it was clear that the political story was not about whether the Treasurer’s figures were correct but about the reaction to the manner in which he conducted his press conference, and the vituperative response from the Labour party. The Authority accepts that the political editor’s commentary, in another context, could be construed as being partisan. However, it makes two observations on this point. The first is that a government in office can expect to be subjected to critical scrutiny, particularly if, as was deemed to be the case here, it is making unsubstantiated claims about another party’s policies. Secondly the criticism has to be weighed against the fact that the report was clearly identified as an opinion piece. The Authority’s only reservation in its determination of this aspect of the complaint was that there was some blurring of the role of the newsreader in this segment. While the expert commentator was entitled to express her opinion, in the Authority’s view, the newsreader should have been seen to remain objective and impartial when he questioned her on this matter.

On balance, the Authority concludes there was no breach of standards in this segment.

13 August item

The Complaint

The weekly political round-up on Friday 13 August on 3 News dealt with four issues which had been in the news that week. These included attendance by Ministry of Defence staff at a management seminar, the controversy over INCIS, National’s 5-point plan on education, research and business, and the fact that to ensure success in the election, Labour had to encourage its supporters to be on the electoral roll.

Mr McLean complained that the presentation of these issues was neither fair, balanced nor impartial. He undertook a careful analysis of the item, which he contended revealed bias against the government, as demonstrated both in the content of the broadcasts and the manner in which they were conveyed.

Mr McLean analysed each of the topics covered by examining the alternative viewpoints presented, the use of emotive language, visual impressions, time spent and overall impression. The first item concerned the Defence Minister’s response to the attendance of Ministry of Defence staff at a management seminar. Mr McLean noted that the item indicated that the Minister’s action in censuring the Ministry had been appropriate but that it implied that he had been forced to act by the pressure of public opinion. The alternative view, which Mr McLean said was not put, was that the Minister had acted because he felt the spending was improper, and it was his duty as Minister to deal with it. He maintained that by not also putting the alternative view, the programme had been unbalanced and unfair.

The second topic discussed was INCIS. Mr McLean observed that the reporter’s view was that the problems had been caused by the government and that the issue would continue to dog the government. The alternative view – that IBM had to take part of the blame – was not mentioned, Mr McLean noted. He suggested that it should have been pointed out that IBM was one of the world’s most experienced computer firms and that it should have been able to deliver on its contract. He contended that by putting all the blame on the government, the item was neither fair nor balanced.

The third matter was the report that the government had released a 5-step plan linking education, business and research. Mr McLean complained about the reporter’s remark that the policy was extraordinary coming from a government which had introduced student loans. The alternative viewpoint which should have been canvassed, in his view, was that such a policy was needed in New Zealand as had been suggested by a variety of business leaders, and that it had proven successful in other countries with a similar population base. Mr McLean concluded that by presenting only a viewpoint critical of the government, the item was not balanced.

The final topic speculated on the election result. It was suggested that although the government was "shooting itself in the foot", Labour could not afford to become complacent, and that it had to get out and get people to vote. Among several alternative viewpoints, Mr McLean suggested that it could have been said that Labour had run out of ideas and could not decide between "new Labour" and Rogernomics, or traditional trade union Labour. However, he noted, no other viewpoint was offered.

Next, Mr McLean examined the language used in the four items. He identified the following as pertaining to National: "something of a prefect", "another disaster", "got the government in trouble", "Stalinesque", "awful new cliché", "all the National Party’s mistakes", "shooting itself in the foot". The epithets applied to Labour were, he contended, much less condemnatory, and included: "sleepwalk to power", "got to encourage their people to vote", "got to do a lot more homework" and "policies incredibly conservative". He concluded that the language used was not balanced and would tend to prejudice a viewer against the government.

Mr McLean also analysed the body language of the presenters. He maintained that the most memorable picture was of the presenter grinning with glee at attacks on the government. That, he said, reinforced the negative words used by him and the reporter.

Finally, Mr McLean compared the relative lengths of time given to the government and the opposition. He noted that about 2 minutes 30 seconds was devoted to topics negative to the government, and about 45 seconds to the topic negative to Labour. Thus, he concluded, a detailed examination indicated why an overall impression of bias, lack of balance, and unfairness was given.

In concluding, Mr McLean accepted that it was obvious that it was difficult to adequately present alternative viewpoints on every topic. However, he argued, the programme demonstrated consistent bias. He added:

Moreover, I do not contend that broadcasts on political matters should be dull, that the language should be muted, or that adverse comment on government (or opposition) should be avoided. That would make TV dull.

But it is clear that the Broadcasting Act and Code apply to broadcasts on politics as to those on other subjects. A consistent unfairness, partiality and lack of balance shows that something is indeed wrong. Moreover it is not legal.

TV3 assessed the complaint under standards G4 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standard G6 is quoted above, and standard G4 requires broadcasters:

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

TV3 began by noting that this complaint was similar to the 6 August broadcast considered above. It reiterated that the segment was clearly titled "The Week in Politics" and had been a regular feature of its Friday night bulletins for years. It argued that it was not dissimilar to a column in a newspaper or magazine. It suggested that both the presenter and the reporter often took a light-hearted approach to politics, and that the presenter’s grin should be seen in this light rather than as representing any political bias.

TV3 also made the observation that governments, by the very nature of the job, were more likely to be criticised or scrutinised by commentators than opposition parties. It declined to uphold the complaint.

When he referred this complaint to the Authority, Mr McLean noted that of the four issues raised, three were strongly hostile to the government, and in the one which was critical of Labour, the best possible interpretation from the Labour viewpoint was advanced. He claimed that the programme was not impartial since negative emotional words and body language had been used when the government’s actions were discussed, while comment was restrained in the discussion of Labour.

Mr McLean said that he found TV3’s responses to be "interesting" and noted that it had never tried to claim that the items were fair, balanced or impartial. He interpreted its response as conceding that the items did not meet the requirements of standard G6. The question remained, he argued, as to whether political programmes needed to be balanced, impartial and fair. He did not agree with TV3’s contention that the requirements were waived if the broadcast were: a personal and expert view, a regular feature, not dissimilar to a column in a newspaper or magazine, using a tongue in cheek approach, lighthearted, criticising or scrutinising the government. In Mr McLean’s view, these reasons were all quite specious.

He argued that television had a more significant role than other media in influencing public opinion. He wrote:

For better or worse politicians have no way of communication with the electorate of any significance as compared with media coverage. And of all the media, it is television that is by far the strongest vehicle for conveying impressions and influencing attitudes. Thus the final ‘score’ in an election can and does depend significantly on the fairness or partiality of television editorial policy as it affects political programmes.

Mr McLean also took issue with TV3’s apparent belief that as governments were more likely to be criticised or scrutinised by columnists than the opposition, then they did not need to be treated as fairly or with the same balance as opposition viewpoints.

In practical terms, Mr McLean concluded, such a systematic bias was a real threat to fair elections and to democratic choice by the people.

As final points, Mr McLean argued that it was not open to TV3 to argue that political programmes would be balanced over time. This was obviously not the practice with TV3, he observed, and its own response indicated that it expected to criticise the government more often than the opposition. Secondly, he argued that the failure to give reasonable weight to competing viewpoints was clearly an imbalance and a breach of standards.

Mr McLean submitted that an appropriate penalty against the broadcaster was a fine, should his complaints be upheld.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority has been invited to consider each of the three matters discussed in the 13 August wrap-up slot as demonstrating TV3’s bias against the government. Mr McLean’s close analysis of the text and body language led him to the conclusion that such a bias was apparent.

As noted above in the Authority’s conclusions relating to the 6 August item, the context of these reports is that they are the conclusions of an expert commentator, who is identified as such and who focuses on particular matters for analysis.

Turning to the first report, which related to the Defence Minister’s reportedly "over the top" response to the attendance of Defence Ministry staff at a management seminar, the Authority considers it was reasonable that the commentator concluded that the Minister’s censuring of staff was to demonstrate that the government " had had enough", just as much as the public had. It finds no element of bias here, given the context of controversy about public sector spending and the potential for embarrassment that the appearance of excessive spending was likely to cause any government.

With respect to the report that the failed INCIS project would continue "to dog the government", the Authority considers that the question of who should take responsibility was not relevant to the point being made, which was that a system in which a great deal of faith had been placed by the police – and the public – was no longer viable. In the Authority’s view, it was reasonable for the political editor to conclude that the matter would remain an embarrassment to the government. It does not agree with the complainant’s view that she had laid the blame on the government for the project’s demise.

Next, the Authority deals with the complaint that, as it criticised the government’s 5-step plan for education, the report had lacked balance. The Authority notes that the report said that the 5-step plan was about to be announced, and that the political editor had suggested that the government’s emphasis on education could be seen by some as being extraordinary since it had been responsible for introducing the student loan scheme, which in effect was a tax on knowledge. The Authority does not consider that in making this observation, the item was unbalanced. It was part of a long running story relating to tertiary education and its funding.

Finally, the Authority turns to the complaint that the report implied that the only reason Labour would not win the election would be if it became complacent. Mr McLean suggested there were other reasons why it would not win, including that it had no new policies. The Authority notes the commentator’s remark was made in the context of recent matters which had embarrassed the government. It was suggested that Labour would have to get its people out to vote, and would also have to "jazz things up" with respect to its policies if it intended to win the election. In the context of current polling, which had Labour ahead, the Authority does not consider this interpretation revealed bias or lack of balance. It was made clear that the result of the election was not to be assumed and that Labour had to take positive steps if it wished to win.

Conclusion

These complaints have raised the important issue of freedom of speech and the fetters which are placed on that freedom by the requirements of the Broadcasting Act. While there is an obligation for broadcasters to present fair and balanced programmes, the media also has an important role to play in challenging the policies and performance of the politicians. In each of these cases, the matters which were discussed were dealt with in the context of ongoing stories. Furthermore, they were each subject to editorial analysis by the broadcaster’s political editor. Overall, the Authority concludes that the programmes were not unfair or partial in the context of pre-election debate. It concludes that there was no breach of broadcasting standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 November 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1.    Ian McLean’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 8 August 1999

2.   Ian McLean’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 16 August 1999

3.   TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaints – 26 August 1999

4.   Mr McLean’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
      6 September 1999

5.   TV3’s Response to the Authority – 19 October 1999

6.   Mr McLean’s Final Comment – 29 October 1999