BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd was the subject of items on Holmes broadcast at 7.00pm on 15 and 16 December 1998. The item on the 15^th suggested that some students had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the school’s programme. It also included an interview with Ms Marilyn Hudson, the School’s Managing Director. The item on the 16^th included comments from other dissatisfied past and present students and their families, and an interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about both items. She said that the first item contained inaccuracies, and was unbalanced, misleading and unfair both to her and the School. The second item, Ms Hudson complained, also contained some inaccuracies, and again was unbalanced, misleading and unfair.

While acknowledging some minor inaccuracies, which it argued did not amount to a breach of the standards, TVNZ responded in detail to the complaints and denied that the standards were contravened.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Hudson on behalf of the complainant referred the complaints 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 about the broadcast on 15 December, and upholds one aspect of the complaint about the broadcast on 16 December 1998.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the items complained about and have read a transcript of each one. They have also read the correspondence listed in the Appendix, and noted the attachments. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Programmes

Items on Holmes screened on 15 and 16 December 1998 dealt with the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd. The item on the 15^th included interviews with some former students of the School, and suggested that they had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the School’s education programme and management processes. Some students who spoke positively about the School were also interviewed.

These interviews by a reporter in Christchurch were followed by the programme’s presenter in the studio interviewing Marilyn Hudson, the Managing Director of the School. She was asked among other things to respond to the dissatisfactions expressed by the expelled students.

In his introduction to the item the next evening, the presenter summarised the previous day’s programme and said:

Last night we featured the deep dissatisfaction amongst a class of 15 at the Film and Television School in Christchurch. The course costs ten thousand dollars, forty week course, ten thousand dollars. The students were emphatic to us that they were not getting their money’s worth, and then we had the unusual encounter with the director of the school, Marilyn Hudson. Now when the four students had tried to complain to Ms Hudson, she threatened them with defamation, she threatened them to the police, that’s to say she threatened to go to the police, and that they would never get a job in the industry.

Stating that the earlier item had resulted in a flood of faxes and telephone calls in support of the expelled students, the presenter interviewed two former students and the mother of a student. They expressed their dissatisfactions with aspects of the School. This segment was followed by one which involved an interview with a representative of the NZ Qualifications Authority (NZQA), whom the presenter introduced in the following way:

So again let me repeat, since the programme last night so many intelligent and rational faxes from people with an unsatisfactory experience of the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch and with the director Marilyn Hudson. Now the school is registered by, and the course is approved by, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Bill Lennox is a Spokesperson for the Authority – good evening.

Mr Lennox explained the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s function and its actions in regard to the School. At the item’s conclusion, the presenter reported that a fax had just been received from students who had recently graduated from the School, which included the comment:

The School has done everything in its power to make this an enjoyable and successful year for all of us.

As his final comment, the presenter referred to the names of two well-known people who were on the Board of Consultants for the School, and commented:

They might be concerned at what’s going on at the school… .

The Complaint – item on 15 December

The School complained that the first item was factually inaccurate, unfair, unbalanced, misleading, partial and involved inadequate research and editing. It claimed the programme had contravened standards G1, G4, G6, G11, G14, G19, G20 and G21 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The alleged factual errors were:

i) The School was named incorrectly;

ii) It was inaccurate to state that five students had been expelled, and that four had been expelled for complaining;

iii) It was incorrect to state that six students had signed the letter of complaint;

iv) The programme incorrectly summarised the reasons for a student’s (Sara Wiseman) dissatisfaction;

v) The Ministry of Education had not withdrawn its approval for the government to pay tertiary fees to the School;

vi) It was also incorrect to say that the Ministry withdrew this approval as it was "money down the drain";

vii) Contrary to what the item claimed, the School’s Managing Director, Marilyn Hudson, had been prepared to discuss matters with the students;

viii) Contrary also to the item’s claim, Marilyn Hudson had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations on Holmes;

ix) The complainant disagreed that the expulsion of students had been used by the School as a method of intimidation.

Noting that these breaches did not include what it called the false statements made by the people interviewed, the School reported that Ms Hudson had not been able to respond to the statements first made on the show, as there was an inadequate sound feed to the Christchurch studio in which she was waiting to be interviewed.

In regard to the standard which requires that people be dealt with fairly, the School complained that Ms Hudson had not been so dealt with. She had been unaware, it wrote, of TVNZ’s intention to broadcast a programme based on the complaints from some students, who had been expelled appropriately and correctly, until after TVNZ’s enquiries had been in train for several days.

The item was unbalanced and in breach of standard G6, the School continued, as it failed to reflect the opinions and views of those who spoke positively about it. This approach, it added, would mislead and alarm viewers, thus breaching standard G11(i).

Turning to standard G14, the standard requiring objectivity and impartiality, the complainant alleged a conflict of interest on TVNZ’s part. It claimed that during earlier negotiations for it to take over the School, TVNZ had said it would set up a school in competition if the negotiations were unsuccessful.

The School said that standard G15 relating to the reliability of sources was breached as the item did not include the report from the NZQA which described the course as "worthy of continued approval", and that the students’ complaint focussed on in the item was, to quote the NZQA, "for the most part unsubstantiated and confrontational in tone."

While repeating under standard G20 the complaint that the item failed to present all significant sides fairly, the School then claimed that the editing which focussed on those who complained was distorted, and an untrue reflection of all the interviews undertaken, and in breach of standard G19. Finally, by not giving the School adequate time to respond, and by not attempting to check the accuracy of the statements made by the interviewees, standard G21 had been transgressed.

The Complaint – item on 16 December

The School again cited standards G1, G4, G6 and G14 in respect of its complaint about the item on Holmes broadcast on 16 December. In addition, it considered that the second item breached standard G16.

The complainant listed the following matters as factual inaccuracies:

a) Ms Hudson threatened the students who tried to complain;

b) The statement from a parent of a former student who said that her son did not complain as he was afraid that Ms Hudson could influence his future prospects;

c) Ms Hudson threatened to expel Paul Blackman if he complained again;

d) Nothing changed after the NZQA visit and students continued to waste time;

e) Ms Hudson had forced a former head supervisor at the School to resign;

f) Gabrielle Hinchey’s description of Ms Hudson’s approach on the delivery of medical certificates;

g) Another parent (Pat O’Sullivan) did not adequately explain the behaviour which involved a short suspension of his son;

h) The School treated students as a "lower form of life".

As for the fairness requirement in standard G4, the complainant stated that Ms Hudson, the School’s Director, was portrayed as a tyrant by the reference to unsubstantiated incidents.

Several aspects of the item were said to have breached the requirement for balance in standard G6. First, it was said that the programme failed to reflect adequately the opinion of those who supported the School. Secondly, it wrote, the NZQA was misled as to what was expected when it agreed to an interview. Consequently, the NZQA was ill prepared to deal with the allegations. The third point which the School considered breached the balance requirement related to the conflict of interest claimed earlier. As a result of this, the complaint contended, TVNZ was unable to deal with the issue impartially.

The above matters, the School considered, amounted also to a breach of standard G14. In addition, it also complained about a promo for the second item which promised to reveal more "horrors" at the School. Referring to the presenter’s introduction that the item on 15 December had involved an "unusual encounter" with Ms Hudson, the School asked how the words applied to a live interview in which Ms Hudson was straightforward and honest. These matters, in total, also amounted to a breach of standard G15, it wrote.

Finally, the School said, the item breached standards G16 as it caused unnecessary alarm, panic and distress to the majority of the students who were less than half way through the course, and to the 12 students who had graduated on 18 December, and to their families.

The complainant stated:

The Company is firmly of the belief that the programmes of the Holmes show broadcast on 15 and 16 December 1998, have seriously maligned the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd and its Director, Marilyn Hudson. The Company will make every effort to seek redress for this. The Company is also aware that Television New Zealand is continuing in its harassment of people and organisations who have a relationship with the School and would ask that a stop be put to this activity immediately.

In response to a request from TVNZ for some more specific information, on 16 February the School advised that the written complaint included five signatures, and that four students had forfeited their place at the School in accordance with the Students Conditions and Procedures Contract. In regard to the student (Sara Wiseman) interviewed on the item on 16 December who said she was entitled to, and still expected a refund of $5,200, the School advised that it had acted on legal advice in not paying the money. Furthermore, it recalled, Ms Wiseman had not expressed any dissatisfaction with the Course when she left.

The School pointed out that because it had NZQA registration, students were eligible for access to student loans until 1998, and it was noted that new criteria were introduced in 1999. Because the School’s auditors had some doubt about short term liquidity issues, students of the School in 1999 were not eligible for student loans until the Ministry of Education had been advised that the School had addressed those matters. Maintaining that it was on this point alone that it did not qualify for 1999 onwards, the School advised TVNZ:

The School can reapply at any time to be granted access to loans and allowances and this provision does not suggest in any way that the quality of the School’s operation was in question. At best, the statements made by the presenter implied that somehow the School had been penalised for some reason beyond that which is outlined in our correspondence from the Ministry of Education. The onus is on the Broadcaster to make sure that statements are factually correct and not ambiguous.

Following on this point, the School disputed the item’s claim that access to loans involved pouring money "down the drain". It commented that it had been in operation for 14 years, that its fees were lower than similar courses offered in other countries, and that its graduates had won many awards.

The School persisted in its statement that the students who had signed the letter of complaint had had a number of opportunities to discuss their concerns with School Management, and that the School was not given sufficient time to respond to the allegations. The School pointed out that on 14 December the Holmes programme was invited to the School to examine the records. However, it noted, Holmes had declined because, it appeared, the item was scheduled for broadcast on 15 December.

In regard to its relationship with NZQA, the School stated that, on legal advice, it was unable to make available the full contents of the report referred to in the complaint about the first programme. However, NZQA was preparing a report on the matters dealt with by its spokesperson on the 16 December item, which would be forwarded to TVNZ on receipt.

TVNZ’s Response to the Complaints

TVNZ addressed its response to Ms Marilyn Hudson, the Managing Director of the School, as she had signed the letter of complaint and she had been interviewed in the first of the two programmes. TVNZ advised that it had considered each complaint separately, but as there were a number of overlapping areas, it was responding in a single letter. The complaint had been assessed under the nominated standards. The following standards require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

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

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.

The others state:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G15  The standards of integrity and reliability of information sources in news, current affairs and documentaries should be monitored regularly.

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.

G20  No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present all significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only by judging every case on its merits.

G21  Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity

TVNZ dealt first with the factual errors aspects of the complaints (the numbers used respond to the numbering above):

i) TVNZ acknowledged that on two occasions the School’s correct title was not given. However, as it was referred to accurately on some other occasions, and as the second item ended with a statement to distinguish the School from the Broadcasting School at the Christchurch Polytechnic, TVNZ was of the view that the mistakes (for which it apologised) did not amount to a breach of the standard.

ii) While acknowledging that only four students had been expelled (or "forfeited their places" in the School’s language), TVNZ said that the fifth (Chris Hinchey) had been told not to return because of poor health. To TVNZ, this came under the broad heading of being "expelled", and it pointed out that the programme was careful to explain that only four of the five had complained that they had been expelled. It did not uphold this aspect.

iii) To the complaint that the item referred to a letter signed by six students when there were only five, TVNZ said that a sixth had signed in the margin on the points he agreed with before the letter was submitted. It declined to uphold this aspect.

iv) TVNZ explained that the programme obtained the information that the student referred to (Sara Wiseman) had been unhappy with the course as it contained insufficient acting content. Further, as she was convinced that she was entitled to a refund, TVNZ stated, the accuracy standard was not transgressed.

v) TVNZ advised that it had a letter from the Ministry of Education to the School dated 15 December 1998 which advised that it had withdrawn approval for students starting after 30/11/98 to be eligible for loans and allowances. Standard G1, TVNZ wrote, was not at risk.

vi) The Ministry’s letter, TVNZ wrote, also pointed out that compliance with criteria about solvency among other matters was necessary to qualify for funding again. TVNZ noted the Ministry’s comment that "the government needs to be confident that both the taxpayers’ and students’ investment are not placed in jeopardy". It argued that the colloquial reference to money down the drain was a fair description. Again, the aspect was not upheld.

vii) On the basis that telephone conversations between the School and the students, which the School said had taken place, did not amount to meaningful discussions as far as the students were concerned, TVNZ declined to uphold this matter.

viii) Pointing out that it was usual practice for a journalist to research a story before approaching the organisation which was being called to account, TVNZ said it was appropriate for enquiries to be carried out for several days before the School was approached. TVNZ provided the following details:

For the record, the possibility of a story developing was first recognised on Tuesday 8^th December when four students got in touch with Holmes and outlined their concerns. On the Wednesday and Thursday the reporter to whom this research had been assigned was diverted to another story and so was unable to develop it further. The first interviews with the students were not done until Friday 11^th December, and some "in the field" shots of the students were obtained in the Christchurch Botanical Gardens on Sunday 13^th December. It seemed clear at that point that there was a basis for a Holmes story and consequently on Monday 14^th December the decision was made that it would screen on the following day.

At 11.34am on Monday 14^th December, the reporter called your office and left a message. You responded at 11.50am but told the reporter you had someone with you and would call back. At 12.45pm you did so, but in that conversation expressed some reservations about doing an interview. You also suggested that if the reporter had "done her research properly" she would have called at the school. At 2pm the reporter was invited to the school, but without a camera. She talked to a group of students who told her they had no problems with the course (a view faithfully reported in the packaged item which preceded the studio interviews on 15^th December). Several of these students told the reporter they were prepared to go on camera and so the reporter telephoned you to request permission but was able only to leave a message. At 4pm you telephoned and told the reporter that, after listening to various opinions, you had decided it was best if Holmes did not proceed with the requested interviews. The reporter then spoke to a Mr John Oakley (we understand him to be a principal tutor) and following that conversation you gave permission for the interviews to go ahead. The reporter then interviewed three students and at the same time gave you a list of questions in case you were prepared to appear on the programme the next night either taped or live – or indeed if you wanted to take the option of issuing a statement. The next day (the 15^th) a producer from Holmes telephoned you and you agreed to take part in the programme.

We cannot accept that Paul Holmes was then guilty of inaccuracy by indicating that you had every chance to respond to questions about the school. Holmes is, after all, a daily current affairs programme and many who appear on the programme have a much shorter time to consider their responses than was the case with you. With respect, it is our understanding that you knew something of the initial research undertaken by Holmes and you were familiar with the issues that arose from the student complaints.

We find no breach of G1 in the assertion that you had every opportunity to respond.

ix) On the basis that the complaint referred to the presenter’s comment that the School dealt with unrest by intimidation, TVNZ argued that it was clearly advanced as an opinion – not as fact – and therefore standard G1 was not in issue.

In reference to the complaint that the item included false statements which were not properly checked, TVNZ replied that the participants were expressing their genuinely-held opinions.

As for the complaint that the criticisms were not put to School before the broadcast, TVNZ’s Programme Standards Manager wrote:

We acknowledge that during the broadcast there was a technical hitch which meant that you were unable to hear the first third of the reporter’s story - the "package" I referred to earlier. However this fault was repaired and you were able to see and hear a replay of the missed part during the commercial break and before you had the on-screen opportunity to respond.

We think it pertinent to remind you that the general concerns of the students had been spelled out in a letter given to you by the Holmes reporter the day before. You therefore were cognisant of the matters at issue before you entered the studio.

Looking at all the complaints you made under G1, we have been unable to find that any can be shown to amount to a breach of the standard.

Turning to the fairness requirement in standard G4, TVNZ referred to its reply above and contended that the programme was scrupulously fair in challenging the behaviour and attitude of the discontented students, broadcasting positive comments from supporters, and referring to the strong support for the School in the industry. Further, it noted, because Ms Hudson was given "a full eight minutes" – when interviews of that length were rare on this programme – to respond to the allegations, TVNZ did not accept that standard G4 had been breached.

TVNZ reached a similar decision on the standard G6 aspect of the complaint. Some of the tutors spoken to had not wished to be quoted, but provided background information, including observing that the students who were expelled were not troublemakers, it wrote. It was no secret, TVNZ added, that the School was short of cash.

The item included comments for both dissatisfied and satisfied students, and no concern was expressed by students about John Oakley, a tutor at the School. TVNZ noted that the students’ complaints were directed at Ms Hudson. Accordingly, TVNZ advised, it did not see any need to interview Mr Oakley. TVNZ commented:

Our inquiries reveal that the reporter found some difficulty in communicating with you herself. It appears that at no stage were you prepared to go quietly and methodically through the issues or allow a check on the specific allegations. Failure of a party to co-operate does not mean that an item must be abandoned. With respect, you were given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the claims of the students, and were seen to be given that opportunity.

Because standard G11(i) applied to "simulated" material, and because the problems identified by the Ministry of Education and the NZQA were real, TVNZ argued, the standard was not contravened.

In respect to the complaint raising the conflict of interest issue, TVNZ recorded in regard to standard G14:

… we reject totally your claim that a TVNZ conflict of interest arose from the broadcast of this story. Our news and current affairs area is quite properly operated as an independent unit, insulated from other activities involving TVNZ. This story was approached on its own merits and the reporter concerned was not familiar with any TVNZ involvement with courses of a like nature.

Standard G15 was met when the reporter summarised the comment from NZQA, it wrote. Similarly, the broadcast complied with standard G19 by including the positive comments about the School from some students, supplemented by comment in the industry. Standard G20, TVNZ believed, was addressed in the comments on standards G4 and G6.

Finally, in regard to standard G21, TVNZ acknowledged the minor errors in regard to the title of the School and some uncertainty about the number of students expelled. However, it added, it did not regard these as "significant", and therefore standard G21 was not relevant.

Overall, TVNZ wrote, it contended that no standards were contravened by the item on 15 December.

Turning to the item broadcast on Holmes on 16 December, TVNZ expressed the opinion that the follow-up story was justified in view of the fresh information which came to light as a result of the first programme. It wrote:

A large number of telephone calls and fax messages were received by Holmes and there was a strong current running through them to indicate dissatisfaction with the manner in which the New Zealand Film and Television School responded when it was asked to consider criticism.

The second item, TVNZ continued, included interviews with three former students and put some questions to the NZQA which was the body responsible for registering organisations such as the one investigated. TVNZ noted that in a letter to the School dated 17 February 1999, the NZQA had advised that the School was no longer registered, because of some specific dissatisfactions. Such a step, TVNZ observed, was very rare and, it understood, the School had appealed the NZQA decision.

TVNZ then dealt with the specific matters raised in the complaint. In regard to the alleged inaccuracies, it replied (see above for the alleged factual inaccuracies):

a) The comments about the Director’s threats to the students, while not made in each case, were justified as "an accurate and truthful reflection of the reception dissatisfied students received when they complained";

b) The comments that a student was frightened to complain because of the possible effect on future job prospects, TVNZ maintained, were made not only by the student’s parent, but also reflected the views of other complainants;

c) Mr Blackman’s observations about the threat of expulsion, TVNZ contended, were a sincere expression of his experiences at the School;

d) Mr Blackman expressed his opinion that there had been no changes after the NZQA visit which, TVNZ added, he had evidence for advancing;

e) The former head supervisor’s statement, TVNZ said, recorded her personal experiences;

f) Ms Hinchey’s recollections, TVNZ wrote, were "accurately and truthfully reflected";

g) TVNZ said the same comments applied to Pat O'Sullivan’s views. They reflected, TVNZ noted, a pattern in the other complaints about the School’s management;

h) The comment about treating students as a "lower form of life" was prefaced by the phrase "it seems" and was obviously the presenter’s opinion.

None of the above matters, TVNZ summarised, amounted to a breach of standard G1.

As for the unfairness aspect of the complaint – standard G4 – TVNZ stated that in its view the second broadcast was justified because of the "fresh information" received in response to the first. It repeated that Ms Hudson had been interviewed the previous evening for eight minutes to refute the criticisms. TVNZ maintained that both the School and Ms Hudson had been treated fairly, and the second broadcast had moved on to look at the role of the NZQA.

In regard to the standard G6 aspect raising issues of balance, TVNZ insisted that the broadcast had reflected openly and honestly the opinions expressed in the faxes and the media releases. It also said that there had been no indication from NZQA that it had been misled by the approach taken by the programme. And as for the conflict of interest issue, TVNZ said it had been dealt with in the first complaint and wrote on this occasion:

Suffice to say here that our News and Current Affairs Department is able to be impartial because it operates as an independent unit.

Turning to the complaint under standard G14 to the use of the words "horrors" and "unusual encounter", TVNZ considered the threatening and intimidating behaviour reported by the students was fairly summarised as "horrors". As for the phrase, "unusual encounter" TVNZ recorded:

Turning to the term "unusual encounter", we have to say that the interview Ms Hudson gave the previous night was a quite extraordinary affair. Mr Holmes himself tells us that in ten years of live broadcasting this was one of the most unusual interviews he has conducted. It was unusual because, while all the various criticisms had been levelled at you, you would not address any of them. The best efforts by Paul Holmes to bring you back to the point failed, a review of the interview shows you answering questions that were not put to you, and failing to answer those that were. "Unusual encounter" was, in our view, an accurate description of the interview.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint under standard G15 as it was satisfied that sufficient checks had been made to ensure the reliability of those interviewed during the second broadcast. As for the standard G16 matter, TVNZ said that it believed all involved in the School would have been aware of the issues dealt with, and if they were not, the broadcast was justified in the wider public interest.

The complaint was declined in full and, in conclusion, TVNZ wrote:

In concluding, I comment briefly on your suggestion that "Television New Zealand is continuing its harassment of people and organisations who have a relationship with the School". We deny fervently that there has been or is any harassment. Our News and Current Affairs Department has legitimately checked some further matters concerning the New Zealand Film and Television School, and may continue to do so as the story could well produce further material in the public interest. With respect, that is TVNZ’s right and responsibility in a society which accepts and values a free press. We do not believe that Holmes has unfairly maligned either you or the New Zealand Film and Television School. The programme has exposed matters of public interest, and they have been dealt with fairly.

The Referral

When Ms Hudson on the School’s behalf referred her complaint to the Authority, she enclosed material which, she said, supported the points raised in the original complaint.

The referral took issue with a number of matters dealt with in TVNZ’s response to the original complaint about the first programme (on 15 December). The specific matters were:

1) The referral questioned TVNZ’s reference in its reply when it described the students at the School as "young people", when many of the students were over 30 years, and the average age of the intake dealt with was 28 years of age.

2) In regard to the complaint about incorrectly naming the School, the referral recorded that the transcript revealed that the School was referred to inaccurately on five occasions during the first programme. The School concluded that the correct description at the end of the second programme was insufficient to ameliorate the breach.

3) Turning to the student who TVNZ claimed was expelled in effect because he was told not to return on the grounds of ill-health, the School maintained that TVNZ was incorrect. Rather, it said, the student (Chris Hinchey) had been consistently absent without explanation and he had received warnings as required by the School’s procedures. When the School made contact with his mother, it was then advised of the health issues, and that Chris would be unable to return to the School for two months. Options were discussed with Mrs Hinchey and School personnel, and Mrs Hinchey was told that, under the Privacy Act, the School could not continue the negotiations with her, and it needed some written medical evidence of Christopher’s illness.

Several days later, the School recalled, Christopher Hinchey and a person later identified as his father, walked into Ms Hudson’s office during a meeting and, despite requests to make an appointment, insisted on having his say there and then. He refused to wait outside when asked, and the Director advised him that she would call the police if he did not go. He then interrupted a classroom session, and was again asked to leave. He then went to the student cafeteria and questioned students about the School. When a student reported his activities, the police were called. He then left the School.

4) The School advised that Sara Wiseman (one of the former students who was interviewed on camera for the 16 December item) despite being advised of the nature of the course, wanted to do more acting than directing or camera work. It continued:

The School spent considerable time and money dealing with Ms Wiseman including substantial legal input and a ruling from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority on the matter. Sara was advised that she was not entitled to a refund by the School’s lawyer and had input from several different legal advisers herself who obviously all recommended that Sara did not have a case against the School. No legal proceedings were initiated by Ms Wiseman but she chose instead to involve the ‘Fair Go’ Programme.

The School had not changed its position and, it averred, her comments in the item did not reflect the facts.

5) The School asked the Authority to rule on the appropriateness of the term "money down the drain" used in the item.

6) TVNZ was aware, the School wrote, of the way in which the School had dealt with the written complaint and also that the School had received no requests from students to discuss any of the matters in person. Further:

The School through its Director and Head Tutor discussed, at length, the matters arising from the written communication with all the students whose signatures were identified and no student was threatened with any consequence as a result of the communication.

It was quite untrue, the School stated, to say that it was not prepared to enter into a meaningful dialogue with students. Indeed:

All the students involved had the opportunity to speak at length with theSchool and its Tutors providing a suitable time was agreed upon and the Student was able to provide verification of allegations that were being made.

The School added that the NZQA noted that the complaints were "largely unsubstantiated and confrontational in tone".

7) The School persisted in its view that it should have been consulted by TVNZ right from the start. That would have allowed the facts to be ascertained, rather than the "brusque and demanding" approach from the reporter who had a"preconceived impression". Because of the graduation activities, and continuing teaching, the School pointed out, it was a very busy time.

Noting that the School was bound by the Privacy Act and could not discuss personal matters relating to students, the School then addressed what it described as the untruths which went to air.

(A) The student (Isaac Bennet) who said that he had no hands on experience with video camera for three-four weeks was frequently absent and failed to complete any of the seven assignments that had been set. In fact, students were using video cameras after six days on the course.

(B) The student (Al Wood) who said he expected to be challenged by the assignments had reached a reasonable level of competence, the School reported, although not in the top 10%. He had been away, without explanation or authorisation, for a week in the middle of a major assignment.

(C) As for the student (Shane Filer) who said the Director had threatened libel action, the School said that it had not been possible to contact him to discuss his complaints. However, although it was claimed that some of the material in the document was libellous, no action had been threatened against him, the School wrote. It continued:

Shane Filer’s behaviour towards staff at the School and his actions in the classroom which eventually led to his place at the School being forfeited are well documented and were witnessed by staff and students. It is quite clear that if the ‘HOLMES’ staff had done their homework and asked questions at the preliminary stages of their investigation they would not have been able to put the viewpoints expressed by the above mentioned students to air with any degree of confidence that they reflected an honest account of the situation.

Elaborating on the balance requirement in standard G6, the School contended that John Oakley, its main tutor, should have been interviewed. Mr Oakley, it added, had since prepared a written statement which had been forwarded directly to the Authority. The School believed that Mr Oakley had not been approached by TVNZ  "because his information did not support the angle the programme was taking".

In conclusion, the School rejected TVNZ’s reply to its complaint about the 15 December item as unsatisfactory.

As for the item broadcast on Holmes on 16 December, the School’s referral dealt initially with the alleged factual inaccuracies. It began by vehemently denying that the School’s Director had threatened the students in the manner referred to. Further, it added, legal proceedings were being filed against the students and "other parties who have publicly libelled and defamed the School". It was, the School added, a step taken with reluctance but considered appropriate in view of the sustained effort to discredit the School and its Director. The School observed:

It should be noted that TVNZ purports to have checked all statements made by people who appeared or who were quoted on the programme but at no time did TVNZ approach the School, its legal advisers, tutors or other students to verify any of the statements. The word of these people was simply accepted as being fact.

As for point (g), (see pp 5 and 12) the School said it assumed that Pat O’Sullivan was the father of a student, Martin O’Sullivan, a mature adult. The School wrote, in reference to this point specifically and to the matter generally, that most of the students were aged 30 or more:

One questions why these people were not asked to speak for themselves and would also question if a parent’s perception of what happened in these circumstances could be called "unbiased, reasonable and fair". In the fourteen years of the School’s operation more than 300 students have attended Courses and the number who have not completed their Course is very small. There are a large number of ex-students in high profile positions in the industry who could have been approached for their point of view. This was not a route TVNZ chose to follow.

Referring to the support from the industry, the School asked the Authority to take this material into consideration.

Turning to TVNZ’s response to the complaint about the use of the word "horrors", the School argued that the Director gave her best effort in the circumstances. These circumstances included the constraints in the Privacy Act, and the legal advice that the Holmes programme was not the appropriate place to air issues which were likely to come before the Court. It added:

It would seem that the programmes reflected the attitude that you are guilty until proved innocent. The School is a small successful operation which has achieved its objectives consistently for a number of years but has always struggled financially.

Noting that it achieved the highest number of employment outcomes of all the existing film and television training courses in New Zealand, the School advised that it adhered to a Code of Conduct which was appropriate in the industry for which it trained. The items, it continued, had put pressure on the Ministry of Education and the NZQA with whom the School enjoyed satisfactory working relationships. More than one organisation contacted by the Holmes programmes, the School attested, expressed the belief that there appeared to be a vendetta by TVNZ against the School. The Holmes reporter had coerced younger students, the School contended, into handing over documents that were private to them and the School.

Standards G15 and G16 were then canvassed and the School strongly contested TVNZ’s claim that the checks made on the people interviewed disclosed that they were reliable and demonstrated integrity. Paul Blackman’s CV, it wrote, showed a history of disagreement with past employers and he had not managed to settle in the industry after the course. Like the other complainants, he was one of the minority of students who did not achieve a satisfactory result from the course.

The NZQA, the School observed, had been telephoned five times in four days by the Holmes programme to ask what action it was taking against the School. Furthermore, the complaint said, the Ministry of Education was notified of the allegations before the School was approached.

Moreover, the School was told by one of its casual tutors that the tutor had been approached by the Holmes programme before 8 December. The Director (Ms Hudson), a former TVNZ employee, considered that she should have been approached before it was decided that the matter should go to air. However, that did not occur, she was approached only on 14 December, and promos for the item were broadcast later that day. The School contended:

The School, and its current and next intake of students, has suffered as a result of the activities of a small number of students and the relentless pursuit of a one-sided story by the ‘HOLMES’ programme. For a small organisation to be able to withstand the power that can be wielded by this type of media attention especially under the conditions that prevailed at the time was a momentous task. The fact that the Industry has been very supportive and continues to work towards the School’s future does indicate the worth and reputation of the School and its graduated students. The resources of the School have been stretched to the limit in an effort to minimise the damage caused and specifically to respond to the untrue allegations and statements made. Every effort is now being made to effect an accurate evaluation of the said statements and allegations and the School looks forward to the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s investigation of our complaint in an impartial and objective manner.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority

TVNZ began by noting that the School had included material in its referral which was not part of the original complaints. This included the School’s Business Plan and a report from the NZQA. Further, the reference to the material about the three students provided a fresh version of events. TVNZ submitted that the Authority’s role, under s.8 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, was to review the broadcaster’s decision. Accordingly, TVNZ argued, in the interests of natural justice the Authority should comment only on material that was made available to TVNZ before it ruled on the original complaint. TVNZ also observed:

We also wish to draw to the Authority’s attention the fact that since these two items were broadcast in December, Holmes has broadcast a "follow up" (12^th April) which is, in our view, relevant to the material contained in the complaint from Ms Hudson. We are not at this stage enclosing a tape of the 12^th April item, but wish to make the Authority aware of its existence in case it wishes to see it.

TVNZ then dealt with the specific points referred to in its letter of referral (see pp 13-15):

1) The term "young people", TVNZ said, was a figure of speech and it did not consider the age of the students to be germane to the complaint.

2) The point about the name of the School used in the items was immaterial, TVNZ reported, as the correct name was given at the end of the second programme. The errors, TVNZ maintained, did not amount to a breach of standard G1.

3) TVNZ said it had checked with Chris Hinchey and his mother and their version of events differed to that given by Ms Hudson. TVNZ said Chris telephoned the School when he started to get sick, and took interim medical certificates to the School. Later, Mrs Hinchey had difficulty contacting Ms Hudson. When she spoke to Ms Hudson finally, Ms Hudson threatened to go to the school in person to explain the situation. She claimed that she was treated abusively by Ms Hudson. Chris and his father visited the School the next day and, TVNZ presented the following account of the events which then transpired:

We are told that when they arrived, Ms Hudson was chatting with a tutor (they were not in a formal meeting). They waited until the conversation ended and then approached Ms Hudson. As described by Chris and his father, Ms Hudson became rude and abusive. Chris’s father in turn became angry and Ms Hudson threatened to call the police. Chris Hinchey and his father realised that it was pointless to continue the discussion and left. They went and chatted to several students who were not in lessons at the time but were viewing footage filmed the previous evening. They chatted about what work Chris had been missing out on during his absences. They then chatted downstairs with two other students, Shane Filer and Al Wood. Chris told them of his difficulties and both students then revealed that they too were having problems and believed they were on the verge of being expelled. That in fact happened. It is interesting to note that we have a copy of a Disputes Tribunal decision dated 21^st April 1999, in which Mr Filer was awarded the sum of $7,499 against the School and the complainant. That decision is available to the Authority on request.

TVNZ reported that the Hincheys had not received a letter, as the referral recorded, advising that Chris would have to forfeit his place.

4) Noting that the item disclosed that Sara Wiseman was unhappy with the course, TVNZ said it found the description of her as a disruptive student surprising since, as in a reference dated 3 June 1993, Ms Hudson had described Ms Wiseman as a "reliable and enthusiastic person" with "excellent work habits". However, shortly afterwards, when she advised the School she was leaving, another reference (17 June 1993) then referred to her failure to comply with "standards of behaviours, dress and attitude." TVNZ observed:

It seems to us that Ms Wiseman’s case illustrated succinctly how the school dealt with students who complained, wanted their money back, or – in the school’s view – became a problem.

5) TVNZ had nothing further to add.

6) As for Ms Hudson’s statement that there were no requests to discuss the letter prepared by the students, TVNZ said a meeting was arranged for one student (Grant Lyons) at which Ms Hudson demanded that he sign a retraction and an apology, or be expelled.

TVNZ wrote:

We argue that, if the complaints had been listened to and discussed constructively the students would not have taken their concerns to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

7) TVNZ strongly disputed Ms Hudson’s statements that the School should have been consulted from the start. It recorded in some detail the way the item developed, beginning on 8 December, and followed by further routine enquiries on 11 December with the NZQA and Ministry of Education. TVNZ stated:

To us, and I suspect any group of professional journalists, these preliminary investigations are fundamental. Imagine the uproar if the journalist had confronted the school simply with uncorroborated student comment? The story was simply not there until the prerequisite checks had been carried out.

To Ms Hudson’s comment that "facts" would have been available if she had been contacted earlier, TVNZ said that "the facts" would have amounted to her version of events. Ms Hudson, TVNZ insisted, had the opportunity to put her side of the story during the lengthy on-camera interview.

TVNZ did not agree with Ms Hudson’s view that it should have approached John Oakley. It wrote that Ms Hudson, not John Oakley, was the Managing Director.

TVNZ continued its account about the way the item was prepared:

We note that on the Monday (14^th December) the reporter took all the correct steps to ensure that the New Zealand Film and Television School was given every opportunity to respond. We note that the reporter accepted Ms Hudson’s invitation to visit the school that afternoon without a camera to talk to other students. Upon a request for permission to return with a camera to do interviews, the reporter was told by Ms Hudson that she would not be interviewed and neither would the students. She then spoke to Mr Oakley for nearly an hour, emphasising how important it was to speak to the students and explaining that she was being prevented from doing so by Ms Hudson. Apparently Ms Hudson and Mr Oakley had a discussion, the result of which was that Ms Hudson changed her mind and allowed the reporter to interview the students. At the same time she provided Ms Hudson with a list of questions she would like to ask her.

We have no record of any offer made to either the reporter or the Executive Producer giving full access to school, staff, documentation and students if the story was delayed.

In regard to Ms Hudson’s comment that the Privacy Act prevented her from speaking about specific matters, TVNZ observed that it was in fact the presenter who, during the interview, prevented Ms Hudson from accusing one student of theft.

As for the references to the three named students, TVNZ argued that this was not a valid part of the referral for the Authority to rule on as it was new material. Nevertheless, it added, if the Authority intended to deal with the matter, TVNZ advised that it could provide a detailed rebuttal to that material.

In regard to the standard G6 aspect, TVNZ repeated the point that Ms Hudson, not John Oakley, was the appropriate person to interview. Before the reporter spoke to Mr Oakley, she had been told that neither Ms Hudson nor the students who supported her would be available for interview. Having spoken to Mr Oakley who was a supporter of Ms Hudson "for nearly an hour", the reporter was strongly of the view that Ms Hudson should tell her story. The reporter’s approach, TVNZ observed, was "hardly the actions of a reporter unwilling to tell the other side of the story".

TVNZ concluded on these points:

TVNZ denies that the reporter was uncooperative. The reporter was invited by Ms Hudson to meet students who support the school. She went and sought permission to film them. Ms Hudson urged her to speak to Mr Oakley. She did so. She also provided Ms Hudson with a list of questions which she accepted. We understand that Ms Hudson did not want the story to be run, but that does not make a reporter pursuing a matter of public interest "uncooperative".

In summarising its response to the complaint about the programme on 15 December, TVNZ observed that the item reported the school’s problems - it was not responsible for them. By the time the programme went to air, rent was outstanding, the landlord had changed the locks and locked out students, and the Ministry of Education had decided that the School was not financially viable. The School, TVNZ added, was only one of three training establishments – out of 200 – which had been turned down when it applied to get government loans and allowances.

Turning to the second programme – on 16 December – TVNZ said what Ms Hudson called a "vendetta" was nothing more than a reporter diligently doing her job. The fact that the NZQA spokesperson was contacted five times in four days, TVNZ added, deserved commendation, not condemnation. TVNZ’s response continued:

Ms Hudson is right – the Ministry of Education was contacted in December. The call was made on the 11^th December, and was prompted by advice from another source that a call to the Ministry might be helpful. That date is significant because that was the Friday of the week in which the reporter was making her preliminary enquiries to see whether there was substance in the story. It was not until she had spoken to the Ministry that she felt confident that the story could proceed. That was Friday, and on the Monday the reporter contacted Ms Hudson, thus involving her virtually as soon as the decision had been made to go ahead with the story.

TVNZ reported that its earlier enquiries had involved evaluating whether the students were a "disgruntled group of troublemakers, or people with a genuine cause to feel aggrieved." If the former proved the case, the story would not have gone ahead.

TVNZ’s Programme Standards Manager concluded:

There is an enormous amount of minutia in this complaint - as originally lodged, in TVNZ’s response, in the referral to the Authority and now in our response to that referral. In the process it may be that we have lost sight a little of the standards against which the complaint is tested. It is our view that the principal standards are G4 and G6 and in both cases we aver that Ms Hudson and the New Zealand Film and Television School were treated in a fair and balanced manner. The student concerns were aired, but so was the school’s response (an eight-minute studio interview on the 15th with Ms Hudson). We believe that if the Authority keeps G4 and G6 in mind as it works it way through this complaint, it will find that Holmes acted properly and professionally in the handling of a story which is demonstrably one of public interest. As indicated earlier, we feel strongly that TVNZ is being accused for being a messenger, for reporting a situation at the school which existed before the two Holmes items were conceived or broadcast.

Because of the quantity of minutia, I accept that I may have placed too much emphasis on parts of this response, and too little on others. TVNZ welcomes any questions the Authority might have which would assist it in finding its way through the large quantities of paperwork.

The Complainant’s Final Comment

On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson advanced four relevant issues in her final comment. She included attachments as appropriate.

(i). Dealing with Chris Hinchey’s non-attendance, Ms Hudson noted that his absences began soon after the beginning of the course in which he was involved. Further, she wrote, he was not living with his parents at the time and he was seen walking in the city during those absences looking relatively "untouched by his illness".

The attachments included three class reports noting his absence for three weeks during September, October and November, and a letter from Chris Hinchey to the school dated 14 September in which he apologised for his absence. He acknowledged that he had "been much too slack" and would try to improve.

(ii). As for TVNZ’s claim that the presenter had stopped Ms Hudson from invading a student’s privacy, the School denied that Ms Hudson had attempted to refer to a theft. The letter refrained from expanding on the issue, but said details could be made available if required.

(iii). On the issue of financial viability, the School stressed that the Ministry of Education had never carried out a financial audit. Rather, the School’s own auditors expressed concern when the School was preparing its application for Universal Tertiary Tuition Allowance status. Explaining that it had passed on a reduction in fees despite having no government funding, the School wrote:

That the School was facing problems was no secret. The School has been heavily subsidised by its Director and Shareholders. The equivalent course offered at overseas institutions costs substantially more than that charged by NZFTS Ltd.

Attaching the financial statements submitted to the Ministry, the School pointed out that it was clear that the School could survive without funding.

The Ministry’s letter of 14 December was also attached which advised that financial viability was the only reason why the School’s application was unsuccessful. The School continued:

I think it is relevant to note the date of the Ministry’s letter and the fact that it was faxed to the School at 5.40pm on the 14 December 1998, one day before the first Holmes programme. A phone call to the Senior Manager, Tertiary Charters and Funding, on the morning of 15 December 1998 confirmed the School’s fear that the sudden receipt of this letter (in reply to a submission that had been before the Ministry since 30 September 1998) was related to the fact that the decision was to be made public on the Holmes programme that evening. This precipitous announcement precluded the School from formally asking for a review of the Ministry’s decision, an option that was taken up, successfully, by at least one other Private Training Provider in Christchurch who had had one of their Courses turned down for UTTA status.

(iv). In response to TVNZ’s contention that the School was treated fairly, the following points were advanced:

TVNZ’s list of questions to the School seeking its participation did not mention "solvency". However, that was the first question put to Ms Hudson, and her response was the subject of derision by the presenter;

Through the editing of the interviews of students who spoke favourably about the School, TVNZ minimised their input;

Despite the invitation from the School’s Director, TVNZ failed to make in-depth enquiries at the School.

The Authority also received a letter from John Oakley (a senior tutor at the School) who was shown TVNZ’s letter to the Authority by Ms Hudson. There had been no attempt, he wrote, for anyone from the Holmes programme to contact him. The conversation with the Holmes reporter referred to, he added, took place only because he was with Ms Hudson when she spoke by telephone to the reporter, and Ms Hudson had asked him to speak to the reporter as well. That was the only contact with the reporter and it was no more than 10-15 minutes, rather than nearly an hour as claimed by TVNZ.

Mr Oakley concluded:

It will be apparent, if only from my personal statement, that I support Ms Hudson in her complaint against TVNZ and the Holmes items in question. All I ask, is that the Authority give Ms Hudson’s complaint a fair and balanced examination, something the Holmes programmes failed to do.

The Authority’s Findings

Matters concerning the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd were dealt with at length in items broadcast on Holmes on consecutive evenings – the 15 and 16 December 1998. The programme on the first evening contained comment from present students, some of whom spoke highly of the course while others expressed dissatisfaction. Much of the dissatisfaction was directed at the School’s Managing Director, Ms Marilyn Hudson. When Ms Hudson was interviewed, she was asked to comment on a number of points, ranging from the state of the School’s financial viability to the dissatisfactions advanced about course content.

The item on the following evening, TVNZ advised, arose because of the extent of the response that the first programme had evoked. It included interviews with a number of people, principally former students, some of whom were accompanied by family members. It also included a lengthy interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA) who was asked in effect what the NZQA was doing about the apparently unsatisfactory situation at the School which had been revealed by Holmes.

The School, through Ms Hudson, complained at length about each item. The Authority discusses the complaints separately.

1. 15 December Broadcast

The School complained that the first item was factually incorrect, unfair, misleading, partial and involved inadequate research and editing. It claimed that standards G1, G4, G6, G11, G14, G19, G20, and G21 were breached. The Authority intends to deal with each issue that was raised in the complaint.

Standard G1 – Accuracy

The School listed nine factual errors.

i) The School complained that it had been named incorrectly on a number of occasions in the item, which TVNZ admitted had occurred twice. However, it added, the School in question had been clearly distinguished from the Broadcasting School at the Christchurch Polytech, and TVNZ did not consider the error amounted to a breach of standards.

As the error was acknowledged, and because of the clear identification of the School at the end of the broadcast on 16 December, the Authority notes that any breach was minor and it is satisfied that no further action was required of the broadcaster.

ii) To the complaint that the item had referred inaccurately to five students who had been expelled, rather than four, TVNZ agreed that in fact only four had "forfeited their places". However, it added, the conditions placed on student Chris Hinchey amounted in effect to an expulsion.

In dealing with this matter, the Authority has examined a transcript of the 15 December item. It notes that the presenter, in the introduction, refers to five students in a class of fifteen who were dissatisfied. A little later, he stated that four of the students who had complained had been expelled. As this number is correct, the Authority does not find any inaccuracy on this point.

iii) The third aspect focussed on the number of students who signed the letter of complaint. It is accepted that it was signed by five, and a sixth initialled some aspects with which he agreed.

The Authority notes that it is a matter for debate as to whether the letter was signed by five or six students in those circumstances. It is not prepared to uphold the complaint that the programme was inaccurate in its description.

iv) The School complained that the item did not record the reason why one student, four years earlier, had sought the assistance of Fair Go in her dispute with the School. TVNZ responded that it had accurately reported her opinion that she was entitled to a refund.

The Authority finds that the item reported the former student’s belief accurately. It is not prepared to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

v) The School complained that the presenter in the introduction to the interview with Ms Hudson was incorrect when he stated that the Ministry of Education had withdrawn its approval for tertiary fees to be paid to the School by the government. TVNZ replied that the Ministry had withdrawn approval for students at the School to have access to loans and allowances.

As this point was correctly put when students’ views were canvassed, the Authority does not accept overall that standard G1 was infringed by the statement at the beginning of the interview.

vi) In dealing with the Ministry’s attitude, the presenter said it arose from the Ministry’s responsibility not "to pour money down the drain", and a little later he asked Ms Hudson whether the fees paid by students was money "down the toilet". The School complained that this summary was inaccurate and TVNZ in response considered that the colloquial summary adequately summarised the effect of the Ministry’s decision.

The Authority notes that the presenter’s wording could be regarded as provocative and, perhaps, was intended to encourage debate. The Authority has taken into account the Ministry’s letter of 14 December in which it advised the School of its decision regarding access to loans and allowances. In view of the Ministry’s concern about the School’s financial viability, the Authority accepts that the phrases used were acceptable in the nature of colourful slang, and finds nothing inaccurate in their use in the context of this programme.

vii) To the School’s complaint that the item was incorrect when it claimed that Ms Hudson was not prepared to discuss the matters raised in the complaint with students, TVNZ responded that its enquiries disclosed that the students did not accept that there was an opportunity for meaningful discussions.

The Authority accepts TVNZ’s submission, and notes that there was information which supported that view. In addition, it notes that the NZQA had earlier expressed its concerns to the School and required the School to revise its complaints procedure to ensure that complaints were appropriately addressed.

viii) Ms Hudson stated that the item was incorrect when it said that the School had been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations advanced on Holmes. When disputing this point, TVNZ reported in some detail the process involved.

As the Authority considers this matter is better addressed under standards G4 and G6, it declines to determine it as a standard G1 matter and will return to it below.

ix) It was incorrect, the complaint maintained, for the item to aver that the School used expulsion as a method of intimidation. In response, TVNZ said this point was a matter of opinion, not a fact.

The Authority agrees with TVNZ. As there was enough material advanced to justify the presenter advancing this opinion, the Authority does not consider that its inclusion by way of comment breached the accuracy requirement in standard G1.

Standards G4 and G6 – Fairness and Balance

The next aspect of the complaint about the item on 15 December contended that the item did not reflect adequately the positive views towards the School held by staff, students and other organisations. This is an allegation that the programme lacked balance as required by standard G6.

In reaching its decision on this aspect, the Authority notes that Ms Hudson was interviewed for some eight minutes on the item on 15 December. She was given the opportunity during this interview to deal with the issues. The Authority acknowledges that mid-December could well have been a busy time for the School, but as the matters raised were issues with which she should have been familiar, and as she was given an adequate opportunity to respond, the Authority does not uphold the complaint that the School was dealt with in an unbalanced or unfair way. This decision is also applicable to the factual issue viii) above.

In reaching this conclusion, the Authority also notes that the comments made during the interviews with some students, and by way of voice-over, presented a range of positive views about the School.

Associated with the complaint about lack of balance and fairness in the item and the reference to standard G6, was the complaint that the School, and Ms Hudson, were not dealt with fairly as required by standard G4.

The Authority again refers to the extensive live interview which was screened, and during which Ms Hudson was given – as required by the fairness standard – the opportunity to state her case. The issues advanced by the presenter on the students’ behalf raised matters, the Authority notes, which could be expected to be dealt with readily by Ms Hudson.

By way of summary on the matters raised in the complaint under standards G4 and G6, the Authority points out that the criticisms raised in the item focused on specific aspects of the course run by the School and its management, rather than the course in its entirety, and that Ms Hudson was given the opportunity to deal with the particulars raised. The standards require that people being interviewed be dealt with justly and fairly, and that they have an adequate opportunity to respond. In this case an adequate opportunity was given on 15 December and the issues were raised in a way which was neither unfair to the School nor to Ms Hudson.

Other Standards

The Authority agrees with TVNZ that standard G11(i) does not apply as the item did not involve the simulation of news and events.

As for the complaint under standard G14 that TVNZ was partial and that this could be attributed to a possible conflict of interest, the Authority is not persuaded about this either. There was no evidence to support the claim. It seems to have been thrown in as makeweight. It also sees no evidence that the requirements in standards G19, G20, and G21 were transgressed.

Conclusion – Item 15 December

The Authority has fully and carefully assessed the complaint about this item under the nominated standards. The complainant has raised a range of issues and advanced an extensive range of matters in support of its contentions that the standards were breached. Central to the complaint is the concern that the item was unfair in a number of ways. Having examined the comprehensive arguments for and against, and the extensive documentation supplied, the Authority finds that the broadcast on 15 December did not contravene the nominated standards. In the Authority’s opinion, the minor inaccuracies acknowledged did not raise core issues dealt with by the item, and positive views about the School were advanced. More importantly to the Authority, Ms Hudson was given a fair opportunity to answer criticisms of the aspects of the School’s curriculum and processes which were the object of critical comment.

Overall, the Authority finds that the concerns advanced were put to Ms Hudson in a manner which ensured that the item complied with the standards relating to balance, fairness, and accuracy.

2. 16 December Broadcast

The first part of the second item involved comments and criticisms about the School from present and past students and their families. The second part of the item featured an interview with an NZQA spokesperson.

Standard G1 – Accuracy

The School’s complaint about the second item, as with the first complaint, listed a number of matters in the broadcast which it said were factually inaccurate. The comments which the complainant argued were inaccurate were:

a) That Ms Hudson threatened the students who tried to complain;

b) That a parent of a former student who said that her son did not complain as he was afraid that Ms Hudson could influence his future prospects;

c) That Ms Hudson threatened to expel Paul Blackman if he complained again;

d) That nothing changed after the NZQA visit and students continued to waste time;

e) That Ms Hudson had forced a former head supervisor at the School to resign;

f) Gabrielle Hinchey’s description of Ms Hudson’s approach on the delivery of the medical certificates;

g) Another parent (Pat O’Sullivan) did not adequately explain the behaviour which involved a short suspension of his son;

h) That the School treated students, as alleged by the presenter, as a "lower form of life".

In its response to each point, TVNZ pointed out that it had reported accurately the comments of the people who had expressed these opinions.

The Authority accepts TVNZ’s submission on this. Because the remarks were honest opinion, the Authority does not consider that standard G1 was in issue. The Authority notes however that the comments contained criticism of the School and Ms Hudson, and, accordingly, raised matters to be assessed when the Authority examines the aspects of the complaint relating to balance and fairness – standards G4 and G6.

Standards G4 and G6 – Fairness and Balance

As part of the specific complaint under these standards, Ms Hudson complained that she was referred to, unfairly, as a tyrant. The standards issue for the Authority is to assess first, whether it was fair to use this term (G4) and, if so, whether Ms Hudson was given an opportunity to respond (G6).

The Authority notes that the presenter did not describe her as a tyrant. Rather, he reported to the NZQA spokesperson that some students considered her to be a tyrant as she had threatened action against students by way of defamation and by threats to call the police if they complained. In summarising the students’ representations, the Authority does not consider that the presenter was unfair in using the term "tyrant".

However new material was advanced in the 16 December item including comment about a student who did not complain because of concerns about future employment, and a comment from a former head supervisor who said she was forced by Ms Hudson to resign. Further, the item on 16 December covered in considerable detail the interaction between the School and the Hinchey family. While these details elaborated on the matters noted the previous evening, they raised other issues which went beyond the ambit of the earlier programme.

The Authority is of the view that to ensure that the broadcast on 16 December complied with broadcasting standards, it was necessary to give Ms Hudson an opportunity to answer these further allegations. The Authority does not accept that it was sufficient in the circumstances for the broadcaster to rely on the 15th December programme as providing balance or a fair opportunity to answer these new and rather specific matters.

The issue of fairness is dealt with in both standards G4 and G6. On this occasion, as the fairness requirements overlap, the Authority subsumes standard G4 under standard G6. The Authority concludes that as neither Ms Hudson nor the School was given an adequate opportunity to respond to these matters, the broadcast on 16 December contravened standard G6.

Other Issues and Standards

The Authority considers that the second broadcast did not contravene any other standard. It accepts that the views of the students who spoke positively about their experiences at the School were adequately summarised at the end of the item. Having viewed the item and read the transcript of the broadcast on 15 December, it also accepts that the presenter, on 16 December, was entitled to describe the interview with Ms Hudson on 15 December as an "unusual encounter", as that was his opinion.

The Authority takes the context of Holmes into account when considering the complaint about the use of the word "horrors" in relation to events at the school in a promo for the item on 16 December.

The use of the word by the presenter, the Authority acknowledges, contains an element of exaggeration or deliberate overstatement. However, the Authority observes, the viewers of Holmes would not expect the word to be used in a literal sense because of their familiarity with his distinctive person style, and it does not regard its use as transgressing the standards on this occasion.

There were other matters largely peripheral to the substance of the complaint.

The Authority does not consider that the references by TVNZ to the students as "young people" breached the standards, and it has addressed the complaint about the Hincheys as an aspect of standard G6 above. It also accepts that the item dealt adequately with the matter of Sara Wiseman and her complaint about the School to Fair Go. As Ms Hudson was the person at the School on whom the dissatisfied students focused, the Authority agrees with TVNZ that it was not necessary for the items to include an interview with tutor Mr John Oakley.

The Authority also notes that the new material advanced by the complainant in its referral to the Authority was not of assistance or relevance.

Summary

In conclusion, the Authority observes that the two items dealt with a range of allegations advanced by dissatisfied students. The programmes also included positive comment from satisfied students, and other organisations which were aware of the School’s operations.

Many of the dissatisfactions referred to Ms Marilyn Hudson and her style as Managing Director of the School. Ms Hudson was interviewed on the 15 December item and, as noted above, the Authority is satisfied that this programme complied with broadcasting standards.

Nonetheless, partially as a result of that broadcast, other information came to the attention of Holmes and an extended range of dissatisfactions were advanced on the 16 December item. The NZQA was also called to account. However, as Ms Hudson was not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the new material advanced in the second programme, the Authority upholds the complaint that the item on 16 December breached standard G6 of the Television Code. It declines to uphold any other aspect.

For the above reason, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of an item on Holmes on 16 December 1998 breached standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaints.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make orders under s.13(1) or s.16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It invited submissions from the parties on the question of penalty. Having considered the submissions and taking into account the point that the complaint was upheld on only one aspect, the Authority is not persuaded that a penalty is appropriate.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
12 August 1999

Appendix

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

1. NZ Film and Television School Ltd’s (the School) Formal Complaint to Television New
    Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) about the item on Holmes on 15 December 1998 – undated

2. The School’s Formal Complaint to TVNZ about the item on Holmes on
    16 December 1998 – undated

3. The School’s further letter of complaint to TVNZ – 16 February 1999

4. TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 March 1999

5. The School’s Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (plus
    attachments) – 6 April 1999

6. Letter to the Authority from Damon Martin in support of the Complaint – 7 April 1999

7. Letter to Authority from Industry Working group, Wellington in support of the Complaint
    – 8 April 1999

8. TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 27 April 1999

9. Letter to the Authority from G John Oakley in support of the Complaint – 12 May 1999

10. The School’s Final Comment (plus attachments) – 13 May 1999

11. TVNZ’s Submission on Penalty – 16 July 1999

12. The School’s Submission on Penalty – 22 July 1999