BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The dissatisfactions expressed by a number of students at the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch were examined in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. A follow-up item was broadcast on Holmes on TV One between 7.00–7.30pm on 12 April 1999.

The Managing Director of the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the April item was unfair and unbalanced, and inaccurate in a number of respects.

TVNZ considered that one aspect of the item was unfair, and in breach of the standards, as Ms Hudson was not advised that a telephone conversation between herself and a student, contained in the broadcast, was being recorded. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint relating to the alleged inaccuracies or lack of balance.

Dissatisfied that TVNZ had not upheld the complaint in full, and with the action taken on the aspect upheld, Ms Hudson on the School’s behalf referred those matters 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Complaint

On behalf of the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch, the Managing Director (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to TVNZ about an item broadcast on Holmes on 12 April. The School considered that the broadcast had breached standards G1, G4, G6 and G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first three 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.

The other one states:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

The School listed the matters which it said breached broadcasting standards and noted after each which standard it considered had been breached.

(a) Whereas the presenter referred to four students who claimed to have been expelled for complaining, the School maintained that only three students who had signed the complaint were "required to forfeit their place on the course". (G1)

(b) In response to the presenter’s reference to "refunds they’ve been promised", the School advised that the students had never been promised a refund. (G1)

(c) The reporter had said that the locks had been changed earlier in the year as there had been more trouble. However, the School stated, the lease on the property used by the School had not been renewed in December 1998. Nevertheless, the School had made arrangements to use the premises for the following two to three months to settle its affairs, and had complied with the landlord’s request to vacate completely in March 1999 as the premises were required for an incoming tenant. (G1)

(d) The visual image of the state of its premises, the School stated, was inaccurate. (G1 and G6)

(e) The comment to the reporter from student Ian Gall that the School had offered to pay a refund did not reflect accurately the arrangements made by the School. (G1)

(f) The School reported in some detail the contents of phone calls between the School and Ian Gall. It noted that Mr Gall was advised of the School’s plans in regard to refunds. As confidential information involving the School and students had been passed to Holmes, the complaint continued:

Ian Gall was then asked by the Director not to call her home again to discuss these matters. The letter dated 10 March 1999 also outlined to students that the Director would not discuss the matters via telephone as she had done on numerous occasions with any Student who rang over the previous two and a half months.

Nevertheless, the School continued, Mr Gall telephoned the School’s Director and left messages. They were not answered. However, on about 20 March, Mr Gall spoke to Ms Hudson, and:

Mr Gall was obviously taping the conversation, whether aided or abetted by TVNZ it is not known, although there is no doubt that the visual portrayal of Mr Gall in a studio setting with ear phones on was meant to convey to the viewer that the call was taped in that setting on that occasion (ie the occasion on which the sequence was shot.) Marilyn Hudson was not advised that the conversation was being recorded.

The broadcast included only extracts from this conversation and the School contended that they were an invasion of Ms Hudson’s privacy. (G4)

(g) The School considered that the omission of the fact that student Chris Hinchey contracted hepatitis C as well as glandular fever, was a breach of standards G1 and G6.

(h) Contrary to what Chris Hinchey said, the School wrote, he had been offered options to take up when he was declared medically fit. (G1)

(i) The reporter had said that neither had the Trustees been named, nor the new location of the School been given. However, the School wrote, the students were told on 9 March the names of the Board of Consultants, and that they were likely to be the Trustees, and that the School was going to be located in Wellington. The latter fact had been mentioned in a letter to students of 10 February. (G1 and G6)

(j) Although Ian Gall had said that 30 students last year had paid $10,000 each, the School said it enrolled 27 students and the fees were $8,880.50 plus GST. Further, there were four students who had not paid their fees in full. (G1 and G6)

Turning to standard G14, the School complained that this standard had been breached in relation to points (a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (h), and (i). Attached to the complaint was a copy of the letter to students dated 10 February 1999, and a letter to another student dated 10 March in which the Director had said that she did not intend to communicate further with students as confidential material had been made available to the Holmes programme.

TVNZ’s Response to the Complaint

In its response to the complaint, TVNZ pointed out that the item was a follow-up of items broadcast in December 1998. Enquiries in February had shown that the consensus among the students was that the School should be given a reasonable amount of time to make partial refunds. However, in early April eight of the 10 remaining students advised TVNZ that they were beginning to feel let down.

TVNZ then dealt with the specific points raised in the complaint.

(a) TVNZ listed the names of four students who maintained that they were expelled for complaining. The item, it added, was not inaccurate.

(b) Quoting from a letter sent to Ian Gall by the School, TVNZ said that he was given an option to withdraw from the course and to be given a refund of half the total course fee. This statement, TVNZ said, indicated that students would get a refund if they chose this option. Accordingly, it declined to uphold that aspect.

(c) and (d) As for the comments about the premises, the visuals of the changed locks, and the state of the building, TVNZ wrote:

We are advised that this matter was discussed in detail with the owners of the building. They confirmed that the school owed between five and six months’ rent and that they were fed up with the lack of progress on sorting the problem out. We are further advised that this part of the story was read to the owners before the broadcast and they confirmed that it was a correct account.

Under d) you comment on a sequence which showed the interior of the premises which the school used to occupy. We have confirmed with the reporter and the camera crew that the pictures showed the rooms exactly as they were. The sign to which you refer was -–as you put it – "hanging of its board". Some who have read your letter detect the possible innuendo that the shots were "faked". That is denied absolutely. Nothing in the room was touched by the camera crew; it was filmed as it was found.

(e) This point, TVNZ stated, was addressed under (b) above.

(f) TVNZ maintained that Ian Gall had expressed his genuine views during the telephone calls with Ms Hudson, and had denied "hassling" her. TVNZ also observed that Ms Hudson had been offered the opportunity to appear on the programme, but had declined. Furthermore, TVNZ said:

We further aver that there are occasions when the covert recording and broadcast of material is justified editorially because of an overriding public interest. In this case, however, TVNZ’s Complaints Committee concluded that the circumstances surrounding the use of the extracts from the telephone conversation were at variance with established editorial procedures. That you were not told the conversation had been recorded and was to be broadcast has been judged a breach of standard G4. Your complaint on this point is upheld. TVNZ is to remind staff of its policies in this area and will review existing policy documents in case further clarification is necessary.

(g) As the concern about Chris Hinchey’s health focused on glandular fever, TVNZ said the omission of any reference to hepatitis C was not significant as the hepatitis was not contagious.

(h) In regard to the programme’s assertion that Chris Hinchey had no options, TVNZ recalled the earlier involvement of the Hinchey family with the School, and argued that in these circumstances, Chris Hinchey felt that he had no option.

(i) TVNZ stated that it had been advised by one of the potential trustees of the replacement School in Wellington (Robin Laing) that no decision had been made on who would be the new trustees.

(j) Mr Gall, TVNZ considered, was seen to be expressing his genuinely-held opinion, and his summary "was not outlandish".

In summary, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint other than the aspect relating to the breach of standard G4 when Ms Hudson had not been advised that the phone call between her and Mr Gall was being recorded.

The Referral to the Authority

When she referred the School’s complaint to the Authority, Ms Hudson raised seven points which dealt with some of the points in TVNZ’s letter. (The numbering used below relates to the numbers used above). The referral expressed dissatisfaction with TVNZ’s decision not to uphold the complaint in full, and with the action taken on the aspect upheld.

By way of introduction to the referral, it was stated that Ms Hudson’s personal circumstances had no bearing on the matters dealt with in the broadcast. Further, other actions being taken belied TVNZ’s claim that the issues involving the School were "coming to a head".

(a) The School maintained that three students had been put off the course for complaining. The fourth student had not signed the complaint and had been put off for other reasons. TVNZ’s claim that four students had been put off the course for complaining, the School averred, was therefore misleading and factually incorrect.

(b) The School explained that at a meeting with students early in the year the School’s plans for 1999 were outlined, they were told that the school was unable to pay any refunds, but that it was the intention of the incoming trust to honour the School’s obligations. Subsequently, in the letter of 10 February students were asked to express their preference for a refund or to continue the course in Wellington. It was not, the School avowed, a promise to pay.

(c) In regard to the visuals of the premises, the School enclosed a letter from the landlord’s property manager. It advised that the locks were changed on 23 December at the landlord’s instructions, and one level was stripped of items early in 1999. However, access was permitted to another level although no rent was charged. The School said:

As stated in our original complaint, the images shown of the School’s old premises on the Holmes programme bear very little relation to the School’s interior as it was, and it is curious that the programme did not film the main floor of the premises which would have shown the School’s main working area and reception still with its d?cor and physical appearance intact.

(f) The School contended that Ian Gall ignored Ms Hudson’s instruction to stop telephoning her. Moreover, it was stated, he advised the Holmes programme of developments, and:

When Mr Gall made the phone call that is the subject of this section of the complaint, which was arranged and recorded with the assistance of the Holmes programme at the TVNZ studio in Christchurch, he was entirely aware of what he was doing and was making the phone call to harass and annoy Ms Hudson and provide material for a further item on the (Holmes) programme. In fact the first thing that was said by Ms Hudson during that phone call was "why are you ringing me at home again when I have asked you not to ….. ." The phone call was definitely a harassment of the Director and also a gross invasion of privacy. We note that TVNZ has confirmed that this section of our formal complaint has been upheld, a breach of standard G4.

(g) Referring to its earlier correspondence with the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the School insisted that student non-attendance was not a simple matter as TVNZ suggested. The School referred to the discussions between Ms Hudson and Chris Hinchey’s mother in which the options had been explained.

(j) The School said there were not 30 students enrolled in 1998, and the numbers since 1985 had fluctuated between 25 and 45.

TVNZ’s Report to the Authority

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said it stood by the statement made to the School in response to the complaint, although it added the following comments in reply to the dissatisfactions raised in the referral of the complaint to the Authority.

(a) Four students, TVNZ maintained, considered that they had been expelled because Ms Hudson was aware of their dissatisfaction.

(b) TVNZ insisted that the School’s letter of 10 February offered a partial refund as one of the options. TVNZ considered that its reporter’s actions were appropriate.

(c) Its reporter, TVNZ said, got her facts correct. On the day of the broadcast, it added, one of the owners of the building had confirmed that the account given in the proposed script was correct.

(f) TVNZ denied that Mr Gall’s calls were designed to harass Ms Hudson. It repeated that it had decided that it was unfair, and in breach of standard G4, that Ms Hudson had not been advised that the conversation was being recorded.

(g) As for Mr Hinchey’s non-attendance, TVNZ also referred to its earlier correspondence with the Authority.

(j) In response to the School about the exact number of students enrolled in 1998, TVNZ said it appeared to be a case of the School "splitting hairs". It listed 14 students who it believed were part of the last half-yearly student intake referred to in the item.

The Complainant’s Final Comment

When asked for a final comment, the School’s Ms Hudson maintained the points raised in her complaint to TVNZ, and the referral to the Authority, were correct, and she questioned again the impartiality of TVNZ’s approach to both her and the School.

The Authority’s Findings

On behalf of the NZ Film and Television School, Ms Hudson complained that the item broadcast on Holmes on 12 April was unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate on a number of aspects.

The broadcast was a follow-up item on matters which had been addressed in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson had complained in some detail that both these December items contained inaccuracies, were unbalanced, and were unfair both to her and the School. In its lengthy decisions on these detailed complaints (Nos: 1999-112 and 1999-113, 12/8/99), the Authority upheld one aspect.

In its findings, it recorded that the broadcast on 16 December was unbalanced as Ms Hudson had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the new material advanced in the second programme – ie during the item on 16 December. The Authority did not consider that the broadcasts were unbalanced in any other way, and it did not find them inaccurate, unfair or misleading.

As only one aspect of the complaint was upheld, and after considering submissions, the Authority decided not to impose a penalty.

The Authority includes this information to advise that it has a broad understanding of the issues canvassed during the 12 April 1999 broadcast, and their background.

In view of its familiarity with the issues, and noting that the aspect upheld in regard to the items broadcast in December related to process and not to content, the Authority does not consider that it is necessary to record in similar lengthy detail its deliberations on the various matters raised in this complaint.

On the matters raised in this complaint, the Authority has reached the following findings. In view of the arguments advanced by TVNZ, the Authority does not accept that the broadcast was inaccurate on points (a), (b), (c), (d) (e), (g), (h), (i) and (j). Further, the Authority does not uphold the School’s complaint that points (d), (i), and (j) lacked balance or impartiality. In addition to the need for accuracy and impartiality contained in standards G1 and G6, the School contended that points (a), (b), (c), (e), (g), (h), and (i) failed to comply with the standard G14 requirement for objectivity. Following its examination of the broadcast and its review of the correspondence, the Authority does not considers that this requirement was contravened by the broadcast.

The Authority has examined, both individually and overall, the matters said to be inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced and, in summary it agrees with TVNZ’s arguments on each point. It finds on this occasion, as it concluded in its decisions about the items broadcast in December, that the content of the item broadcast on 12 April does not contain the alleged inaccuracies, or the alleged imbalance, unfairness or lack of objectivity alluded to by the complainant.

Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold any of the standards matters referred to the Authority.

TVNZ upheld the School’s complaint made as point (f) about its covert recording of a telephone call between a student (Ian Gall) and Ms Hudson. TVNZ advised Ms Hudson:

The intent was to show Mr Gall making one further call to you in an effort to sort out his situation in relation to the New Zealand Film and Television School. We further aver that there are occasions when the covert recording and broadcast of material is justified editorially because of an overriding public interest. In this case, however, TVNZ’s Complaints Committee concluded that the circumstances surrounding the use of the extracts from the telephone conversation were at variance with established editorial procedures. That you were not told the conversation had been recorded and was to be broadcast has been judged a breach of standard G4. Your complaint on this point is upheld. TVNZ is to remind staff of its policies in this area and will review existing policy documents in case further clarification is necessary.

When she referred the School’s complaint to the Authority, Ms Hudson stated that she was not satisfied with the action taken by TVNZ when it upheld this aspect.

In the Authority’s opinion, it is a clear breach of the standard requiring fairness not to advise a person that a telephone call is being recorded for possible inclusion in a broadcast. The Authority is of the opinion that it is appropriate for a broadcaster, when it finds that such a breach has occurred, to carry out a review of its practices to ensure that such a breach does not recur. The Authority is reassured that TVNZ undertook that step on this occasion, and commends it for doing so. As the Authority considers that appropriate action took place, it does not uphold the complaint about the inadequacy of TVNZ’s action on the aspect upheld.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the action taken by Television New Zealand Ltd, having upheld an aspect of the complaint about the broadcast of an item on Holmes on 12 April 1999, was insufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
7 October 1999

Appendix

The Authority has received and considered the following correspondence when determining this complaint.

1. The New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd’s complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd
   (plus attachments) – 6 May 1999

2. TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 June 1999

3. The School’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (plus attachments) –
    5 July 1999

4. TVNZ’s Report to the Authority – 30 July 1999

5. The School’s Final Comment – 9 September 1999