BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint regarding a broadcast including an interview with a lawyer who was represented as a ‘political commentator’. The complainant made several unsubstantiated allegations to the effect the lawyer was corrupt, and the broadcaster should have disclosed their alleged corruption. The Authority considered the complaint should not be determined in the circumstances as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preference on who should be interviewed, and how they should be portrayed, which are matters of editorial discretion not capable of being resolved by the broadcasting standards complaints process.

Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Law and Order, Balance

The broadcast and background

[1]  A segment on Newshub Live at 6pm, broadcast on 13 July 2021, included an interview with a lawyer who was represented as a ‘political commentator’.

[2]  Christopher O’Neill claimed:

• the lawyer was corrupt, and made serious allegations which he considers should have been disclosed as part of the broadcast
• the term ‘political commentator’ was an ‘inanity’ as anyone could be a political commentator.

[3]  Discovery treated the complaint as feedback, as it noted the complaint did not raise matters of broadcasting standards but instead concerned the complainant’s personal preference. Accordingly, it did not respond.

[4]  The complainant then referred the complaint to the Authority on the basis of no broadcaster response. At the time, Auckland | Tāmaki Makaurau was in a state of lockdown due to COVID-19 related restrictions. This caused delays in acquiring the original complaint sent to Discovery (as it was only available in hard copy).

[5]  Upon receipt of the correspondence, and progression of this complaint, the complainant made further submissions, including further accusations regarding the lawyer’s corruption. He clarified his complaint:

‘is not that [the lawyer] is corrupt (though [they are]). The media broadcast the corrupt all the time, But make it known they are such should it be relevant to the broadcast.

[6]  In considering this complaint, we have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Outcome: Declined to Determine

[7]  At the outset, we note Discovery’s decision to treat the complaint as feedback only. While we acknowledge there is an argument the initial letter to Discovery did not constitute a formal complaint as required under the Broadcasting Act 1989, for present purposes we are prepared to accept the complaint was validly made. However, for the reasons that follow, we do not consider it appropriate to determine the complaint.

[8]  Section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint if it considers that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.

[9]  In this case, the Authority considers it appropriate to exercise its section 11(b) discretion on the following grounds:

• The complainant has identified no reason why the allegations he raises have any bearing on the particular broadcast or the relevant lawyer’s suitability to provide political commentary.
• The complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion (as to who the broadcaster chooses to interview) and a complainant’s preferences (as to who he considers should have been interviewed). Such complaints are not, in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure.¹
• General allegations of corruption towards interviewees, unrelated to the content of the interview, are similarly not issues of broadcasting standards and the Authority has previously declined to determine complaints of this nature.²
• The Authority does not consider this to be an appropriate use of its time and resources.³

For the above reasons the Authority declines to determine the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
5 October 2022    

Appendix

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

1  Christopher O’Neill’s formal complaint to Discovery – 14 July 2021

2  O’Neill’s referral to the Authority – 14 September 2021

3  O’Neill’s letters to Authority – 12 February 2022, 16 March 2022, 25 July 2022

4  O’Neill’s further submissions in response to BSA referral letter – 15 August 2022

¹ Broadcasting Act 1989, section 5(c)
² See Golden and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-010 at [7] and Golden and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. ID2018-097 at [7]
³ Guidance: BSA Power to Decline to Determine a Complaint, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook 2020, page 65