BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Some dissatisfaction expressed by three purchasers of cars from Saevue Motors in New Plymouth was considered in an item broadcast on Holmes, between 7.00–7.30pm on 11 December 1997. The possibility of odometer tampering was raised.

Mr Rawlings complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and unfair. He noted that there had been no effort to gauge the extent of the problem among the company's total customer base, and he claimed that the company was portrayed as a "monster".

On the basis that the information contained in the item justified the investigation, TVNZ reported that it had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the company to participate in the programme. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Shortly before Christmas 1997, an item on Holmes on TV One examined some allegations that a car dealer in New Plymouth, Saevue Motors, had sold a number of used vehicles on which the odometer had been tampered with. There was reference to 14 such vehicles, and three purchasers were interviewed. The item included an interview with the local MP, Mr Harry Duynhoven, one of the politicians who had taken the lead on the issue of odometer tampering.

Saevue Motors, the item reported, had declined to be interviewed, although an extract from a letter the company had written to Mr Duynhoven was read out during the item. The item made a point of the fact that Saevue’s external communications proclaimed a Christian message, and the company used this positioning as a cornerstone of its marketing.

The item also included an extract of a letter from the local branch of the MVDI to the Institute's national office, in which concern was expressed about the effect that Saevue's possibly questionable reputation might have on other car dealers in New Plymouth. The item explicitly stated that the reliability of the letter's contents had not been confirmed.

Mr Rawlings complained to TVNZ that the item was unbalanced. Mr Rawlings expressed particular concern that the Christian owners of Saevue had been portrayed as "monsters", when, he maintained, a little work by TVNZ would have disclosed that this was not so.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G4, G6, G7, G11(i), G14, G16 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first four require broadcasters:

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.

G7 To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice in the presentation of programmes which takes advantage of the confidence viewers have in the integrity
of broadcasting.

G11 To refrain from broadcasting any programmes which, when considered as a whole:

(i) Simulates news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm viewers.

The other three provide:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of a 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.

G16 News, current affairs and documentaries should not be presented in such a way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

After dealing with the specific matters raised by Mr Rawlings, TVNZ explained that it had asked Saevue on three occasions to participate in the programme. When these approaches were unsuccessful, it added, it had sought a written statement but nothing was received. TVNZ argued that a media investigation could not be stifled because one party refused to appear.

TVNZ declined to uphold the specific aspects of the complaint and, overall, did not accept that the item was either unbalanced or unfair to Saevue Motors. Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Authority within the statutory time limit. However, despite requests from the Authority, he did not provide the reasons for the referral for nearly four months. The Authority notes that such delays can cause difficulties for broadcasters.

The details of Mr Rawlings’ complaint, TVNZ’s initial response, Mr Rawlings’ referral to the Authority, TVNZ’s response, and Mr Rawlings’ final comment are fully summarised in the Appendix.

In its assessment of the complaint, the Authority considers first the overall impression given by the relatively brief item. It believes that it left the impression that the odometer readings of some vehicles sold by Saevue were questionable, and that it was Saevue’s responsibility to do something about it. However, the item implied, Saevue did not always handle complaints about odometer tampering in a way which customers found totally satisfactory. It was not suggested that Saevue was itself responsible for the tampering which had occurred. Further, the broadcast implied that because Saevue gave Christianity a high profile in its marketing, the company could be expected to take complaints seriously.

The Authority accepts TVNZ’s argument that an item can proceed despite a central party’s unwillingness to participate. In these circumstances, the Authority expects, in the interests of balance, a reasonable opportunity to participate will first have been given to the person concerned. Here that opportunity was given but Saevue Motors refused to participate. Nor did it arrange for any spokesperson to appear on its behalf.

The Authority concludes that Saevue was the appropriate company to comment about, and to question or refute, the MVDI letter which was cited during the item. Had it appeared on the programme, it would no doubt have had the opportunity to do so. Saevue was quite entitled to refuse to appear or to offer any comment, but in doing so it took the risk that its side of the story might not be put adequately. In these circumstances, the Authority is not persuaded that there was imbalance such as would contravene standard G6. In the Authority’s view, having given Saevue a reasonable opportunity to respond it was not necessary for TVNZ to seek out other opinion from customers or MVDI dealers. The programme was specific in its focus, and the questions raised were clearly for Saevue to answer.

The Authority does not accept that the item was unfair in its treatment of Saevue, or in its comments on the Christian ethic component of its publicity. Rather, it pointed out that Saevue Motors had made Christianity part of its structure, and thus could reasonably be called to account if its practices did not seem to comply with such ethics. In the Authority’s view, that was a permissible comment to make in the circumstances of this case and it did not result in TVNZ contravening standard G4.

With reference to the specific standards raised, the Authority points out that it has in the past confined standard G7 to deception which arises as the result of a technical practice. Accordingly, it considers it not relevant to the current complaint. As the complaint does not refer to specific editing which has resulted in a distortion, the Authority does not consider that standard G19 is applicable.

The complaint focuses on the alleged unfairness of the item to Saevue Motors, and its alleged imbalance. Accordingly, the Authority subsumes all the issues raised under standards G4 and G6. In conclusion, the Authority accepts that the item raised valid questions about the sale of some vehicles with tampered odometers and, in spite of Saevue's decision not to respond by an interview or in writing, the Authority considers that the item was neither unfair nor unbalanced.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
27 August 1998

Appendix

D V Rawlings' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 12 December 1997

Dale Rawlings of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on Holmes on 11 December 1997 which referred to Saevue Motors of New Plymouth.

The item, Mr Rawlings wrote, reported that 14 people suspected that the speedometers of their vehicles, which they had purchased from Saevue, had been tampered with. Three such purchasers were interviewed. Reference was also made to the Christian message proclaimed by the owners of Saevue, he noted, and to a letter sent by another car dealer in New Plymouth to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute (MVDI). The item concluded with some questions the interviewer had apparently intended to ask of the owners of the business, who declined to be interviewed.

Mr Rawlings listed some reasons why he considered the item to be unbalanced.

* There was no attempt to interview satisfied customers or gauge the percentage that the 14 referred to comprised of the company's total customer base.

* While one other dealer in New Plymouth "clearly" had an axe to grind with Saevue, no attempt was made to report the attitude of the other MVDI members.

* The letter to the MVDI was, at best, hearsay.

* There was no attempt to canvass other people who had purchased a vehicle from any car dealer in New Plymouth, and had discovered that their odometer had been tampered with, and had had their complaint dealt with satisfactorily.

* While the principal complainant carried out what was generally seen as a good public service activity, there was no effort made to see if Saevue supported similar activities.

Pointing out that the item dealt with odometer tampering which, he considered to be a subject no longer newsworthy, Mr Rawlings argued that the only "fresh" aspect noted was that the owners of Saevue were Christian. Mr Rawlings considered, he wrote, that efforts could have been made to ascertain whether the owners of Saevue were "monsters" as portrayed and, he concluded:

We find it contrary that the Holmes show, fronted by a clearly amoral person, should want to moralise on the activities of a car dealer.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 13 January 1998

Noting that the item looked at some allegations that cars sold by a New Plymouth dealer, Saevue Motors (which made much of its Christian foundations), carried odometers which seemed to have been tampered with, TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G4, G6, G7, G11, G14, G16, and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ began:

The issue of odometer tampering has been a major one in recent times and this latest development appeared to be one which would have been of interest and concern to the public. An unusual aspect was the emphasis the company placed on its Christian roots - an emphasis which on the face of it appears to imply some level of moral superiority.

TVNZ had, it continued, some difficulty in understanding some of the alleged lack of balance aspects of the complaints. Thousands of satisfied customers, it wrote, did not diminish the responsibility for the possible wrongs in the 14 cases noted. The item had reported that accuracy was not necessarily claimed for the matters raised in the letter to the MVDI from another dealer, but rather that it might have a case to answer. Moreover the contents of the letter were not hearsay, TVNZ wrote, as it had a copy of it. TVNZ argued that the letter was relevant because it apparently represented the view of the industry experts on the spot.

Repeating the argument that odometer tampering remained a highly relevant public interest story, TVNZ reported that repeated, but unsuccessful, efforts had been made to persuade Saevue Motors to participate in the programme, or at least provide a written statement to be read on the programme. TVNZ added:

It is obvious that a media investigation should not be abandoned simply because one of the key figures refuses to take part. If it was otherwise any legitimate media inquiry could be stifled simply by the suspect party refusing to appear. The Broadcasting Standards Authority in New Zealand has made it clear that provided proper efforts are made to include the views of all parties, the decision by one not to take part will not mean that an inquiry has to be abandoned. We note that in this case the position of Saevue Motors was made clear by quoting from the letter sent by Mr John Russell of Saevue to Mr Duynhoven.

TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint.

Mr Rawlings' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 10 February 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act, 1989.

Owing to other commitments, he wrote, he was unable to deal comprehensively at the time with TVNZ's letter. His full response, he added, would be forwarded presently.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 17 March, the Authority asked Mr Rawlings for the details. No reply was received. In a further letter dated 22 May, he was advised that unless he supplied the information by 2 June, it would be assumed he did not intend to proceed. Mr Rawlings responded by email dated 2 June.

Addressing first the requirement for fairness in standard G4, Mr Rawlings contended that Saevue Motors had been dealt with unfairly. None of the three people interviewed, he wrote, was asked or was able to state whether Saevue Motors had tampered with the odometers of their cars. Such tampering, Mr Rawlings continued, did occur and could happen at a number of points when used vehicles were imported from Japan.

As the item did not state clearly that Saevue was involved in the tampering, but carried that insinuation, Mr Rawlings maintained that the item was unjust and unfair to the company, leaving the impression that it was "shady" or "questionable".

Turning to the requirement for balance in standards G6 and G14, Mr Rawlings accepted that tampering was controversial. However, he insisted, a "truly impartial broadcast" would have looked at tampering overall in New Plymouth.

With regard to standards G7 and G19, Mr Rawlings started with the contention that, with investigative television, "where there is smoke, there is fire". But, as the item did not contain clear evidence of a "shady" practice, Saevue had been convicted by default. This approach was also apparent, he continued, by the use of interviews of respectable – and innocent – people, which gave the impression that the other party must be "particularly nasty". Mr Rawlings recorded:

We were unable to determine from the interviews whether:

a) the customers concerned believed that Saevue were involved in the tampering and were thus being unreasonable, or

b) the customers just thought that Saevue were being unreasonable (ie: was this a story about a bunch of crooks who weren't playing ball, or was it a story about the resolution of a dispute).

That there could be such a fundamental question leads us to believe that the broadcasters did not take care to include portions of interview that could clarify the matter, and as a result, they distorted the situation.

The one-sided nature of the interviews and method of presentation used in the item, Mr Rawlings wrote, amounted to a breach of standards G11(i) and G16.

Dealing specifically with some points made in TVNZ's letter of 13 January, Mr Rawlings persisted in his argument that a balanced item would include interviews with satisfied customers. This was of particular importance, he added, as Saevue did not wish to appear. He noted:

Is it possible that Saevue, in practice of their obvious Christianity did not want to rubbish or denigrate the claims of the complainants?

Moreover, he wrote, some indication of Saevue's total sales would indicate whether tampering was barely, or highly, significant given total turnover.

Mr Rawlings considered that TVNZ's use of a doctor and a meals-on-wheels volunteer as analogies were inappropriate, as, first, life was not threatened by odometer tampering, and secondly, it implied guilt on Saevue's part. Mr Rawlings summarised his argument that the item was unbalanced when he wrote:

If, as the broadcast possibly alluded to, Saevue were trading off their Christian stance to attract and mislead customers, then I would be writing in encouragement of the broadcast. However, as Saevue did not present their case, surely there is an obligation on behalf of the journalists to present verifiable facts to the public. Is Saevue, in accordance with their stated principles, beneficially active in the community?

If it was found that Saevue supported charities, gave cars for community works and the like, and it was found that a significant (ie: 99%) number of their customers were happy with them, surely this balances out and puts a totally different perspective on the matter raised in the broadcast.

Because he was inclined to believe that people should appear on a programme if they had nothing to hide, Mr Rawlings advised that he contacted a director of Saevue, Mr Paul Butler. Mr Rawlings reported:

He informs me that he was indeed approached by TVNZ, but on each occasion it was to comment on an Affidavit which he or his fellow Director had not at that point of time seen or even received. He further stated that he did not receive the Affidavit until after the programme had gone to air. He was adamant that this was the case and that it is far from unreasonable to refuse to discuss legal documents before receiving them and before obtaining legal advice on the matters.

Mr Butler also informed me, and I am paraphrasing here, that some of the matters raised in the program have subsequently been either resolved or proved to be misrepresented claims, to the point that actions initiated by MP Harry Duynhoven have been put on hold due to a lack of evidence on the part of Mr Duynhoven.

TVNZ's Report to the Authority – 29 June 1998

TVNZ raised two procedural points in its response to the Authority. The first was to express concern at the length of time it had taken Mr Rawlings to supply the Authority with the reasons for his dissatisfaction with its initial response dated 13 January 1998. Because of the time taken, it wrote, the reporter had worked on many other stories and it was not realistic to expect that she would have total recall in June 1998 of the circumstances of a story screened on 11 December 1997. TVNZ considered the long delay to be "demonstrably unfair" to it.

Secondly, TVNZ noted that Mr Rawlings used the term "we" on a number of occasions. If Mr Rawlings represented an organisation, TVNZ contended, that should be disclosed in the interests of fairness.

As for the referral itself, TVNZ asked the Authority to disregard those matters not raised in the original letter of complaint. These included the points that the item did not state clearly whether Saevue had or had not known about the tampering, and the suggestion that the item should have looked at tampering in New Plymouth as a whole.

TVNZ disputed strongly Mr Rawlings' contention that Saevue had been convicted by default. It wrote:

The viewers were presented with facts and viewpoints from those involved. It is both inaccurate and patronising to suggest that the Holmes audience is incapable of assessing these facts.

TVNZ also maintained that 14 dissatisfied customers, despite the number of satisfied customers, was a sufficiently large number to warrant investigation. It concluded:

We also refute the claim that Mr Paul Butler was asked to comment only on "an affidavit at that time unseen". The full extent of the story, and the allegations and claims put in the affidavits, were put to him. Mr Butler was not starved of information on which to respond.

Mr Rawlings' Final Comment – 2 July 1998

Dealing first with TVNZ's comments about the process, Mr Rawlings stated that this was the first complaint he had made, and he did not have the time to prepare his submissions earlier. In view of the time in which he had made his first complaint, and the resources available to TVNZ, he did not accept that he had been unfair. The use of the term "we", he observed, included his wife who was also interested in the matter.

Mr Rawlings described as "picky" TVNZ's comments about the new information he had supplied to the Authority. Quoting his letter of complaint to TVNZ dated 12 December 1997, Mr Rawlings argued that the information later provided had "embodied or enlarged" on it.

As for TVNZ's statement that the item contained facts and viewpoints from those who had been involved, Mr Rawlings pointed to the absence of either comments from Saevue or supporting facts. Despite TVNZ's claim about audience's ability to comprehend the issues, Mr Rawlings repeated his contention that Saevue had been convicted by default.

As for TVNZ's submission in regard to the material put to Saevue, Mr Rawlings quoted a fax recently received from Mr Butler of Saevue who wrote:

"I quite strongly refute any comment by TVNZ that they gave any information to us regarding the alleged complaint and affidavits.

On the Thursday they approached, the reporter from Holmes initially rang us asking for an appointment to give us an opportunity to address items raised in the affidavit. This was the first indication we had that such an affidavit existed. We immediately rang around to ascertain who had a copy of its contents and if we could get a copy to no avail.

Later that afternoon, John Russell [of Saevue] was approached by a reporter from TVNZ who asked him to answer a series of questions regarding the affidavit. We again stressed to them that we were not in receipt of an affidavit nor did we have any knowledge of its contents and therefore could not comment."

It was most unreasonable, Mr Rawlings maintained, to ask someone to comment on an affidavit which they had not seen.

On the question of balance, Mr Rawlings wrote:

... we submit to you that the focus of this program was principally about a car dealership openly operated by Christians who wound back odometers. We believe that had the program been about the way in which Saevue handled the alleged disputes of 14 customers, then the whole structure of the program would have been different. As it was not, we again call to question the significance of the percentage of customers who had a grievance. Surely it stands to reason, that if Saevue were intent on profiting from winding back odometers then there would have been a significant number of customers affected by this relevant to their total customer base. If this had been the case, it would have been a thoroughly justified program. However we rather suspect that this is not the case at all - that is, Saevue have not wound back odometers. Unfortunately, the program has not clarified this matter and as such not only alienates Saevue, but by implication those holding out to be Christians. It is because there are such significant matters of fact left in doubt that we wish for a ruling on this complaint that will adequately redress the injustice presented by and in fact created by TVNZ putting this program to air.

Mr Rawlings said that, after speaking to Mr Butler, he understood Saevue held information that one or more of the people featured in the programme might have wound back their own odometers. However, Mr Butler had said that he was not prepared to justify himself at the expense of others. Further, Mr Butler had reported that the proceedings initiated by a member of parliament against Saevue for tampering had been set aside due to lack of evidence, at the MP's request. Mr Rawlings also noted that he had been told by the head of a church in New Plymouth that Saevue provided a car to him gratis, and that Mr Butler was involved in other charitable work. Mr Rawlings added:

To me this does not paint the picture of a greedy car dealership out to profit from the general public by winding back odometers. This knowledge provides a balance between the community worker portrayed in the program and Saevue's own activities.

In conclusion, Mr Rawlings wrote:

If, as a layman, (never having met the management or owners of Saevue prior to the program going to air) I could, after a couple of telephone calls garner such information, then why couldn't or didn't an investigative reporter truly concerned with presenting a fair and balanced program do so?

I put it to any reasonable person that upon finding out that one of the key complainants had wound back his or her own odometer, the program would have taken on an entirely different light.