BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A news item broadcast on One Network News on 14 April 1998 between 6.00-7.00pm referred to some of the recommendations in the government’s review on firearms. It was reported that members of the anti-gun lobby were dissatisfied with the government’s lack of progress in implementing the recommendations.

Paul Sheehan of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the report on the recommendation to buy back semi-automatic weapons was inaccurate and misleading. In addition he complained about what he called the "incorrect implication" that gun laws had not been tightened, and the failure to balance the discussion by including a person from the pro-gun lobby.

TVNZ advised that it upheld the aspect of the complaint regarding the recommendation to buy back semi-automatic weapons. It noted that a correction to a later item concerning the same matter had been made as soon as it was drawn to its attention. With respect to the absence of a spokesperson from the pro-gun lobby, TVNZ argued that the matter was a political one, and dealt with a dispute between the government and those who wished to have tighter controls on gun ownership. To that extent, TVNZ maintained, there was no need for a response from the pro-gun lobby.

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

For the reasons given 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.

Dissatisfaction at the pace at which the recommendations contained in the Thorp report on firearms were being implemented was dealt with in an item on One Network News on 14 April 1998 broadcast between 6.00-7.00pm. A brief summary was given of some of the main recommendations of the report and concern was expressed by the anti-gun lobby at the tardiness of the government in implementing them.

Mr Sheehan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the item was incorrect in stating that the report recommended the buy-back of all semi-automatic guns. He pointed out that the buy-back recommendation referred only to military style semi-automatics, and that Justice Thorp in the report had recommended that .22 semi-automatic firearms remain as they were because they were widely used for pest control and other general purposes and had recommended magazine limitation for other semi-automatic firearms.

Secondly, Mr Sheehan complained that the item implied that since the mass killing at Aramoana, the New Zealand government had talked about tightening the gun laws but had done nothing. In Mr Sheehan’s view, this was untrue. He pointed out that since Aramoana an Arms Amendment Act had been passed. This legislation had tightened gun laws by requiring, among other things, the relicensing of all gun owners, and by effectively banning all military style semi-automatic weapons, he wrote. When he referred his complaint to the Authority Mr Sheehan also complained that the report was incorrect when it stated that David Gray had killed 13 people at Aramoana with an AK47 lookalike. In fact, Mr Sheehan reported, Gray had used two or even three different firearms.

Finally, Mr Sheehan complained that by not interviewing a representative from the pro-gun lobby, TVNZ had failed in its obligation to give equal time to interested parties in controversial issues.

When it responded to the complaint, TVNZ advised that it had considered it under standards G1 and G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standard G1 requires broadcasters:

G1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

The other standard reads:

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 only be done by judging every case on its merits.

Turning first to the complaint about the inaccurate report on the buy-back of semi-automatic weapons, TVNZ acknowledged that the recommendation for a buy-back was confined to military style semi-automatic weapons. It therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint as a breach of standard G1.

It also noted, with reference to this point, that once the error had been drawn to its attention, it had moved speedily to correct it, and that later bulletins that day were correct in referring only to military style semi-automatics.

With respect to the second point, TVNZ did not consider that viewers would draw the inference that no tightening of gun laws had occurred since the Aramoana incident. Instead, it suggested, the item correctly implied that the killings at Aramoana had been the catalyst for the Thorp report and that the drive to tighten gun laws was still on-going. It said it found no inaccuracy in this aspect of the story, and therefore no breach of the standard.

TVNZ submitted that the complaint regarding the incorrect description of the weapon used by David Gray should not be considered by the Authority as it was not part of the original complaint.

The third aspect of the complaint concerned the absence of any spokesperson representing the pro-gun lobby. TVNZ emphasised that the focus of the item was the dispute between those wanting to see gun laws tightened further, on the one hand, and the government on the other. To that extent, it argued, there was no need for the inclusion of a view from the pro-gun lobby. It suggested that the issue was essentially a political one, and that the anti-gun lobby was seeking answers from the government as to why it had thus far done nothing to implement the recommendations contained in the Thorp report. TVNZ noted that the story and interviews concentrated on those who believed that the government was deliberately delaying, and those who rejected that theory. In addition, TVNZ submitted that the views of the pro-gun lobby had been covered in other broadcasts, including a Holmes item which was screened that same day. Thus, it argued, it had complied with the requirement to present a balance of viewpoints over a period of time. Nevertheless, it emphasised, there was no need for any input from the pro-gun lobby in the 14 April item, and standard G20 was not infringed.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Sheehan said that he did not accept that TVNZ actually made the correction as it had contended. He sought a copy of the tape of the corrected item, and if that was not forthcoming, he asked for a separate correction to be made.

He persisted with his complaints about the errors of fact, and the lack of balance in the item.

The Authority turns first to the complaint that the action taken by TVNZ was not sufficient, having upheld an aspect of the complaint. It notes that TVNZ said that it broadcast corrected versions of the items in two later bulletins. It has received transcripts from TVNZ which confirm this. In the Authority’s view, that sufficed to satisfy TVNZ’s obligations and there was no requirement for it to broadcast a separate correction. It therefore declines to uphold this aspect.

Next it turns to the inference which Mr Sheehan said could be drawn from the item that nothing had been done in New Zealand to tighten gun laws since the shootings at Aramoana. The Authority does not agree that such an inference was open to it. It notes that the item not only reflected the impatience felt by the anti-gun lobby that the recommendations made in the Thorp report were not being implemented quickly enough, but also that recreational shooters continued to lobby against the government changing any laws relating to gun ownership. In the Authority’s view, the item correctly highlighted the government’s lack of action, and the frustration experienced by those seeking full implementation of the recommendations in the Thorp report. It therefore declines to uphold this aspect as a breach of accuracy.

The Authority accepts TVNZ’s decision not to deal with the late referral of the complaint about the incorrect reference to the guns used by David Gray at Aramoana.

Finally, it turns to the complaint that the item lacked balance because it did not give equal time to the pro- and anti-gun lobbies. The Authority notes first that the item was, as TVNZ submitted, concerned with dissatisfaction by the anti-gun lobby with the government’s dilatory progress on implementing the report’s recommendations. In that context, the Authority accepts that it was not necessary to solicit comment from the pro-gun lobby as the matter was confined to the narrow issue of the government’s response. Moreover, the Authority acknowledges that both sides of the gun debate have been given air time "during the period of current interest" as required under the Broadcasting Act. It concludes that there was no breach of the requirement for balance on this occasion.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
27 August 1998

Paul Sheehan’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 2 May 1998

Mr Sheehan of Christchurch complained about a news item which was broadcast on One Network News on 14 April 1998 between 6.00-7.00pm.

The item referred to some of the recommendations in Justice Thorp’s review of gun laws. Mr Sheehan complained that the item breached the standard requiring truth and accuracy in two respects. First he noted that the item stated that Justice Thorp in his firearms review recommended "a government buy-back of all semi-automatic weapons". Mr Sheehan pointed out that this was not true and referred to the report which recommended a buy back of military style semi-automatic weapons. In addition it was recommended that .22 semi-automatic firearms remain as they were because they were widely used for pest control. The report recommended magazine limitation for other semi-automatic firearms, he wrote.

Mr Sheehan also complained about comments made about the Aramoana killings. He noted that the item stated that since Aramoana there had been talk of getting tough with guns. In his view, this implied that there had been talk of tightening up gun laws, but no action. This, he wrote, was not true. He noted that the Arms Amendment Act 1992 tightened gun laws in a number of ways, including relicensing gun owners. Unfortunately, he wrote, it had taken the New Zealand Police five years to put everyone through the relicensing procedures. He noted that there were 90,000 people who had not relicensed their guns, and the police had yet to trace those people and account for their firearms. Mr Sheehan complained that no attempt had been made to make these facts known.

Next, Mr Sheehan complained that an anti-gun lobby representative was interviewed, but no one from the pro-gun lobby. In his view, that breached the requirement for balance.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 29 May 1998

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint in the context of standards G1 and G20 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It noted that the item followed a report on a shooting in Ashburton and told viewers of the dissatisfaction among those seeking tighter gun controls over the government’s delay in implementing recommendations contained in Justice Thorp’s report released eight months previously.

TVNZ agreed that it was incorrect to suggest that all semi-automatic guns were subject to the buy-back, and upheld that aspect of the complaint as a breach of standard G1.

TVNZ noted that Mr Sheehan had telephoned the news room on 28 April when another report made the same error. Having had the matter drawn to its attention, TVNZ advised that it immediately amended its report for later bulletins. However, on 14 April it had not been aware of the error. Therefore, it had made no attempt to correct the item.

With respect to the second point raised by Mr Sheehan, TVNZ did not accept that a viewer would infer that no tightening of the gun laws had occurred since the Aramoana incident. Rather, it suggested, the item correctly implied that the killings at Aramoana had brought gun ownership to the public’s attention. It added:

We suggest to you that the inquiry by Judge Thorp was presented as, and intended to be, the main response to public anxiety over access to guns, and that it was therefore correct to imply that the drive to tighten gun laws was still on-going.

TVNZ advised that it found no inaccuracy in this aspect of the story.

Turning to the complaint about the absence of a spokesperson from the pro-gun lobby, TVNZ said that its viewing of the item confirmed that it dealt with a dispute between those wanting to see the gun laws tightened further on the one hand, and the government on the other. To that extent, it argued, there was no need for the inclusion of a view from the pro-gun lobby.

TVNZ emphasised that the issue was essentially political. The lobby group was seeking answers about why the government had so far done nothing to implement the recommendations contained in the report. It continued:

The item was not revisiting or investigating the pros and cons of the debate that led to Sir Thomas’s inquiry; that process is complete.

This was a story about the next step – the implementation of the report. That was made clear in the introduction to the item in which the presenter told viewers:

Today, those lobbying for tighter gun control claim the government is stalling plans to get tough with gun users.

The story and interviews concentrated on those who believe that the government is deliberately delaying, and those who reject that theory – the politicians whose refusal to appear was reported.

TVNZ also drew attention to the requirement for balance in s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act, and submitted that the section’s reference to presenting significant points of view within the period of current interest was of relevance. It argued that the views of the pro-gun lobby had been made abundantly clear on its news and current affairs programmes, and cited an example of such an item screened that same day.

It considered this demonstrated that TVNZ did not ignore the views of the pro-gun lobby, and that a balance of viewpoints had been achieved over time by the broadcast of such material. It emphasised that it saw no need for any input from the pro-gun lobby into the item on 14 April.

Mr Sheehan’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 18 June 1998

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

Mr Sheehan alleged that TVNZ had breached broadcasting standards because it had made three errors of fact, and because the programme lacked balance.

Errors of Fact

The first error of fact was that it was stated in the item that Justice Thorp recommended a buy-back of all semi-automatic firearms. In fact, he actually only recommended a buy-back of military style semi-automatic weapons. Mr Sheehan noted that TVNZ had admitted the error, but had not broadcast a correction.

The second error of fact was that TVNZ implied that there had been no tightening of gun laws since Aramoana.

The third error of fact was that TVNZ stated that David Gray had killed 13 people at Aramoana with an AK 47. In fact he used two or three different firearms. Mr Sheehan advised that he had only become aware of this matter after his initial complaint.

Balance

Mr Sheehan maintained that the programme lacked balance.

Remedies

Mr Sheehan asked that TVNZ broadcast a correction at least twice. With respect to the balance complaint, he asked that the decision record that the programme lacked balance.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Sheehan included a copy of a letter to TVNZ dated 15 June. He elaborated on some aspects of his complaint. In particular, with reference to his complaint about the second error of fact he wrote:

The passage that I am complaining about contains two separate statements which are read consecutively in the following order:

David Gray killed 13 people at Aramoana with an AK47 lookalike and ever since then there has been talk about getting tough with guns.

When 35 people were gunned down in Port Arthur Australia tightened its laws so did England after 17 were killed in a school in Dunblane.

Both these statements are factually correct by themselves. However, they merge two different concepts together and create the impression that New Zealand did not tighten its gun laws after Aramoana.

Mr Sheehan complained that the juxtaposition of the two passages left the message ambiguous. He suggested that it implied that New Zealand did not tighten its laws after Aramoana, which he said was factually incorrect.

Mr Sheehan repeated his complaint that it was factually incorrect to state that David Gray killed 13 people with an AK47 lookalike. He also objected to the absence of any spokesperson representing the pro-gun lobby. He wrote:

In your reply you state that the story was the "implementation of the report" (the Thorp report). How much or how little of the Thorp report is implemented depends on how much lobbying the pro-gun and anti-gun can each muster. By excluding the pro-gun lobby you have allowed the antis to gain an advantage in this lobbying process. It is more important than ever to give equal time to both sides. In a sense it is like an election.

Mr Sheehan noted that at the end of the item it was stated that gun groups continued to lobby against the tightening of gun laws. He considered this understated the position of the pro-gun lobby, which had "always encouraged the enforcement of existing laws".

In concluding, Mr Sheehan drew attention to two other possible errors which he had not referred to in his original complaint.

He appended a copy of the official newsletter of the Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 30 June 1998

TVNZ stressed that Mr Sheehan lodged his complaint about the 14 April item 11 days after he had lodged a similar one concerning an item broadcast on 28 April. Until it had its attention drawn to the error on 28 April, TVNZ said that it had not known of the mistake which occurred on the earlier date.

As far as Mr Sheehan’s request for a correction was concerned, TVNZ noted that as soon as it had been made aware of the error on 28 April, it had corrected the story before it was broadcast in later bulletins that day.

With respect to the third error of fact listed by Mr Sheehan, TVNZ noted that he acknowledged he had not raised the matter previously, and as it had not been considered by TVNZ it submitted it should therefore be disregarded by the Authority in its review of the decision.

Mr Sheehan’s Final Comment – 7 July 1998

Mr Sheehan dealt with each error of fact in turn.

With respect to the first error of fact, Mr Sheehan advised that if TVNZ could produce a tape to show that it made a correction on 28 April, he would be satisfied. He said he had watched both the midday news and the 6.00pm news and had not seen TVNZ make a correction. He asked for a copy of the tape.

Mr Sheehan then turned to the second error of fact. He said that viewers would have been led to believe that New Zealand did not tighten its gun laws after Aramoana.

Turning to the third error of fact, Mr Sheehan said that he disagreed with TVNZ’s request that the Authority disregard this aspect. He noted that it was included in the original passage of broadcast that he complained about.

Finally, Mr Sheehan noted, until the government decided how much of the Thorp report to implement, the pro- and anti-gun groups would continue to lobby. He contended that during this lobbying process TVNZ should give equal time to each group.

Further Correspondence

The Authority sought from TVNZ verification of its statement that it had made corrections to later bulletins on 28 April. On 17 August it received copies of the transcript which confirmed that the corrections were made.