BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The trailer for an item on Morning Report on 27 August 1997, which dealt with the

illegal importation of the rabbit calici virus, stated that comment would be heard on

the subject from the Opposition. That comment included speakers for Labour and

ACT New Zealand, but no other party.

Mr Simpson complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that its failure to

include comment from the Alliance breached broadcasting standards, particularly as

the Alliance had previously released a statement on its position on the matter which

was quite a distinct position from that of the other parties.

RNZ accepted that the item implied that a range of opposition parties would be heard,

and upheld the complaint in what it described as a minor breach, that the trailer was

inaccurate to imply that a number of opposition parties would comment. As for the

failure to include the view of the Alliance, it responded that a similar view to the

Alliance's was put forward by Labour. It declined to uphold this aspect of the

complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Simpson 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 listened to a tape of the item complained about

and have read the correspondence. On this occasion, the Authority determines the

complaint without a formal hearing.

The trailer for an upcoming item on Morning Report on 27 August 1997 announced

that later in the programme, opposition MPs would be discussing how the RCD virus

should be treated. The item to which the trailer referred was broadcast just before

8.00am and included comment from Labour's and ACT's spokespersons on

agriculture.

Mr Simpson complained first that ACT was not an opposition party. He pointed out

that it could not be considered as such because it supported the government on matters

of confidence and money bills. Secondly, he complained that the failure to include

comment from the Alliance breached the requirement for balance, particularly as the

position of the Alliance on the matter was quite distinct from other parties. In his

view, standards R16 and R21 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice were

breached. Those standards read:

R16  News must be presented accurately, objectively and fairly.

R21  It shall be the responsibility of each station to be fair in the allocation

of time to interested parties in controversial public issues. In

exercising this responsibility a station will take into account the news

value of the viewpoints offered and previous allotment of air time.

When it responded to the complaint, RNZ first dealt with the standards cited. It

argued that standard R21 was not relevant, since it applied primarily to district

stations during such periods as an election campaign. In its view, standard R9 was

more appropriate to news and current affairs of the Morning Report type, in which the

principles of stop-watch journalism were rarely applied. That standard requires

broadcasters:

R9   To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature,

making reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in

the same programme or in other programmes within the period of

current interest.

RNZ referred to s.4 of the Broadcasting Act which, it suggested, provides that

provision of a reasonable opportunity would satisfy the requirement to make a

reasonable effort to present significant points of view. It then noted that standard

R16, cited by Mr Simpson, largely overlapped standard R1, and suggested that the

complaint might be considered under either of those standards. Standard R1 requires

broadcasters:

R1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs

programmes.

It then turned to the substance of the complaint. First, it dealt with the trailer which stated

that opposition MPs would be heard. RNZ agreed that it would not have been unreasonable

to draw the inference that the report would provide the views of a range of opposition parties.

In the event, only two were represented, and RNZ upheld this as a "minor breach" of standard

R1, which deals with accuracy.

Next it dealt with the complaint that it was incorrect to describe ACT as an opposition party.

It responded that in its opinion ACT was an opposition party. When asked by Mr Simpson to

explain how it had arrived at that conclusion, RNZ advised, in its report to the Authority, that

the Clerk of the House had ruled that: "The Coalition is the government; all other parties are

deemed to be in opposition."

Finally RNZ considered the complaint that the report was unbalanced because the Alliance's

view was not included. It argued that neither the Act nor the Codes of Practice required

broadcasters to include all parties which had an interest in a topic.

In his final comment, Mr Simpson advised that he accepted that RNZ's definition of ACT as

an opposition party was based on authority and did not wish to pursue that aspect. However,

he remained of the view that the broadcast breached standard R21, and did not agree that it

was a standard which could be substituted by standard R9. He maintained that the standards

clearly referred to different matters, and sought the Authority's guidance as to the

circumstances under which the two standards applied.

The Authority turns first to the matter of which standard is applicable to the complaint. It

does not agree with RNZ that standard R21 applies only to regional stations when covering

such matters as local elections. There is nothing in the standard as written to suggest that is

the case, nor has there been any precedent decision which would lead the Authority to that

conclusion. On its face, the standard is relevant to this complaint. A station on which the

National Programme is broadcast is a station to which standard R21 applies; it has the same

obligation as any regional station to ensure that there is fair allocation of time, taking into

account the item's news value and the previous allotment of air time. In the Authority's view,

standard R21 incorporates the Act's requirement in s.4(1)(d) that programmes are balanced

"within the period of current interest". It accepts the complaint under that standard.

However, the Authority is not persuaded that there has been any breach of standard R21. In

particular, it is not persuaded that the news value of the Alliance's viewpoint was so

sufficiently different as to warrant allocation of time.

The Authority has also considered the issue in terms of standard R9. Again, it acknowledges

RNZ's argument that the reaction of the Alliance was not substantively different from that of

Labour's spokesperson, and also accepts that, in a short news item, there is no necessity to

provide the views of every interested party, particularly if they are similar. It considers the

Alliance's point of view was similar enough for there to be no obligation on the broadcaster to

report that as a separate item on this occasion. It concludes that standard R9 was not

breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
29 January 1998

Appendix

Tony Simpson's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Limited – 29 August 1997

Mr Simpson of Wellington complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about the

broadcast of an item on Morning Report on 27 August 1997. The item concerned the

illegal importation of the rabbit calici virus. Following coverage of the government

response to the issue, the report advised that comment would be heard from the

Opposition. Speakers for Labour and ACT New Zealand followed.

Mr Simpson considered this inappropriate on two counts. First, he maintained, ACT

was not an Opposition party. He noted that it supported the government on matters of

confidence and money bills. Secondly, he described as "hard to fathom" the

exclusion of the Alliance from the programme. He wrote:

The Alliance position on this matter is public knowledge, and a statement had

been issued the previous day describing the release of the virus as

'environmental lawlessness', a position quite distinct from other parties.

In his view, the broadcast breached standards R16 and R21 of the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice, because the description of the participant ACT New Zealand

was wrong, and the failure to include the Alliance was a breach of the broadcaster's

requirement to be fair in its allocation of time to an interested party on a controversial

issue.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 9 October 1997

First RNZ responded that it doubted that standard R21 applied to the broadcast. That

standard, it contended, was primarily aimed at district stations during such periods as

election campaigns. RNZ, it continued, did not cover local issues in such a way. It

was of the view that the more appropriate standard was standard R9, in which the

principles of what it called "stop-watch journalism" were rarely applied, and the

"allocation of time" was a less stringent factor.

With respect to standard R16, RNZ noted that it largely overlapped standard R1, and

suggested that the complaint could be considered against either standard R1 or R16.

RNZ quoted the actual words of the trailer:

And coming up before 8 on Morning Report: how do opposition MPs believe

the RCD virus should be treated . . .

It noted that two Opposition MPs were heard from, and considered that the

requirements of accuracy were thus met, at least in a technical sense. However, it

acknowledged that it would not have been an unreasonable inference to draw from the

trailer that a range of opposition parties would be heard. Accordingly, it accepted that

it was a breach of the requirement for accuracy, albeit a minor one, and upheld this

aspect of the complaint. It advised that it had reminded its staff of the need to avoid

ambiguity and to ensure accuracy in trailers and headlines as well as in substantive

items.

Turning to the second part of the complaint, that the description of ACT as an

opposition party was not correct, RNZ responded that it was an Opposition party. It

therefore did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

With respect to the complaint that the Alliance view was not dealt with, RNZ argued

that there was no requirement for it to include comment from all people with an

interest in the story. It noted that the requirements of both the Broadcasting Act and

the Code of Practice were satisfied by the coverage of "significant points of view".

RNZ noted that the point of view which was allegedly not covered was the one which

considered the release of the virus as 'economic lawlessness'. It pointed to the

remarks made by Labour's agriculture spokesperson which stated that the release of

the virus was 'a wildly reckless act.' In RNZ's view, this was a fairly strong

presentation of the same point of view. It declined therefore to uphold this aspect of

the complaint.

Finally, RNZ advised that it also took into account news bulletin coverage over the

period of current interest.

Further Correspondence

On receipt of RNZ's response to the formal complaint, Mr Simpson, in a letter dated

16 October sought clarification on points made in its response. First he questioned

RNZ's assumption that standard R21 did not apply. He considered it a curious

conclusion to assume that the standard only applied to regional stations during

election campaigns.

Secondly, he asked how RNZ reached the conclusion that ACT New Zealand was an

opposition party. He pointed out that the usual definition of an opposition party was

one which would not vote with the government on matters of confidence and supply.

Since ACT had declared that it would vote for the government in such matters, it was

therefore, by that definition, not an opposition party. He asked RNZ to disclose its

definition.

In a response dated 3 November 1997 RNZ advised that there was no provision in the

statute for it to discuss its decision on a formal complaint with the complainant. The

proper course was for the matter to be reviewed by the Authority, at the request of the

complainant.

It advised that it considered it would be inappropriate for it to make a substantive

response. However, it offered clarification on one matter of fact. It wrote that

Parliamentary authorities classified ACT as an opposition party, and suggested that

clarification should be directed to those authorities and not to RNZ.

Mr Simpson's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 6 November

1997

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision not to uphold part of his complaint, Mr Simpson

referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989.

Mr Simpson repeated his complaint that because the opposition response featured

only the comments of Labour and ACT and did not include the views of the Alliance,

the trailer was misleading. Furthermore, he disputed that ACT was an opposition

party.

He noted that RNZ had conceded that the trailer was misleading but that it did not

agree that the Alliance party's distinct view should have been heard, or that ACT was

not an opposition party. He wrote:

It is gratifying that this complaint was at least upheld in part and I do not think

it is my imagination when I say that I believe that coverage of the full gamut

of the views of Opposition groups has improved since this determination.

However, Mr Simpson remained dissatisfied that RNZ had not explained why it

considered ACT was an opposition party, and why it had ruled out the relevance of

standard R21. He therefore referred these two matters to the Authority. With respect

to the question of whether ACT was an opposition party, Mr Simpson noted that he

had post graduate qualifications in Political Science and that he had published on the

topic. It was his professional view, he wrote, that ACT, by virtue of its support for the

government on matters of confidence and supply, should not have been presented as

forwarding the Opposition view. To do so was, in his opinion, inaccurate and

misleading.

Mr Simpson maintained that it was RNZ's responsibility to set out a full explanation

of its reasons for not upholding his complaint.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 8 December 1997

RNZ referred to the Clerk of the House's ruling which clarified the basis for its view

that ACT was an opposition party. That ruling states:

The Coalition is the Government; all other parties are deemed to be in

opposition.

It noted that ACT's unofficial status in relation to the governing Coalition was

confirmed in a recent widely-reported warning by ACT to the Coalition government

that its continuing support was not to be taken for granted.

With respect to its interpretation of standard R21 as being inapplicable, RNZ argued

that historically, the standard was concerned with stations which dealt with such

matters as local current affairs, community issues, and candidates for local body and

general elections. It pointed to the standard's reference to "allocation of time" and

observed that RNZ's news and current affairs department did not practice stop-watch

journalism. It added:

The Company would again point out that phrases such as "allocation of time"

and "previous allocations of time" do not properly reflect normal editorial

procedures in the assessment of news or current affairs items. The Company

suggests that the relevant considerations of fair coverage are fully canvassed in

the usually applied R9.

The Company interprets R21, as far as it can be held to apply to the broadcast

in question (indeed to RNZ News and Current Affairs generally) to require the

coverage of different viewpoints, having regard to coverage in other

programmes within the period of current interest or to other items in the same

broadcast. Except for the provision in the main Act for the satisfaction of the

standard's obligation by efforts to obtain balance or the provision of an

opportunity for that material or comment to be published, the requirements of

each standard, as far as they can be accepted as applicable to a "Report"

programme content, are in principle the same.

RNZ explained that it considered it appropriate to assess the item complained of

against standard R9, which it believed was the applicable standard. It argued that

implicit in standard R21 was the requirement to allocate time fairly and this was a key

to its non-applicability to Morning Report, where the duration of the comments within

an item were the subject of editorial judgment.

RNZ suggested that the Authority should consider, next time the standards are

revised, an amendment to avoid such ambiguities.

RNZ drew the Authority's attention to the fact that it responded fully to the complaint

in terms of standard R9.

In summary, RNZ acknowledged that the trailer was misleading in that it incorrectly

indicated the content of the full item to come. It rejected the contention that the

description of ACT as an opposition party was inaccurate and pointed to the Clerk of

the House's definition of what constituted the opposition.

In concluding, RNZ acknowledged the complainant's qualifications, but stated that

whether ACT was an opposition party was not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.

With respect to the application of standard R21, RNZ noted that the substitution was

made in order to assess the item under a more appropriate standard and was not done

perversely nor with a view to gaining some sort of advantage.

Mr Simpson's Final Comment –12 December 1997

Mr Simpson advised that he wished to withdraw his complaint regarding what

constituted the opposition. He said that he was satisfied with RNZ's response because

it had cited its authority for the definition of who was in the political opposition. He

remarked that had it given that answer in the first place he would not have had to

pursue the matter with the Authority.

However, he continued, the other aspect of his complaint still remained. Mr Simpson

did not agree that standard R9 was a substitute for standard R21. If it were, he

argued, one or other of the standards would be superfluous. He did not believe that

was the intention of the standards. He argued:

They clearly refer to different matters in any event, in the one case a general

requirement to be fair overall in matters of public controversy (R21) which

this clearly was, and in the other a statement specifically in relation to political

and current affairs matters as to what is meant by balance, impartiality and

fairness (R9). In my estimation both are relevant in this case but I chose to

rest my complaint on the larger requirements of R21.

Mr Simpson did not accept RNZ's contention that standard R21 did not apply because

of its reference to "stations". He maintained that there was nothing in the regulations

which indicated that it was a reference to local stations.

He then examined the question of whether the national programme was a station in

the ordinary usage of that term. During his association with broadcasting (which

began in 1969), Mr Simpson maintained that the national programme had been

commonly and usually regarded as a station. He submitted that if RNZ was correct,

then standard R21 would only apply to its competitors, and not to RNZ itself.

In conclusion, Mr Simpson sought some guidance from the Authority as to the

circumstances in which standards R9 and R21 applied.