BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The action of the police in Christchurch in shooting and wounding a person with a shotgun was covered in an item on 3 News at 6.00pm, and again on Nightline at 10.30pm, on 27 August 1998. During the item, a reporter attempted to interview a flatmate of the gunman. However, the reporter said, the flatmate indicated that he had been paid to talk exclusively to another news organisation. When the flatmate was heard to tell the reporter that he had received "a few thousand dollars" to talk only to the other news organisation, a shot of a vehicle marked "One Network News" was shown.

Television New Zealand Ltd, which produces One Network News, complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the makers of 3 News and Nightline, that the items were inaccurate and unfair. Further, it complained that although TV3 news had been advised by 9.15pm on the 27 August that the flatmate had not been paid, the item on Nightline at 10.30pm repeated the allegation. TVNZ demanded a retraction and an apology.

Maintaining that it had reported the flatmate’s statement accurately, TV3 said it did not consider that the item was inaccurate or unfair. When the flatmate later denied that he had been paid, TV3 advised that it did not consider him to be credible. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, TVNZ referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds aspects of each complaint.

Decision

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

On 26 August 1998, the police shot and wounded a man who had been committing offences while carrying a shotgun. In an item screened on 3 News at 6.00pm, and on Nightline at 10.30pm, on 27 August, a reporter from TV3 was shown attempting to interview Mr Phillip Arps who was described as a flatmate of the gun owner shot by the police. The item included the following comments from the reporter and Mr Arps:

TV3 Reporter:   He wouldn’t give an interview to 3 News but indicated he’d been paid to talk
                        exclusively to another news organisation.

Mr Arps:            I’m happy with what I’ve got here. I’ve got the publicity I want and I’ve got
                        myself a few thousand dollars so …

                        No these people have got other TV shows and shit they want me to go on …

The item clearly showed a One Network News vehicle in the driveway to the house, as Mr Arps walked up the driveway.

TVNZ complained to TV3 that the news item was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced in that viewers were meant to understand that TVNZ’s One Network News had paid Mr Arps for an interview. However, TVNZ continued:

For the record, no payment and no offer of payment was made to Mr Arps. Quite the reverse in fact. Our news staff made it clear to Mr Arps that he would not be paid for his story.

Furthermore, TVNZ recorded in its letter of complaint to TV3, TV3 news staff were told of this fact, both by phone and fax, after 3 News and before Nightline was screened in order to allow a correction to be made. Nevertheless:

Not only did you fail to correct the inaccuracy. You repeated the serious error in that later output Nightline.

On the basis that the broadcast was a serious and blatant breach of standards, TVNZ sought an on-screen apology from TV3.

TV3 assessed the complaints under standards G1, G4, G14, and G21 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first two 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.

The other two read:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G21  Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

Dealing first with standard G1, TV3 argued that it had reported accurately that Mr Arps had indicated that he had been paid. By way of background, TV3 explained that Mr Arps had, on 26 August, sought payment for an interview, but was told that there would be no money. On 27 August, TV3 continued, Mr Arps advised TV3 that he had been offered $5,000 by One Network News for an exclusive interview. TV3 recalled that it had decided to visit Mr Arps’ flat nevertheless and, on arrival, it advised, it "found Mr Arps about to get into a One Network News vehicle".

At that time, the reporter interviewed Mr Arps on camera and he had made the comment recorded above which had been included in the broadcast. Further, TV3 stated, Mr Arps indicated that he had thousands of dollars in an envelope he was holding. TV3 also noted that, off camera, Mr Arps told TV3 staff that he had been paid $5,000 by TVNZ.

In its response to the complaints, TV3 also recorded the following account of events on the 27 August.

At 5.15 that night Mr Arps rang [TV3’s Christchurch Bureau Chief] out of the blue, and said that he hadn’t been paid. [The Bureau Chief] said Mr Arps was hesitant and uneasy on the phone.

Staff at 3 News are also aware that TVNZ’s News and Current Affairs department has previously paid for stories. There are three well documented occasions where this has been the case. One Network News has screened material that has been bought exclusively by TVNZ’s News and Current Affairs department.

On this basis [TV3’s Standards] Committee does not believe Standard G1 to have been breached.

As for the standard G4 aspect of the complaints, TV3 maintained that Mr Arps had been fairly dealt with. The reporter's comment had been included to explain the absence of an in-depth interview with Mr Arps and, TV3 observed:

It is not unusual for various media to pay for stories. It happens frequently in New Zealand and is clearly practised by TVNZ's News and Current Affairs department from time to time with the full knowledge of TVNZ's senior management.

Declining to uphold the standard G14 aspect of the complaints on the ground that there was no evidence that the standard was contravened, TV3 then dealt with standard G21. It referred to TVNZ's press release issued at about 9.15pm on the evening of the 27^th in which TVNZ denied that it paid for a news story, and which also included a transcript of a tape recording between Mr Arps and TVNZ made earlier in the day when he confirmed to a TVNZ interviewer that he had not been paid for his story. In that transcript, Mr Arps admitted that he had told the TV3 Bureau Chief that he had an offer of $3,000. The transcript attached to the press release recorded in addition:

ARPS:    I said [to TV3] I had an offer of 3,000. I made it up to stop them bugging me and
             said I had an offer of 3,000. And they said that they'll better that. Then they rang
             up at 5.30. [The Bureau Chief] rang, and I said No, No. I told them. I said that to
             stop them from following me just to get off my case and leave me alone.

ONN:      So did you tell them half an hour before they put their news to air?

ARPS:    Half an hour. He said he was going to ring Auckland and stop it. He said he was
              going to get it off.

ONN:      But did you tell them that we did not pay you for that interview?

ARPS:    Yep, I told them that yep.

ONN:      So what do you think about what's happened?

ARPS:     I think that's pretty bullshit. I'll probably die out of this eh.

In its response to TVNZ's complaints, TV3 described Mr Arps' version of events as "widely inaccurate", and added that the only figure mentioned was $5000, which Mr Arps had told TV3 staff earlier was the amount that TVNZ had paid him. Moreover, TV3 noted, Mr Arps had telephoned the bureau chief, not vice versa, and contrary to his claim, he had not been offered any money by TV3 for an interview.

In those circumstances, TV3 did not consider that standard G21 had been contravened.

When it referred the complaints to the Authority, TVNZ's Robin Gillespie began:

The complaint arose from a news item broadcast in the TV3 6.00pm bulletin which contained a very serious error. I and my colleagues at TVNZ made strenuous efforts to supply material which proved that error immediately after the item was put to air.

As we pointed out to TV3, not only did they fail to correct that inaccuracy. They repeated it in their late evening output Nightline.

As a summary of TV3's response to the complaints, she wrote:

TV3 for reasons of its own, has sought to suggest in its response that some form of distasteful "auction" took place between rival broadcasters in pursuit of this story. I can firmly assure the Authority that such an auction did not take place as far as TVNZ is concerned. A basic rule of journalism is that such facts can and must be checked with proper sources.

In its reply to our formal complaint, TV3 also seeks to introduce a red herring to protect an unsustainable position. TV3 tried to introduce a tired debate on chequebook journalism. TVNZ believes this is an unsubtle attempt to distract and deflect from the important and simple issue. TV3 in its item was wrong in fact. It was wrong in the on air editing of the item. TV3 failed when proved wrong to broadcast a correction.

She then dealt in detail with TV3's reply to the complaints. Turning to the accuracy requirement in standard G1, Ms Gillespie reiterated TVNZ's position, first, that Mr Arps had not been paid, and secondly, that Mr Arps had been told that he would not be paid. Ms Gillespie also repeated the point that TV3 had been advised of its mistake after the item contained in the news at 6.00pm but, she continued, TV3 "turned a blind eye to the fact that what it was to broadcast was not truthful on points of fact". She summarised this aspect of the complaints:

TV3 had that information by 9.15pm. It chose to completely ignore it, and go ahead with a repeat of the original error. By their own admission, the senior TV3 news representative in Christchurch, […] was told independently at 5.15pm that day by Mr Arps that he had not been paid. Yet, they claim that Standard G1 was not breached. We find that unacceptable.

Dealing next with standards G4 and G14, Ms Gillespie stated, despite the manner in which TV3 had dealt with this point – by referring to the way that Mr Arps was treated, that it was irrelevant whether Mr Arps was treated fairly or not. Rather, she stated:

In its response TV3 completely ignores the claim that the item was grossly unfair and deliberately offensive to One Network News staff involved in the coverage of this story. Indeed we consider it is more widely pejorative to all those who work for TVNZ News.

She proposed this account of TV3's motivation:

We suggest that TV3, which had been badly lagging behind the coverage of this story from the time it broke the day before, was faced with another "miss". This time it was the drug claims made by the alleged offender's friend. In, perhaps, desperation, and to "save face" 3 News broadcast a fabrication. It was a sad substitute for the real story they had failed to get by fair journalist practice. It was, in short, completely unethical, lacked impartiality and was therefore a breach of the Code.

TVNZ's Ms Gillespie then addressed the standard G21 aspect of the complaints, and stated:

I have detailed in my original complaint what actions I and others took to persuade TV3 from repeating their statement. What we found particularly offensive was the suggestion that One Network News had paid for an interview with a prospective witness in a serious criminal matter. It strikes at the heart of the integrity of ours or any news operation. TV3 is well aware of that.

TVNZ will not be drawn by TV3 into a debate on the ethics or otherwise of paying for interviews. We have always been open on this subject. TVNZ has made no secret of when, and under what rare conditions a request for payment might be acceptable. That is history.

As no payment was considered, offered or made in this dispute by TVNZ we find TV3's references completely irrelevant. Sadly, TV3 News appears to be clutching at the thinnest of straws to justify their irresponsibility.

As TV3 had not responded to TVNZ's "strenuous efforts" to ensure an immediate correction, TVNZ asked the Authority to impose the order requiring TV3 to broadcast a retraction and apology.

The Authority’s Findings

In its determination of these complaints, the Authority believes that it is appropriate to list the relevant events chronologically.

The first which it considers relevant was TV3’s approach to Mr Arps when he stated in effect, as he was being filmed, that he had been paid by TVNZ to speak only to TVNZ. At about 5.15pm on the same day, and before the broadcast of the interview with Mr Arps, TV3 advised that it was telephoned by Mr Arps who retracted his statement that he had been paid by TVNZ.

After the 6.00pm broadcast by TV3 which showed Mr Arps stating that he had been paid by TVNZ, TVNZ contacted TV3 to advise that this information given by Mr Arps was incorrect. The efforts to ensure that TV3 was aware of TVNZ’s response included a press release issued at 9.15pm. In the release TVNZ not only denied that Mr Arps had been paid, but also included a transcript of a discussion between Mr Arps and staff from TVNZ’s One Network News in which Mr Arps confirmed that in a telephone conversation with TV3 at about 5.30pm, he had retracted his earlier statement that he had been paid by TVNZ.

TV3’s news broadcast at 10.30pm, Nightline, repeated the segment contained in the bulletin at 6.00pm, which again showed Mr Arps stating that he had been paid to speak "exclusively to another news organisation", and which was accompanied by visuals of a vehicle carrying the words "One Network News". It did not include any reference to Mr Arps’ retraction, or to the content of TVNZ’s press release issued at 9.15pm.

The Authority now examines and comments on this record of events from the point of view of the standards which have been raised by TVNZ as the complainant.

The statement made by Mr Arps raised the issue of "chequebook journalism". The Authority acknowledges that it is a contentious issue for television companies and their journalists.

Before the statement was screened, Mr Arps rang TV3 to retract his claim that he had been paid for the interview. TV3 described his manner during this call as "hesitant and uneasy" and, in view of what it described as TVNZ’s acknowledged past practices, it said that it did not accept that the changed version of events was accurate.

The Authority notes that TV3’s news broadcast at 6.00pm, 3 News, accurately reported that Mr Arps had claimed that he had been paid. This point was featured in the item and, the Authority believes, the viewer would have drawn the conclusion that it was true. However, Mr Arps’ retraction before the broadcast raised a question as to the veracity of his claim, and to his general reliability as an interviewee. The Authority considers that the item on 3 News should have reflected that there was some doubt over his account, but the wording of the item did not convey this. By leaving an unqualified and pejorative impression when it was aware that there was uncertainty about Mr Arps’ account, the Authority concludes the broadcast was unfair to TVNZ. Accordingly, it determines that this broadcast breached standard G4.

In the Authority’s view, the effect of the disputed content in the 6.00pm broadcast was compounded by a broadcast on Nightline by TV3 at 10.30pm the same evening. By then TV3 had received information from both Mr Arps and TVNZ which questioned the accuracy of the statement made by Mr Arps on film. TV3, in its submission to the Authority, accepts that the divergent statements from Mr Arps raised an issue as to accuracy. This issue, coupled with TVNZ’s express denial of any payment, which was known to TV3 before its late night news broadcast, gave rise, in the Authority’s opinion, to a responsibility on TV3 to indicate to viewers that the accuracy of the allegation it had on film was in contention..

The Authority considers that in order to comply with the relevant broadcasting standards, TV3 had an obligation to convey at the very least that there was doubt about his claim. By repeating the earlier news item, the Authority concludes that the broadcast on Nightline at 10.30pm breached both the fairness provision in standard in G4, and the requirements for accuracy, objectivity and impartiality in standard G14.

In view of these findings, the Authority is of the view that it is not necessary to reach specific conclusions on the alleged breaches of standard G1 and G21. In addressing the complaint under these standards, the Authority again notes that the broadcast accurately reported the claim which Mr Arps made at the time he was spoken to by TV3’s reporter. The accuracy of his remarks however was brought fully into question in the following hours, and the absence of any reference to this debate in Nightline is considered by the Authority to be appropriately covered by its findings in respect to standards G4 and G14.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that an item broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd on 3 News on 27 August 1998 breached standard G4 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It also upholds the complaint that the broadcast of the same item on Nightline on the same day breached standards G4 and G14.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaints.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make orders under s.13(1) and s.16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It invited submissions from TV3 and TVNZ on the question of penalty. It has considered those submissions and makes the following order.

Order

The Broadcasting Standards Authority orders TV3 Network Services Ltd under s.13(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to broadcast a statement summarising this decision. The text, time, and date of the statement shall be approved by the Broadcasting Standards Authority and broadcast during a 3 News programme within one month of the date of this decision.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
29 April 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority in determining this complaint

1. Television New Zealand Ltd’s Formal Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd
     – 21 September 1998

2. TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 20 October 1988

3. TVNZ’s Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority
     – 2 November 1998

4. TV3’s letter advising that it did not wish to comment further – 11 December 1998

5. TVNZ’s submission on penalty – 25 March 1999

6. TV3’s submission on penalty – 31 March 1999