BSA Decision 2015-051

gistfile1.txt

BSA
W Under The Broadcastin Act 1989
BROADCASTING STANDARDS Aumqmrv Between PETER GREEN
TE MANA WHANONGA KAIPAHO
Complainant
And MEDIAWORKS TV LTD
Broadcaster
Before
Peter Radich, Chair
Leigh Pearson
Te Raumawhitu Kupenga
Paula Rose
Decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority
10 November 2015
Summary
[This summary does not form part of the decision.
An item on 3 News discussed a leaked internal report which reviewed the Labour
Party’s election strategy. Towards the conclusion of the item the reporter briefly
referred to the recent installation of security doors between the Labour and National
Party offices at a cost of $30,000. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the
item lacked balance on this point. The brief reference to the installation of the doors
did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance in the
context of this item, which focused on the leaked Labour Party report - so the
requirement to present alternative views was not triggered.
Not Upheld: Controversial Issues
POBox 9213, Wellington, New Zealand www.bsa.govt.nz
http://www.newocr.com/

introduction

[1] An item on 3 News reported on a leaked internal report which reviewed the
Labour Party's election strategy. The report, among other things, stated that
Labour suffered from a lack of financial resources. The 3 News political
reporter analysed the report and towards the conclusion of the item he
briefly mentioned that Labour had recently installed security doors between
their offices and the National Party offices, at a cost of $30,000.

[2] Peter Green complained that the item lacked balance as it failed to
acknowledge, as other news sources had, that the doors were proposed by
the National Party.

[3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the controversial issues
standard as set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting
Practice.

[4] The item was broadcast on TV3 on 3 June 2015. The members of the
Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and
have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Did the item discuss a controversial issue of public importance which

required the presentation of alternative viewpoints?

[5] The balance standard (Standard 4) states that when controversial issues of
public importance are discussed in news, current affairs and factual
programmes. broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give
reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of View either in the
same programme or in other programmes within the period of current
interest. The standard exists to ensure that competing arguments are
presented to enable a viewer to arrive at an informed and reasoned
opinion.1

[6] Mr Green considered the item discussed a controversial issue of public
importance, saying, ‘If use of taxpayer money on parliamentary doors was
not a matter of concern to members of the New Zealand public, why would 3
News make a point of including it in their broadcast?’ He argued the item
was one-sided, as it ignored other news reports which claimed the doors
were proposed by National. Mr Green noted that most members of the
public are not watching every channel's news and reading every newspaper

Commerce Commission and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2008-014
Decision No. 2015-051 2
http://www.newocr.com/

therefore they should have some expectation that a 6pm news bulletin is
presenting issues impartially.

[7] MediaWorks argued that the political reporter’s reference .to the cost to
Parliamentary Services of installing doors between the Labour Party and
National Party offices was peripheral to the main story, which focused on the
leaked report and the reporter’s analysis that it was a waste of time and
money, so the balance standard did not apply.

[8] A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present
significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to
news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial
issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public
importance', it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.2

[9] The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as
something that would have a ‘significant potential impact on, or be of
concern to, members of the New Zealand public’.3 A controversial issue is
one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about
which there has been ongoing public debate.4

[10] We accept that, generally, the expenditure of taXpayer dollars - particularly
where the spending is perceived to be unnecessary or unjustified -~ will
amount to a controversial issue of public importance, as it is clearly of
concern to the New Zealand public and commonly incites debate.

[11] However, the cost of the parliamentary doors was not the issue under
discussion in this item. The item’s focus was the leaked internal report on
Labour Party’s election strategy, and comprised the political reporter's
analysis of that report. Towards the end of the item he briefly referred to the
installation of the doors as an example of what was, in his opinion, unwise

expenditure, given that one of the findings of the report was that Labour
suffered from a lack of financial resources. The mention of the doors clearly
formed part of the reporter's political analysis and was incidental to the main
issue discussed. in this context reasonable viewers would not have

2 For further discussion of these concepts see Practice Note: Controversial Issues~
Viewgolnts (Balance) as a Broadcasting Standard In Television (Broadcasting Standards
Authority, June 2010) and Practice Note: Controversial lssues- Viewgoints (Balance) as a
Broadcasting Standard in Radio (Broadcasting Standards Authority, June 2009)

3 Powell and CanWest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2005-125

4 See, for example, Dewe and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2008-076
http://www.newocr.com/

expected to be presented with a balanced presentation of significant
vieWpoints about the installation of the doors or what they cost.

[12] In any case, as the complainant notes, other news stories which did focus
on the cost of the doors reported the information he believed should have
been included here - that the doors were proposed by the National Party
so that information was readily available elsewhere.

[13] For these reasons we decline to uphold the complaint under Standard 4.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Peter Radish

Chair

10 November 2015

Decision No. 2015051 4
http://www.newocr.com/

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority

when it determined this complaint:

1 Peter Green’s formal complaint - 3 June 2015

2 MediaWorks’ response to the complaint - 1 July 2015

3 Mr Green’s referral to the Authority - 25 July 2015

4 MediaWorks’ response to the Authority - 24 August 2015

5 Mr Green’s final comments - 7 September 2015
http://www.newocr.com/