BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 80/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by L C EVANS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod DECISION Summary Lotto was discussed in an item on TV1's Money programme broadcast at 8.00pm on 28 April. The item included an interview with the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Lotteries Commission (David Bale) who stated that the chances of winning any prize was in Lotto was about 1 in 20. Mr Evans complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the comment, while it might have been broadcast in good faith, was incorrect as he understood the chances of winning any prize in Lotto were about 1 in 200. Explaining that it had shown the Chief Executive reporting the odds, TVNZ said it had fulfilled its responsibility as messenger by broadcasting information from a qualified source. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, Mr Evans referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declined 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). As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing. When Lotto was discussed on the Money show, the Chief Executive of the Lotteries Commission (David Bale) stated that the chances of winning any prize in Lotto were about 1 in 20. On the basis of information from other sources that the chances of winning any prize were in fact 1 in 200, Mr Evans complained to TVNZ that the statement which was broadcast was inaccurate and misleading. After correspondence with Mr Evans, TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G1, G14 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first requires broadcasters: G1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact. The other two state: G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially. G19 Care must be taken in the editing of 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. TVNZ accepted that Mr Bale had suggested that the chances of winning any prize were 1 in 20 but, if the figure was inaccurate, it suggested to Mr Evans that his argument was with Mr Bale. TVNZ had fulfilled its responsibilities, it wrote, by broadcasting the comments of an acknowledged expert. Its reporters were not required, it added, to be experts in every area about which they asked questions. It continued: Turning to the standards, and to G1, the committee observed that as a broadcaster TVNZ was not guilty of any error. An individual appearing on the programme (Mr Bale) may or may not have been guilty of error. However he was seen to make the statement in his role as Chief Executive of the Lotteries Commission and, as another programme standard states, "individuals are allowed to express their own opinions". Had the reporter (unattributed) made the statement to which you object, and had it later been found to be inaccurate, you would have had a case under G1. As it is the broadcaster is not in breach of the standard. As Money was not a news programme, TVNZ stated that standard G14 was inapplicable, and as Mr Bale's comments were not distorted through editing, it concluded that standard G19 did not apply. When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Evans repeated his contention that Mr Bale's comments were neither accurate nor made in good faith and, in addition, were not in the public interest. In its report to the Authority, TVNZ argued that Mr Evans was failing to distinguish between the message and the messenger. In its assessment of the complaint, the Authority agreed at the outset with TVNZ that standards G14 and G19 were not applicable for the reasons advanced. Standard G1, it noted, does not distinguish between the broadcaster's role as the bearer of a message and the accuracy of that message reported. It states clearly that broadcasters are required to be truthful and accurate on points of fact. Nevertheless, the Authority, like TVNZ, has not approached the complaint by ascertaining just what are the odds of winning any prize in Lotto. Rather, the Authority has asked what are the responsibilities of a broadcaster in ensuring that it complies with the requirement in standard G1 for factual accuracy. In dealing with this matter, it accepted TVNZ's point that it was a broadcaster's task to use reporters to seek facts from the experts rather than to employ reporters who were themselves experts. However, the Authority did not accept that the broadcaster's obligation under standard G1 was simply to be that of the messenger. The Authority considered that it was reasonable to expect reporters to have at least some knowledge of the topic about which they were seeking information. The Authority noted that the use of reporters' rounds was one process used by broadcasters and other news gatherers to enable reporters to acquire such knowledge. Following on from its expectation about the level of knowledge which could be expected of reporters, the Authority decided that standard G1 would be complied with only when reporters made use of their role as well-informed non-experts to ensure that obvious inaccuracies were not broadcast. The standard, however, would not be contravened should the expert be incorrect on a matter which required expert knowledge. The Authority then considered the complaint about the comment made by the Chief Executive of the NZ Lotteries Commission and broadcast in an item about Lotto. As the odds of winning a prize in Lotto was a matter on which he was undoubtedly an expert, and as his reply would not automatically have been questioned by a well- informed lay person, the Authority decided that standard G1 had not been contravened. For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint. Signed for and on behalf of the Authority Judith Potter Chairperson 31 July 1995 Appendix Mr Evans' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 15 May 1995 Mr L C Evans of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on the first episode of TV1's Money programme broadcast on 28 April at 8.00pm. Referring to the segment of the programme which discussed Lotto, Mr Evans maintained that the head of the Lotteries Commission (Mr David Bale) made an incorrect statement when he stated that the chances of winning any Lotto prize was about 1 in 20. Expressing the belief that the chances of winning any prize in any particular draw was about 1 in 200, Mr Evans said TVNZ might have acted in good faith but it was unacceptable for a senior person to offer misinformation deliberately. Advertising of Lotto on Sunday evenings, he added, was also unacceptable to many viewers. TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 2 June 1995 After correspondence with Mr Evans, TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G1, G14 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. TVNZ reported to Mr Evans that the Chief Executive of the Lotteries Commission (Mr David Bale) had suggested that the chances of winning a prize in Lotto was about 1 in 20. It continued: While recognising that you believe this figure to be inaccurate, the [complaints] committee felt that your argument is not really with TVNZ, but with Mr Bale. A moment's reflection will show that it is not possible for a broadcaster or its reporters to be more expert in every conceivable subject than those who are employed to be the experts. If a reporter is doing a story about nuclear physics he asks questions of a nuclear scientist and generally accepts the answers at face value. If he does a story about heart illness he will similarly take the word of a cardiac surgeon. In covering The Budget released last night, reporters had to accept that figures given to them by Treasury were correct. It continued: With respect to you, the committee believed that in your complaint you may be confusing the message and the messenger. The message was Mr Bale's comment, the messenger was TVNZ which simply relayed that comment in good faith. As Mr Bale made the statement in his role as Chief Executive, TVNZ maintained that standard G1 had not been contravened. Neither G14 nor G19, it argued, were applicable and. it concluded: While TVNZ is sorry that you found fault with Mr Bale's comments, it believes your argument is with him rather than with a broadcaster who accepted in good faith comments from him dealing with his specific area of expertise. Taking everything into account, TVNZ has been unable to find any breach of the programme standards. Mr Evans' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 14 June 1995 Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Evans referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Mr Evans persisted in his belief that the statement made by Mr Bale was neither accurate nor made in good faith. The chances of winning a prize in any draw, he repeated, were 1 in 200 rather than 1 in 20. He concluded: A satisfactory outcome in my opinion, would be for the Crown Solicitor to be instructed to draw up prosecution charges against the Lotteries Commission, presumably under the Fair Trading Act. TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 20 June 1995 In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said it had nothing to add apart from repeating its comments that Mr Evans seemed to be failing to distinguish between the message and the messenger. Mr Evans' Final Comment - 25 June 1995 Acknowledging that it was the "message" which was the cause of the problem, Mr Evans stated that Mr Bale had presented inaccurate and misleading information. He referred to the information contained in a National Radio broadcast for the Correspondence School and wrote: It is in the public interest that the misunderstanding created by David Bale be cleaned up, irrespective or otherwise, of any breach of the television programme standards. This would be a commonsense and sensible solution. 1 3