BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The release of rabbits infected with rabbit calicivirus (RCD) in Australia, with focus

on a farm near Broken Hill, was the subject of items broadcast on One Network News

at 6pm and Tonight at 9.35pm on 9 October 1996.

Mr Dustan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the items were unbalanced

and inaccurate, and designed to convince the viewer that it was only a matter of time

before the virus would be imported into New Zealand.

In response, TVNZ upheld the complaint that the words, "a final release date in NZ is

yet to be made," which appeared in the Tonight item without qualification, and were

voiced by a reporter in Australia, were incorrect. It conceded that no decision had yet

been made on whether or not to release the virus in New Zealand. In relation to the

issue of balance, TVNZ said it believed, however, that the views expressed in the

items in question, and earlier items on RCD, helped create a better informed public on

the issue overall, and demonstrated how a broadcaster in fact achieved balance on a

controversial issue within the period of current interest.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision on the question of balance, Mr Dustan referred the

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

Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint relating to lack

of balance.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Two items broadcast respectively on One Network News at 6pm and Tonight at

9.30pm on 9 October 1996, covered the attempt to reduce the Australian wild rabbit

population by the controlled release of rabbits with calicivirus, and in particular

focused on the release of rabbits on a farm near Broken Hill. The reporter in Australia

on the Tonight item made the comment "...a final release date in New Zealand is yet to

be made".

Expressing concern that the items broadcast were unbalanced, being designed to

convince the viewer that there was no alternative to the use of calicivirus and that it

would only be a matter of time before it was be imported into New Zealand, Mr

Dustan complained to Television New Zealand Limited.

TVNZ considered the complaint under standard G1 and G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

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

TVNZ upheld the complaint under standard G1 acknowledging that the words, "...a

final release date in New Zealand is yet to be made" on the Tonight programme were

inaccurate because no decision had then been made on whether the virus was to be

released at all. In mitigation, it said that immediately following the offending line the

studio presenter said, "MAF has called for public submissions on the proposal." Mr

Duston was advised that the mistake had been drawn to the attention of the newsroom

and the producer concerned.

In relation to standard G6, TVNZ referred to section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act

1989 which states:

(1) Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its programmes and

their presentation, standards which are consistent with -

(d) The principle that when controversial issues of public importance are

discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are

given, to present significant points of view either in the same

programme or in other programmes within the period of current

interest.

TVNZ stated that since the beginning of the year the News and Current Affairs

department had run no fewer than 15 items dealing with the calicivirus issue and

within this period, described as one of "current interest", a wide range of views and

extensive catalogue of facts had been presented. It denied that the items broadcast on

9 October were designed to convince viewers about any particular perspective on

rabbit control policy. It said that the items were intended to show rabbits infected

with the virus being released in Australia, and to profile an outback farm near Broken

Hill which had been exposed to the virus. TVNZ, it said, provided the information,

and it was up to viewers to make their judgments on it. It also argued that the item,

being focused on the Australian situation, did not need to balance any impression that

may or may not have been created of there being no alternative to the importation of

the virus in New Zealand. In concluding it said:

Having regard for the wider period of current interest in which this controversy

is being played out, TVNZ believes it is not guilty of imbalance in its coverage.

In referring the matter to the Authority Mr Duston emphasised his view that there

had been a concerted effort to avoid publicising a balanced, impartial, and fair view of

all facets of the application to import the virus.

The Authority does not consider that any further action is required to remedy the

mistake in the Tonight programme given that there has been enough information

disseminated in the media for viewers to be aware of the correct situation and, that the

Tonight programme went some way toward remedying the false impression created by

the earlier news item.

Given the focus of the items, being the release of the infected rabbits in Australia, the

Authority does not consider that the items themselves breached broadcasting

standards in not showing points of view against the importation of calicivirus into

New Zealand. While it expects the facts contained in each and every item about an

ongoing issue to be correct, the Authority accepts that each item might not by itself

comply fully with the requirement for balance. However, it notes, the standard

requires that overall balance be achieved in the period of current interest.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the

items were unbalanced.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
17 December 1996

Appendix

Trevor Duston's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 10 October 1996

Trevor Duston of Duston St Clair Group Limited Christchurch, complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on One Network News at

6.00pm on 9 October 1996 and an item broadcast on the Tonight programme at

9.35pm on the same evening.

Mr Duston's complaint related to items about rabbit calicivirus. He was of the view

that the items created the impression that there was no alternative to the importation

into New Zealand of the virus and that it was only a matter of time before it would be

imported. In support of his contention that this was incorrect he advised:

No decision has been made to import the virus.

Copies of the application are being circulated throughout New Zealand and

MAF is encouraging public comment.

Submissions will remain open until at least 4 November.

The Dustan St Clair Group has been fighting to re establish a nationwide rabbit

harvesting industry to control rabbit populations.

Mr Dustan enclosed with his complaint an open letter, which showed an alternative

viewpoint to that expressed in the programme, from Dr Alvin Smith of Oregon State

University, which he said had already been forwarded to TVNZ.

Mr Dustan in closing his letter said:

We believe that Channel One is in clear breach of a "balanced" approach to this

question and should be severely criticised for their bias.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 23 October 1996

Mr Duston's complaint was considered under standards G1 and G6 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

In relation to the G1 standard TVNZ said:

The words "a final release date in New Zealand is yet to be made" were voiced

by a reporter in Australia and appeared in the Tonight item without the

qualification given in the One Network News piece. TVNZ acknowledges that

the statement is incorrect in that no decision has yet been made on whether the

virus is to be released at all.

In mitigation it said that immediately following the offending line the studio presenter

said "MAF has called for public submissions on the proposal".

In relation to standard G6 TVNZ referred to the period of current interest qualification

in section 4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

TVNZ stated:

We note that since the beginning of this year our News and Current Affairs

Department has run no fewer than 15 items dealing with the calicivirus. Within

this period of current interest a wide range of views and extensive catalogue of

facts have been presented.

The items on 9 October updated the story, adding fresh opinion and fresh

information, and providing a fresh perspective. Had they merely restated what

had gone before the story would have been advanced not a whit.

TVNZ noted that the items were intended to show rabbits infected with the virus

being released in Australia, and to profile an outback farm near Broken Hill which had

been exposed to the virus. It said that TVNZ provided the information; and that it was

up to viewers to make their own judgments on it.

TVNZ also denied that the item created an impression that there was no alternative to

the importation of the virus. It referred to its item on 17 September which also

showed an interview with Dr Alvin Smith.

TVNZ concluded :

Having regard for the wider "period of current interest" in which this

controversy is being played out, TVNZ believes it is not guilty of imbalance in

its coverage and accordingly has declined to uphold your complaint as a breach

of standard G6.

Mr Duston's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 31 October

1996

Mr Dustan said in his letter to the Authority:

We take this opportunity to reiterate that this is a very serious matter that

concerns public health and have included a letter recently received outlining the

concerns expressed by Dr Gillian Durham, Director of Public Health. In our

opinion, there has been a concerted effort to avoid publicising a balanced,

impartial and fair view of all facets of the application to import this virus.

He also enclosed a letter written to TVNZ where he explained his focus in relation to

rabbit calicivirus which included the following:

In all the discussions to date there has been a marked reluctance to address the

problems that are likely to occur with our trading partners, in as much as RCD

or RVHD is a notifiable disease in UK, France and Germany.

He then went on to say:

Bearing these matters in mind, your stance supports the existing programme and,

in our opinion, does not to provide the public with a balanced, impartial and fair

presentation of the effects of a possible introduction of Rabbit Viral

Haemorrhagic Disease.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority- 5 November 1996

In responding to the Authority TVNZ said:

While Mr Duston is clearly upset about the nature of the process which is being

used to decide whether or not the rabbit Calicivirus is to be released here, he has

not explained how that concern relates to the balance and impartiality provisions

of G6.

...

Because of the on-going debate we submit that it is appropriate that in this story

balance be achieved over "the period of current interest" as allowed for in section

4 (1) (d) of the Broadcasting Act.

Mr Duston's Final Comment - 13 November 1996

Mr Duston was still firmly of the view that the news items concerned were

transmitted without any effort by TVNZ to obtain any balancing perspective.

In support of his view that balancing comment could be obtained he enclosed for the

Authority a number of newspaper clipping which related to warnings about the use of

rabbit calicivirus without further tests.

In closing he stated:

The question of impartiality is somewhat more difficult to determine, but our

impression is that the news media were invited to an orchestrated event

contrived to present the "official" perspective on this virus and no effort was

made to present any other viewpoint. In Hitler's day it was called propaganda.