BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An item on 60 Minutes focussed on the Philadelphia Police Force, its Commissioner and its facilities and practices. The introduction to the item summarised some perceived problems of the New Zealand Police Force. The item was broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1998 commencing at 7.30 pm.

Deputy Commissioner Barry Matthews on behalf of the New Zealand Police complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate. He also complained that the item was unbalanced in failing to allow New Zealand Police the opportunity to present their crime strategies, and explain why the American practices were inapplicable.

TVNZ responded that the item was not about the New Zealand Police, and so input from them was unnecessary. The item’s introduction, it said, provided a brief summary against which the programme could examine an alternative system, but it did not suggest that system was appropriate for New Zealand.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, the Police referred their 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.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on 18 October 1998, examined police practices and facilities in Philadelphia, and reported that a representative of the New Zealand Police Association had inspected them recently. It also observed some of the Philadelphia police and their Commissioner undertaking their duties. The item was preceded by an introduction which commented on some perceived problems in the New Zealand Police.

Barry Matthews, Deputy Commissioner of Police, complained to TVNZ that the item was inaccurate and simplistic in its portrayal of the New Zealand Police. The introduction to the item was misleading in various ways, he wrote. That included the item’s failure to mention that police were reviewing staffing allocations to ensure that resources were deployed in areas of most need. The item’s comment on the police’s ability to investigate burglaries was wrong and misleading, he wrote. The item also, he said, clearly confused two separate information technology developments, the Computer Assisted Resourced Deployment System (CARD) and the INCIS project.

Deputy Commissioner Matthews also complained that TVNZ had chosen "to run with one ‘side’ of the story – that of the police union and the Philadelphia Police". The broadcaster, he wrote, had failed to give New Zealand Police the opportunity to present its crime strategies and to explain why some aspects of the Philadelphia practices were not totally applicable to New Zealand. The New Zealand community orientated policing strategy had been making significant progress in reducing crime and preventing offending, he said, and it was absurd for the item to imply that police strategies were all wrong.

TVNZ assessed the complaint in the context of standards G1 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which had been nominated by the complainant. These 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 said that the story had been generated by the "discovery" that a representative of the New Zealand Police Association was observing the operation of the Philadelphia Police, at the same time as a camera crew was there on unrelated business. His presence, it suggested, gave a public interest justification to the item. TVNZ stressed that the story was not about the New Zealand Police, did not take sides, and simply described an alternative policing system which had attracted the interest of a New Zealand Police Association representative. Therefore, it said, it was not necessary to provide input from the police executive.

Referring to the objections raised by Deputy Commissioner Matthews to the introduction to the item, TVNZ maintained that the matters of comment were a fair account, they reflected public opinion, and were based on fact. The introduction contained no information that had not been already widely debated in the media, the broadcaster wrote, but it provided a summary against which the programme could examine an alternative system. However it did not suggest that the alternative system was appropriate for New Zealand, it emphasised. TVNZ declined to uphold any error of fact in the programme.

Commenting on the complaint that the police should have been invited to comment on the item, TVNZ suggested that there was no reason for comment "on an item which simply and factually looked at an alternative system". There was no suggestion made that the system should be introduced here, TVNZ maintained, and it declined to uphold that aspect of the complaint.

In referring the complaint to the Authority, Deputy Commissioner Matthews contended that law and order issues were invariably contentious. The segment featuring zero tolerance and broken windows, he wrote, had deserved a right of reply from the New Zealand Police in order to put the issue into a local context. He also wrote that he did not accept TVNZ’s view that the programme "did not take sides".

TVNZ replied that its editorial judgment was that the item did not require a response from the police. That the Police Association representative was on the spot in Philadelphia and was able to make "competent and capable comparisons with New Zealand", and that the programme contained an interview with the Philadelphia Police Chief, did not suggest that there was a need for a corresponding interview with a New Zealand police representative, TVNZ wrote. It said that "would be taking ‘balance’ to absurd lengths".

Moreover, the broadcaster denied that the complainant had a statutory right of reply. The statutory obligation of broadcasters, it explained, was to provide balanced coverage of controversial matters. The item was not a matter of controversy but simply described an alternative policing system, TVNZ concluded.

In a further response, TVNZ argued that there was evidence of problems with the police force and its new systems, and that a public perception existed that police were not able to cope with petty crime and burglaries.

Deputy Commissioner Matthews took issue with the broadcaster’s comment that an interview with a local police executive would have taken the need for balance to "absurd lengths". He wrote that by including some unsourced comments from the Minister of Police and "senior police here" at the end of the item, 60 Minutes:

…understood the need to provide balance, although the method they used cannot be considered appropriate, particularly with an issue of a controversial nature.

Deputy Commissioner Matthews objected to TVNZ’s insistence that the item was not about the New Zealand Police. The introduction to the item had set the scene for a direct comparison, he wrote, and that was provided by the rest of the item. He stressed that:

The whole story is based on the inference that New Zealand Police has lost its way, and that the Philadelphia Police may provide some answers to our problems. That in itself may be a legitimate news story, but it certainly would require accuracy and the right to reply of the party being compared which, in this case, was NZ Police.

The Authority’s Findings

In considering the complaint, first, under standard G1, the Authority notes that the introduction to the item served to justify the story which followed. The story itself was an anecdotal report about another police operation in another country. The Authority takes account of the complainant’s concerns that the introduction to the item failed to mention the review of staffing allocations, that the comment on the police investigation of burglaries was "wrong and misleading", and that it confused police information technology developments. TVNZ justified its comments on the staffing matters as fair comment, reflecting public opinion and based on fact. It also justified its comments on the police investigation of burglaries as an accurate assessment of the public’s perception that "police aren’t able to cope". The broadcaster defended its comments about the police computer and communications system as being clearly supported by recent newspaper and other media reports.

In the Authority’s view, there was nothing in either the introduction or the subsequent item which raised any doubt as to the truthfulness or accuracy of any fact disclosed in the broadcast. The comments in the introduction acted as a springboard for the investigation of another country’s police force, which was examined in the subsequent item. The Authority does not consider that the item itself contained any points of fact which represented a serious challenge to the standard. In its view, the comments at most reflected some concerns prevalent in some sections of the community, and in that context the operations of an overseas police force would have been of interest to viewers. The Authority therefore does not uphold any aspect of the complaint under standard G1.

Turning next to standard G6, the Authority notes that the standard applies to political matters, current affairs and questions of a controversial nature. Within those parameters, broadcasters are required to show balance, impartiality and fairness. In considering the application of those requirements to this broadcast, the Authority notes that the complainant considered it should have had an opportunity to present its crime strategies, and to offer its view on the applicability of the Philadelphian police initiatives to the New Zealand environment. TVNZ responded that nowhere in the programme was it suggested that the overseas strategies were applicable to New Zealand, and there was no reason to invite the New Zealand Police to comment on an item which "simply and factually looked at an alternative system". While appreciating the complainant’s concerns and those which have been considered under standard G1, the Authority is unable to find anything in the introduction or the subsequent item broadcast which threatened the "balance, impartiality and fairness" requirements of the standard.

As it has indicated, the Authority finds that the broadcast was an anecdotal report about a New Zealand Police Association representative examining alternative police operations in another jurisdiction, and the inclusion of the item in the programme was explained by its introduction. In all the circumstances, it is unable to find any breach of standard G6.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
25 February 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority in its consideration of this complaint:

1. New Zealand Police’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 21 October 1998

2. TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 30 October 1998

3. New Zealand Police’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
   20 November 1998

4. TVNZ’s Comments to the Authority – 2 December 1998

5. TVNZ’s Further Comments to the Authority – 7 December 1998

6. New Zealand Police’s Final Comment – 21 December 1998