|
The BSA Bulletin provides news from the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
Feel free to forward the Bulletin to anyone you think might be interested. Email us if you would like to subscribe to our mailing list.
We welcome any feedback and suggestions to the look and content of the Bulletin .
Help Guide BSA Research
Last month we wrote to all broadcasters to invite you to suggest any areas of research that you would find it useful for us the BSA to undertake.
One of the functions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority is to “conduct research and publish findings on matters relating to standards in broadcasting ”.
Is there an area of research pertaining to broadcasting standards that you think we should be considering? Please contact Dominic to let him know.
Each year we also undertake a review of our decisions. These assessments are always undertaken by an independent party. We have reviewed our decisions from a legal perspective, a journalist ’s perspective, reviewed decisions based on the privacy standard and currently are assessing decisions involving programmes with children as subjects. If you have a preference for an area of our decision making that you think ought to be assessed please be in touch with your thoughts .
This is an open invitation - we are happy to hear your thoughts at any time. At this moment, however, we are currently preparing our Statement of Intent for the 2010-13 period so if you have ideas you would like to see us undertake in the next twelve months please let us know by 21 March .
Recent Decisions
These decisions have been released in the past month. Clicking on the names below will take you directly to the decisions.
Attorney General of Samoa and TVNZ - One News and Tagata Pasifika . Reported investigation into criminal gangs, drugs and weapon smuggling in Samoa. Upheld (balance, accuracy and fairness). Law and order, not upheld.
The Authority has upheld a complaint from Samoa ’s Attorney General that the item, which screened on One News on 6 April 2009 and was repeated in an extended form on Tagata Pasifika on 9 April 2009, breached standards relating to balance, fairness and accuracy.
One News the introduced the item as an exclusive about a Pacific paradise “awash with guns and drugs ”where criminal gangs were building up a “terrifying arsenal ”.
The item quoted, among others, a group called the “Makoi boys ”who were allegedly a gang who smoked marijuana and sold methamphetamine. It also said that smuggling weapons from the United States was “becoming big business ”.
In assessing balance, the Authority found that the cumulative effect of a dramatic introduction to the One News item and the information presented created the impression that the situation in Samoa was extremely serious, and that officials were complicit in the guns and drugs trade.
However, the item failed to provide context about the seriousness of the situation. The broadcaster also failed to make reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on a controversial issue. No perspectives were offered from people such as community leaders, doctors, lawyers, local media, government or NGO officials, the Authority found.
The reporter provided references to media coverage of hard drug use in Samoa and a number of shootings in the country. While accepting that these showed the presence of guns and drugs in Samoa, the Authority said that, “the reporter ’s evidence certainly does not support her unequivocal statements, the entire thrust of the item, or the suggestion that the situation was so clear-cut that no alternative perspective needed to be given in the item.”
While the overall effect of the Tagata Pasifika story was less dramatic than on One News , it still lacked sufficient context or alternative viewpoints, the decision said.
The complainant was also concerned that the item was not accurate because allegations were made on the basis of the interview with the “Makoi boys ”whose reliability was suspect.
The Authority accepted that the reporter had acted in good faith and genuinely believed the “Makoi boys ”were being truthful. However, it said that there was enough evidence to suggest the men were neither credible nor reliable.
The reporter believed that the “Makoi boys ”were smoking marijuana and were “stoned ”and “should have viewed their responses with a greater degree of caution ”, the decision said. Also the transcript and footage of the interview showed that the “Makoi boys ”were “joking around and acting up for the camera ”.
While the Authority accepted that any misrepresentation in the item was not deliberate, it believed affidavit statements that the “Makoi boys ”were not a “gang ”whose business was selling marijuana and P. “In this sense, the audience was misled by what was presented in the item.”
The Authority also found that the “Makoi boys ”were treated unfairly, because it was not adequately explained to them that the interview would appear on prime time news in New Zealand and Samoa, where One News is also broadcast.
“In the Authority ’s view, given the close nature of Samoan society and size of the country, it is highly improbable that the “Makoi boys ”would have agreed to be interviewed undisguised or would have claimed to be selling drugs if they had understood the nature of the programme,”the decision said.
Other complaints, including that the reporter obtained information by deception and that the views of those who took part were distorted, were not upheld.
The Authority ordered Television New Zealand to broadcast a summary of the decision on One News and Tagata Pasifika within a month of the decision and to pay complainant costs of $5,000 and Crown costs of $2,000.
Hastings District Council and TVWorks - 60 Minutes . Item on girl gangs in Hawke's Bay. Upheld (privacy and fairness). Law and order, balance, accuracy and children's interests, not upheld.
The Hastings District Council complained about the item broadcast on 27 April 2009, which interviewed current and former gang members.
Included in the item were four girls –one aged 12 or 13, two aged 15 and one aged 16 –who were shown wearing gang-style clothing. Two of the girls were shown spray painting graffiti on a basketball court and two were shown re-enacting breaking into a house. The girls were not interviewed but the reporter said they had told her they were drinking and getting into fights.
The Authority upheld two of the Council ’s six complaints finding breaches of the privacy and fairness standards.
The four girls were shown with their faces covered by bandanas but during the item three of the bandanas slipped, exposing the girls ’faces.
The Authority said that even if the bandanas had not slipped, it did not agree with the broadcaster that they provided sufficient protection of their identity.
“Viewers could see the top half of the girls ’faces including their eyes, nose and hair colour. In addition, several full length shots of the girls showed their body shapes and distinctive clothing,”the decision said.
The three girls under 16 were not old enough to consent to a broadcast that would breach their privacy the decision said and, “there is no evidence to suggest that a parent or guardian consented on their behalf …”.
In the case of the 16-year-old, there was an understanding with the reporter that her identity would not be revealed and the Authority did not find the bandana to be a sufficient disguise.
“The Authority considers that the broadcaster reneged on an understanding not to reveal the girls ’identities, and thereby disclosed private facts in a highly offensive manner about four young girls, three of whom were children,”the decision said.
On the issue of unfairness, the decision said that the young girls were exposed as participating in criminal and anti-social behaviour when the broadcaster had agreed not to identify them.
The Authority found that the broadcaster failed to appreciate the harm the item could cause to the reputations and futures of the young girls.
“In this respect, the Authority is of the view that the broadcast exploited the girls, due to their young age and lack of appreciation for the consequences of their actions, and unnecessarily identified them. It considers that all four girls were treated unfairly.”
The Authority ordered TVWorks Ltd to broadcast a summary of the decision on within a month and to pay complainant costs of $3,560.12 and Crown costs of $2,500.
Broughton and RadioWorks - Talkback with Michael Laws . Host made comments about the complainant. Upheld (fairness). Privacy, not upheld. Accuracy, subsumed.
Counties Manukau District Health Board employee Boyd Broughton complained about comments Mr Laws made after Mr Broughton emailed him about Māori smoking.
During the 24 September broadcast Mr Laws said that it was clear from Mr Broughton ’s emails that, “he regarded the cause of Māori smoking to essentially be white genocidal cigarette companies out to basically kill Māori ”.
Mr Broughton complained that: Mr Laws ’comments did not accurately reflect his emails; he was not told he would be referred to in the programme and that disclosing his first name and workplace had breached his privacy.
The Authority found that as an employee of a district health board Mr Broughton did not have a reasonable expectation that his name or occupation would be withheld. It also found that Mr Broughton had willingly engaged in a provocative exchange with a well-known politician and media personality and he could not reasonably expect his emails would remain private, despite carrying a confidentiality disclaimer in Te Re Māori.
The decision said it was not necessary, in the interests of fairness, to alert Mr Broughton that he would be referred to in the broadcast because his views on the general topic were not required.
“Mr Laws ’references to the complainant were incidental to the programme, which discussed several topics over three hours,”the decision said.
However, the Authority upheld the complaint that Mr Laws unfairly represented Mr Broughton ’s views.
“Based only on Mr Broughton ’s statement that “Pakeha continue to allow [smoking] in the country and make profits from it ”, Mr Laws told his listeners that Mr Broughton believes, and tells his clients, that smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori ”, an assertion he made several times during the course of his programme. The Authority is firm in its view that such blatant misrepresentation cannot be regarded as “fair comment ”, as argued by the broadcaster,”the decision said.
The Authority considered whether upholding the complaint would infringe on the broadcaster ’s freedom of expression but decided its decision would remind broadcasters to ensure they dealt with people referred to in a programme fairly.
The Authority said it would not make any orders in relation to the complaint, as publication of the decision was sufficient.
Cage and TVNZ - Breakfast . Paul Henry's comments about homosexual couples adopting children. Discrimination and denigration. Not upheld.
The comments were made by Mr Henry during a discussion about a proposed law change to allow homosexual couples to adopt children.
On the August 20 broadcast of Breakfast, Mr Henry said he was “iffy ”about the law change and that homosexuality was “unnatural ”. His co-host Alison Mau questioned Henry ’s remarks and read out viewer feedback including one that said, “To call this unnatural is ludicrous and narrow-minded. Gay couples are great parents and are more than qualified to raise children.” Mr Henry replied that people shouldn ’t be frightened of saying that homosexuality was unnatural. “It is unnatural. Although homosexuality is through all species. I don ’t know if it ’s through all species but many, many species. A lot of monkeys are homosexual,”Mr Henry said.
Later in the discussion he said: “The thing is, though, if you go to any animal park, and I ’ve got to be careful what I say here, but if you go to any animal park, you will find monkeys being filthy with each other.”
Ms Mau responded: “That is completely beside the point.”
Complainant Ken Cage said that Mr Henry ’s comments were offensive and the message conveyed justified “bullying others on the basis of their perceived sexual orientation ”.
The Free-to-Air Broadcasting Code of Practice says broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community because of, among other things, sexual orientation.
The Authority found that while the comments were clearly provocative and would have offended some viewers, they were framed in a way that encouraged discussion about the proposed law change.
Opposing views were clearly presented by the programme ’s co-host, by two MPs interviewed on the programme and in viewer feedback, the Authority said.
Christini and RadioWorks - The Edge . Lily Allen song called "Fuck You ". Upheld (good taste and decency, and responsible programming).
Pauling and TVNZ - Island Wars promo. Contestant said "ready to kick some New Zealand arse ". Good taste and decency and children's interests. Not upheld.
Batchelor and TVNZ - Breakfast . News item on puppies being euthanized by Invercargill City Council. Controversial issues, accuracy and fairness. Not upheld.
Stevens and TVNZ - One News . Reported that actor had been "gunned down "by police. Accuracy and fairness. Not upheld.
Molan and TVNZ - Close Up . Item about manuka honey industry. Controversial issues. Not upheld.
NZORD and TVNZ - Q + A , Close Up , One News and Breakfast . Items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid. Controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming. Not upheld.
de Villiers and TVNZ - Close Up . Report on sale of horse meat for human consumption. Law and order. Not upheld.
Chisholm and TVNZ - South . Presenter told story about Dog Island lighthouse keeper. Accuracy and fairness. Not upheld.
Fowles and TVNZ - Eyewitness: The Danielle Cable Story . Contained coarse language. Good taste and decency. Action taken. Not upheld.
Cooke and TVWorks - 3 News and Sports Tonight . Presenter ’s comments. Good taste and decency, law and order, and privacy. Not upheld.
Hardie and The Radio Network - Easy Mix news. Details of double murder. Good taste and decency. Not upheld.
Phillips and RadioWorks - The Graeme Hill Show . Commentary from atheist. Good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and controversial issues. Not upheld.
Jordan and TVWorks - Sports Tonight . Presenter referred to English netball team as "poms ". Discrimination and denigration. Not upheld.
New BSA Research
The BSA has recently released two new research reports.
Some Content May Offend: Public Attitudes to Content Classifications and Warnings on Free-To-Air and Pay TV
An investigation of the public's understanding of classifications and warnings on both free-to-air and pay television. The report's findings are based on focus group sessions held in Auckland with 88 people, mainly parents and guardians of children aged between five and 17. Parents and guardians were chosen because this group makes the most use of classifications and warnings to decide what their families will watch. This research is available online or printed copies (free of charge) can be requested from the BSA .
Private Matters: A Review of the Privacy Decisions of the BSA
This new paper is designed to prompt a discussion of privacy and has been authored by Dr Nicole Moreham, a Senior Lecturer at Victoria University in Wellington. Dr Moreham has a special interest in media law and in particular, privacy. The paper is an assessment of a range of privacy-related decisions made by the BSA and examines the key issues to emerge from these decisions. This paper is available online (see Recent Publications on the BSA home page).
New FTA and Pay TV Classification Resources
Our recent Some Content May Offend research found that, on the whole, the public were fairly happy with how broadcasters were using classifications and warnings. But it did indicate some issues with their understanding of the meaning of the PGR/PG and M classifications and the warning labels used on Pay TV.
Over the next few months we will be focussing on improving public understanding of the current systems. As a start we have created some guides –based on the information on the codes - to help viewers understand the classification symbols and these are available from our website. These single page information sheets are designed to provide parents with clear information on the meaning of all those various symbols. Please feel free to provide these sheets on your own websites.
Free-to-air classification guide
Pay TV classification guide
New Logo
The BSA has a new logo and this Bulletin is the first publication to feature it.
The new logo is designed to look both back and forward - the font provides general continuity with the old logo but the new version features a stylised tukutuku panel with a stepped poutama pattern. The poutama design represents our quest towards excellence in everything we do.
The new logo will be rolled out on BSA publications over the next few months and on BSA stationery as it comes up for reprint.
If you require a version of the logo for any use then please contact Dominic to request a copy.
|