New Zealand On Air is seeking legal advice on whether it should censor television programmes during election campaigns.
NZ On Air says it has been accused of political bias following TV3′s screening of Inside Child Poverty: A Special Report four days ahead of the general election on 26 November last year.
In documents released under the Official Information Act, NZ On Air says it was not happy with TV3′s decision to screen the documentary on 22 November.
It says it takes its political impartiality very seriously and now stands accused of political bias.
If censorship is the answer they’re asking the wrong question.
The mistake wasn’t NZOA’s in funding a programme nor was it TV3′s in screening the programme. The mistake was the station’s failure to balance the screening of a politically biased documentary with a range of other views.
All media should be free to cover any and all political issues in the run-up to an election but when public money is involved it should not be used to push a particular barrow unquestioned.
The documentary in question gave the poverty industry’s side of a contentious issue and TV3 made no attempt to balance that with contrary views.
The answer to the accusations made of NZOA isn’t censorship, it’s fairness and balance.
Well said Ele, Couldn’t agree more.
What absolute twaddle!
Those who claim a need for balance are really saying “give more prominence to my views”. There are some issues where “balance” is impossible.
Feel free to make your own doco.
I made official complaints to TV3 and to the Electoral commission and both were rejected.
TV3 on the basis I had acknowledged I had viewed it on the Net and not viewed it Live which was a pretty thin argument with all the promotion of catchup viewing systems at present in use.
Robert Peden’s outfit was more of a total rejection per se.
My argument followed the timing as much as the slanted content and imho it should have been funded by the NZLP instead of NZ on Air and have carried an authorisation statement such was the biased content and gravitas given by Bryan Bruce in what was a very gripping doco in normal times for an unquestioning audience.
In the vacuum that was NZLP under Goff in that week leading to polling day ( the Tuesday) any lauding of Brand Labour was a potential vote winner.
I wonder if the Left would have been as sanguine about a slanted doco lauding Holland’s smashing of the waterfront Unions with his confrontation seeking efforts as a promotion of brand National.
I am not ordinarily perturbed by such inane rubbish on the ‘box’ but with the proximity to polling day and the content taken together it was reasonably important to me.
The promoters of the program used the much over employed “Child Poverty” theme extensively in the leadup.
Thanks, Meg.
LRO – I’m not suggesting the documentary should have been more balanced but that TV3 should have been.
GD – like you I can’t see why TV3 thought viewing the programme online made a difference.
Those who claim a need for balance are really saying “give more prominence to my views”.
If you want to argue that, then it could be said that those that claim the need for no balance are saying “because I published first, please make sure no counter-opinion is offered. It suits my desire to give prominence to my views”
I could mention that the person behind all this is NZOA board member Stephen McElrea, who is John Key’s electorate chairman and National’s northern region deputy chairman, but I won’t.
Key lines indeed.
@ johnonsmike It doesn’t matter if he is John Keys electorate chairman even a labour/greens/anything party supporter is capable of recognising that the screening of a documentary on an issue which has been made an election issue by a certain party could cause some lean toward that party.
The documentary presented one set of views about how to solve the problem, that’s fine, but without the opportunity to see another set of views, how does one draw a conclusion as to which they think is right. Or what elements of each of the views are right and wrong.
Well Meg, everyone here knows the views in the programme were wrong. We don’t need to see “the other side” to know this.
The fact that the person promoting censorship is a high official of the ruling party appointed by the ruling party to NZOO’s board is highly relevant as the public can judge what is being promoted from a position of knowing more of the facts than were previously known.
Leftrightout, all taxpayers paid for that tosh, those of us who would not have contributed had no choice and if you think a full scale propaganda war of ideas is a good thing in the lead up to an election then get all your economically thick mates to stop going on about how much individuals wish to contribute to the debate.costs should be proscribed by law.
That program was election material all the way to air and the socialists think it was great it was broadcast as scheduled.
That fact alone says much methinks
Fellow contributor at No Minister, pdm, heard a lefty claiming he wanted it broadcast on that Tuesday and lobbied for that outcome, in an interview with Sean Plunket this morning on newstalk zb.
If it is a good way forward bring it on and be done with the dead boring sterile media controlled “presidential campaigns” we are saddled with at present and I will buy shares in a couple of Ad agencies before the next Election.
A contest of ideas in the MSM whooyeah that would be different aye.
” politically biased documentary”
You watched it and found it to be politically biased, Ele?
In what way?
Meg: ” It doesn’t matter if he is John Keys electorate chairman…”
You’re so forgiving. A person would have to be enormously gracious or naive to believe that.
Robert: The whole premise of the documentary was a socialist one.
As Karl du Frsene wrote: . . . the programme couldn’t be construed as anything but a deliberate attempt to tilt the political playing field in Labour’s favour. “That couldn’t have been clearer than when the host – who clearly aspires to be New Zealand’s answer to the sanctimonious John Pilger – genuflected, metaphorically speaking, before the Michael Joseph Savage monument and reminded us of Labour’s proud historical commitment to feed, clothe and house the poor. Another overtly political moment occurred when Bruce asked rhetorically: “Who builds state houses? Labour. Who sells them? National.”
Fascinating how the Ruling Party’s bloggers will not mention that this is all coming from John Key’s electorate chairman.
Talk about key lines….
Karl du Fresne, Ele? Clearly a non-partisan commentator so I’ll regard his comments as unbiased.
Avoiding the obvious ‘difficult detail’ of Stephen McElrea and his connections makes you seem shifty, Ele.
Surely you’ll address the intimation from johnsonmike!
So suddenly a person in a responsible position on the board of the funding entity chooses to question the correctness of that funding being used by political partisans to gain electoral advantage and is tainted because in his private life he seeks to give his personal support to the Prime minister as his electorate chair.
All in the sunlight of public scrutiny and the left having lost the moral highground suddenly choose an attack line of a perceived conflict. That is only a problem when they fail to see that someone such as McElrea could not separate the two roles as judged against their guilt from the fact they couldn’t.
I relate a little tale from my save the farm days in Real Estate.
Swmbo and self working in the same office took separate offers on a property to present them to a receiver in Wellington sharing the travel costs and he could not believe at first that a husband and wife would not have revealed their offers on the pillow. I guess it was inconceivable in the dog eat dog arena he worked in, that such probity could exist.
ps swmbos offer won. My crooked client wanted me to make his offer the best in a ‘dutch auction’ and was royally pissed when he didn’t make that happen by offering enough, so clever so sad.
Robert – As far as I know du Fresne is non-partisan; that doens’t mean he’s unbiased but it doesn’t alter the accuracy of the examples he gave.
I didn’t rise to JM’s bait because I didn’t think that it made any difference to the point of my post which was arguing against censorship.