The programme dramatically alleged that dealings between the Lange/Douglas government and big business were essentially corrupting the political process. Deep mood music and sinister interpretations were put on meetings Ministers had with big business, and in particular with the NZBR. In essence the main allegation was business was buying government policies.
The NZBR was established in the 1980s but didn’t really get underway until 1986 when former Treasury official Roger Kerr was appointed Executive Director. Roger was loathed by many on the left. After 3.5 years in New York for the NZ Meat Board, I returned at the end of 1989 and in January 1990 commenced business as a consultant with the NZBR handling media etc. Although I knew broadly what the Government did between 1985 and 1990 and was friends with Roger Douglas, I was unfamiliar with the detail.
That night I called an old friend who worked for Lange who was equally stunned and so immediately applied my mind to how best respond to the damaging allegations. I was negative about suing for defamation knowing the pitfalls of that process so did a crash course on other options including the BSA, the route we chose. A senior lawyer and friend also played a key role helping the NZBR.
The fallout was equally as dramatic as the programme. Ultimately key TVNZ staff lost their jobs, TVNZ was sued and complaints were made under the new 1989 Broadcasting Act to TVNZ, and later to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), when TVNZ did not agree accept most of the complaints.
A press release on June 1 quoted TVNZ’s CEO saying “while the programme contained much useful information and not all complaints have been upheld, the Committee’s findings had showed the programme to have been seriously flawed”.
On June 10 TVNZ broadcast on “Frontline” an item lasting 7.5 minutes which summarised the its Committee’s decisions upon those complaints which had been upheld, contained brief statements from three of the successful complainants and expressed regret for the mistakes in “For the Public Good”
The complainants did not accept the TVNZ Committee decision as satisfactory and formally complained to the BSA. Because the issues were so massive the BSA coopted Sir David Beattie and former RNZ CEO, Geoffrey Whitehead, to help deal with the eight formal complaints, including the NZBR and the Prime Minister.
A very lengthy process followed as can be read on the BSA website. The Authority agreed with a Dominion editorial of 24 May 1990 which said: “The programme was a closely contrived package of suggestion and innuendo, embroidered with emotive language and suggestive camera shots
The engagement with the BSA lasted months and over time it accepted several of the complaints made by the NZBR and others. It later asked the NZBR what it wanted by way of resolution. Roger suggested to me take TV1 off air for a bit. I said the NZBR was unpopular enough as it was and suggested that there be night of zero advertising which ultimately eventuated.
Anyone interested in the scope of the BSA should read the “For the Public Good” episode. It told us several things. First, at that time broadcast media was very powerful. We had just TV 1 and TV2 and a raw newcomer, TV3. Sky TV started in May 1990. No streaming of course.
In my view the BSA was then a useful brake on media power. The situation today is vastly different. Trust in mainstream media is at a new low of 33% according to AUT. I doubt there is much trust in the BSA also but have seen no measure of that. We have the internet which allows access to overseas media such as The Times, the New York Times, BBC, ABC and the Australian. TV audience numbers are well down the situation in 1990 which is why free to air TVNZ is struggling whereas in 1990 advertisers hustled to get prime TV slots.
We also have online news and informed commentary such as Kiwiblog, the New Zealand Initiative and many others. There is also heaps of misinformation in internet land and heavily partisan blog sites. In my next post I will comment on the BSA’s move to cover the streamers as well. In taking on The Platform the BSA has started a fight that might see it curbed or even abolished. I hope so.
Barrie Saunders has a background in Government Relations and blogs at www.barriesaunders.wordpress.com. - where this article was sourced.
The NZBR was established in the 1980s but didn’t really get underway until 1986 when former Treasury official Roger Kerr was appointed Executive Director. Roger was loathed by many on the left. After 3.5 years in New York for the NZ Meat Board, I returned at the end of 1989 and in January 1990 commenced business as a consultant with the NZBR handling media etc. Although I knew broadly what the Government did between 1985 and 1990 and was friends with Roger Douglas, I was unfamiliar with the detail.
That night I called an old friend who worked for Lange who was equally stunned and so immediately applied my mind to how best respond to the damaging allegations. I was negative about suing for defamation knowing the pitfalls of that process so did a crash course on other options including the BSA, the route we chose. A senior lawyer and friend also played a key role helping the NZBR.
The fallout was equally as dramatic as the programme. Ultimately key TVNZ staff lost their jobs, TVNZ was sued and complaints were made under the new 1989 Broadcasting Act to TVNZ, and later to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), when TVNZ did not agree accept most of the complaints.
A press release on June 1 quoted TVNZ’s CEO saying “while the programme contained much useful information and not all complaints have been upheld, the Committee’s findings had showed the programme to have been seriously flawed”.
On June 10 TVNZ broadcast on “Frontline” an item lasting 7.5 minutes which summarised the its Committee’s decisions upon those complaints which had been upheld, contained brief statements from three of the successful complainants and expressed regret for the mistakes in “For the Public Good”
The complainants did not accept the TVNZ Committee decision as satisfactory and formally complained to the BSA. Because the issues were so massive the BSA coopted Sir David Beattie and former RNZ CEO, Geoffrey Whitehead, to help deal with the eight formal complaints, including the NZBR and the Prime Minister.
A very lengthy process followed as can be read on the BSA website. The Authority agreed with a Dominion editorial of 24 May 1990 which said: “The programme was a closely contrived package of suggestion and innuendo, embroidered with emotive language and suggestive camera shots
The engagement with the BSA lasted months and over time it accepted several of the complaints made by the NZBR and others. It later asked the NZBR what it wanted by way of resolution. Roger suggested to me take TV1 off air for a bit. I said the NZBR was unpopular enough as it was and suggested that there be night of zero advertising which ultimately eventuated.
Anyone interested in the scope of the BSA should read the “For the Public Good” episode. It told us several things. First, at that time broadcast media was very powerful. We had just TV 1 and TV2 and a raw newcomer, TV3. Sky TV started in May 1990. No streaming of course.
In my view the BSA was then a useful brake on media power. The situation today is vastly different. Trust in mainstream media is at a new low of 33% according to AUT. I doubt there is much trust in the BSA also but have seen no measure of that. We have the internet which allows access to overseas media such as The Times, the New York Times, BBC, ABC and the Australian. TV audience numbers are well down the situation in 1990 which is why free to air TVNZ is struggling whereas in 1990 advertisers hustled to get prime TV slots.
We also have online news and informed commentary such as Kiwiblog, the New Zealand Initiative and many others. There is also heaps of misinformation in internet land and heavily partisan blog sites. In my next post I will comment on the BSA’s move to cover the streamers as well. In taking on The Platform the BSA has started a fight that might see it curbed or even abolished. I hope so.
Barrie Saunders has a background in Government Relations and blogs at www.barriesaunders.wordpress.com. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
Post a Comment