« Medaling with justice? | Main | “Confusing” is right »
BSA finds TV screwed up coverage of Electoral Finance Bill
By Steven | February 22, 2008
I brought these complaints, together with the Coalition for Open Government. The BSA has found TV3’s and TVNZ’s coverage of the Electoral Finance Bill, when it was first revealed to the public, contained significant inaccuracies.
These complaints related only to this early coverage, though I think we could have complained about other coverage, too.
COG thought that it was particularly important that the public be properly informed about the bill, and were dismayed that both channels rather suggested that the bill as introduced included some provisions increasing the transparency of political donations to parties via anonymous donations and secret trusts. It didn’t. (The later version of the bill did contain some new controls on such political donations, so this BSA decision is now mostly only of historical interest. The BSA quite rightly found that there was no point in ordering the channels to broadcast a statement now about how they’d got it wrong).
A few observations:
First, a little sympathy for the reporters. Then-Minister of Justice Mark Burton didn’t make the best job of explaining the effect of the bill in his press conference. However, a press release and explanatory Q and A contained accurate information, as did the bill itself, with its explanatory notes offering a summary of its effects.
Second, we hoped that the stations would quickly realise their errors and feed the correct information into some follow-up stories. We would have been satisfied with that and withdrawn the complaints – we only wanted the public to be presented with accurate information. Instead, they both simply tried to defend the stories. I’ve got to say, I’m appalled by this approach. Of course mistakes are going to happen. When they are pointed out, newspapers are pretty good at feeding in the correct information into later coverage (of course, they have the useful mechanism of letters to the editor and small “corrections” or “clarifications” slots). But TV’s approach tends to be to retreat to the ramparts and fight it out.
Third, some of the arguments put forward by the channels were self-serving and even ridiculous. It was pretty clear that they either didn’t really understand what the bill said, or were disingenously trying to suggest that viewers would interpret the stories in ways that were basically contrary to the very words that were spoken in them.
Fourth, the complaints may have been entirely counter-productive for COG. We were never approached by TVNZ for comment on the EFB, and it wasn’t for months that TV3 approached us again. Was it spite? Was it a poor campaign by COG? Maybe both?
Fifth, COG also has a complaint before the Press Council against the NZ Herald’s editorial coverage of the EFB. The argument is that the Herald misled its readers by telling them that under the EFB everyone who engaged in electioneering would need to register, without properly informing them that the registration threshold was in fact $12,000 (it’s $1000 in electorates) – something that affects considerably fewer people. Watch this space.
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority, Media ethics | 47 Comments »
47 Responses to “BSA finds TV screwed up coverage of Electoral Finance Bill”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
[…] kudos to Steven Price who laid the complaint, especially as Steven became a supporter of the revised Bill. It’s a great example of putting […]
June 5th, 2020 at 6:10 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
June 25th, 2020 at 4:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
July 24th, 2020 at 12:14 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
July 29th, 2020 at 8:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
August 5th, 2020 at 2:29 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 5:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 11:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 97658 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
August 7th, 2020 at 1:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
August 10th, 2020 at 7:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
August 20th, 2020 at 12:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 4:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 5:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
September 8th, 2020 at 12:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 40764 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
September 26th, 2020 at 12:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
October 4th, 2020 at 5:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
November 10th, 2020 at 12:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 74398 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
November 13th, 2020 at 2:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
November 16th, 2020 at 12:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
November 20th, 2020 at 2:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
November 29th, 2020 at 4:33 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 80177 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
December 6th, 2020 at 11:09 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
December 16th, 2020 at 5:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
December 21st, 2020 at 1:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 84650 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 1:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
December 23rd, 2020 at 2:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 3:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
January 7th, 2021 at 2:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
January 7th, 2021 at 3:03 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 8:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
January 16th, 2021 at 4:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
January 17th, 2021 at 7:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
January 23rd, 2021 at 11:42 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
February 15th, 2021 at 2:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
April 29th, 2021 at 10:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
May 13th, 2021 at 3:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
May 22nd, 2021 at 8:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 99474 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
May 26th, 2021 at 1:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
June 11th, 2021 at 5:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
June 12th, 2021 at 10:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 58133 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 10:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 7:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
July 2nd, 2021 at 2:27 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 19933 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 10:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
July 20th, 2021 at 11:14 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
July 30th, 2021 at 3:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]
August 12th, 2021 at 3:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=65 […]