Decision: Francis, Gouge and Thompson and TVWorks Ltd
[Full decision at BSA website]
Francis, Gouge and Thompson and TVWorks Ltd - 2011-104
Dated: 03 April 2012
Number: 2011-104
Complainant:
• Ross Francis of Masterton
• Nick Gouge of Hamilton
• Alasdair and Joan Thompson of Auckland
Channel: TV3
Broadcaster: TVWorks Ltd
Members
• Peter Radich (Chair)
• Te Raumawhitu Kupenga
• Leigh Pearson
• Mary Anne Shanahan
--
Complaints
under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and section 8(1C) of the
Broadcasting Act 1989
Campbell Live –
items reported on controversial comments made by the CE of
the EMA that some female workers are less productive because
they take sick leave when they are menstruating –
interviewed CE and portion of the interview broadcast –
included sarcastic comments and caricature of CE singing –
panel discussed comments – allegedly in breach of privacy,
controversial issues, accuracy and fairness
standards
Findings
Standard 6
(fairness) – interview footage provided a fair summary of
Mr Thompson’s character and conduct – was not necessary
in the interests of fairness to broadcast the full interview
– items not unfair to Mr Thompson, given his position as a
public figure and that the comments reported on were made
during a political discussion in the public arena – not
upheld by majority
Standard 5 (accuracy) – items accurately reflected Mr Thompson’s behaviour in the full interview – we are not in a position to determine whether the items created a misleading impression about Mr Thompson’s personality traits – not upheld
Standard 4 (controversial issues) – items focused on Mr Thompson’s comments and his competency to fulfil his role as CE of the EMA, rather than the wider issue of pay equity – both issues amounted to controversial issues of public importance – Mr Thompson was provided with a sufficient opportunity to explain his comments in the interview and was invited to appear on 24 June item – viewers would have been aware of alternative significant viewpoints on the wider issue – broadcaster provided reasonable opportunities and made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints in the items and in other programming within the period of current interest – not upheld
Standard 3 (privacy) – woman employee referred to in 23 June item was not identifiable – not upheld
This headnote does not form part of the decision.
[Full decision at BSA website]