Lynley Hood
South
phone:
+64 3 487 7686
fax: +64 3 487 8454
[email protected]
http://www.lynleyhood.org
September 11, 2003
Mr Ian Fraser
Chief Executive TVNZ
PO Box 3819,
Dear Mr Fraser
Broadcasting Standards
Complaint
Edwards at Large - 16 August 2003
This
is a formal complaint under the Free To Air Television Code of Broadcasting
Practice. My complaint is that the first segment of Edwards at Large on
Saturday 16 August, in which I was interviewed by Dr Brian Edwards, breached
the following standards of the code:
Standard 4 (Balance), Guideline 4a:
Programmes which deal with political matters, current affairs, and
questions of a controversial nature, must show balance and impartiality; and
Standard 6 (Fairness), Guideline 6b:
Contributors and participants in any programme should be dealt with fairly
and should, except as required in the public interest, be informed of the
reason for their proposed contribution and participation and the role that is
expected of them.
In summary, my complaint is that I was ambushed into taking part in an
interview that was no more than a sustained attack on my character and
credibility, and that in making that attack Dr Edwards did not act as an
independent and impartial broadcaster.
I am enclosing a copy of the interview transcript [Appendix 1]. [Note 1] However, to grasp the unremitting nastiness
of Edwards' hectoring, sneering tone, and his efforts to stop me putting my
side of the story, a videotape of the interview needs to be viewed.
I am also enclosing extracts from a television review and comments posted on
the nz.general and nz.politics newsgroups. These show that viewers were in no
doubt that Edwards' grossly unprofessional conduct was politically motivated. [Appendix 2]
Background to the Interview
The Christchurch Civic Creche case was one of the most expensive, extensive and
controversial criminal cases in
On 1 October 2001 my book A City Possessed: the Christchurch Civic Creche case:
Child Abuse, Gender Politics & the Law was published. During the seven
years I spent researching and writing the book, the case was rarely out of the
spotlight. Nonetheless, I declined all invitations to comment in the media, and
gave no interviews of any sort during that time. This was because I wanted to
be sure that my facts were right and my analysis would withstand critical
scrutiny before I went public with my findings.
At the time of publication, Joan McKenzie, national book manager for
Whitcoulls, described A City Possessed as 'the most important New Zealand book
to be published here in recent times'. The book went straight to the top of the
bestseller list. Legal authorities endorsed its findings. Bernard Robertson,
editor of the New Zealand Law Journal wrote: 'It raises questions about our
legal system which must be addressed.'
Despite the acclaim, A City Possessed was ignored by TVNZ until - 10 months
after publication - the book won the History Award, the Montana Medal for
Non-Fiction and the Readers' Choice Award at the 2002 Montana NZ Book Awards.
Since then I have made a few brief appearances on TVNZ. On these occasions the
content of my book has received only passing mention.
On 24 June 2003, an 807-signature petition was presented to parliament calling
for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Civic Creche case. At the same time
a list of 140 prominent signatories was released to the media, and, in response
to public demand, a second, identical, petition was opened.
Throughout these events, Minister of Justice Phil Goff has vigorously and
repeatedly rejected the findings in A City Possessed, and the calls for a
Commission of Inquiry into the creche case that have gathered force since its
publication.
Events leading up to the Interview
On 25 June 2003, I received this email from a reader of A City Possessed:
".....Brian Edwards was
also on Holmes this morning at about
Prompted by that message, I emailed Dr Edwards on 26 June, and invited him to
sign the petition. On 28 June, he replied:
"I'll be delighted to
help, Lynley, to sign the petition and to add my name to any list. I'm also
very interested in having you on my new TV talk-show. Judy or I will be in
touch. Unbelievably stupid editorial in today's Herald."
I replied the same day:
"Thanks Brian, we'll add
your name to the list & look forward to receiving the signed petition. I'll
be delighted (and honoured) to appear on your new show. I'll be out of the
country 30 June to 7 July, but will be available more or less any time after
that. Yes, that is a stupid editorial in the Herald. It could have been written
by Sir Thomas Eichelbaum himself (maybe it was!). There have been wonderful
editorials in other daily papers over the past couple of weeks."
I sent Dr Edwards two further emails: one advising that I would be in
The arrangements for me to appear on Edwards at Large were made by phone. I was
aware that Edwards had claimed that he had mellowed as an interviewer, and that
the show was supposed to be lifestyle programme. I was also aware from his
earlier National Radio show that his interviews were well researched, and that
he was interested in the lives and ideas of his interview subjects. When
Edwards told me that he would be 'playing devil's advocate', I realised that he
intended to stray into current affairs. I was therefore looking forward to a
lively interview that would canvas, for the first time on TVNZ, some of the
important issues raised in A City Possessed.
The basis for my complaint under Standard 6 of the code (Fairness) is that Dr
Edwards not only failed to warn me to expect an unrelentingly hostile
interview, he led me to believe that the interview would be essentially
sympathetic.
The Interview
The reasons for my complaint under Standard 4 of the code (Balance), are as
follows:
1. Edwards' sustained hostility
cannot be explained by incompetence, negligence or inexperience. He is a
veteran broadcaster. He knows how interviews should be conducted. He knew
exactly what he was doing. I am therefore bound to conclude that it was a
premeditated attack.
2. Edwards' list of questions was
prepared in advance. It became obvious during the interview that this
much-hyped broadcaster had not even read the sections of A City Possessed that
related to the points he raised. It seems reasonable to suppose that if he was
remotely interested in discussing the book he would have read it - or at least
substantial parts of it - first. His failure to do suggests that the sole
purpose of the interview was to do a hatchet job on me.
3. Edwards normally prepares for
his interviews by reading relevant reviews, commentaries and interviews in the
print media. If he had done his homework in my case, he would have known that
the claims he made about alleged flaws in my work were unfounded. If he had not
done his homework, he would not have known whether the were unfounded or not.
Either way, his failure to take this background material into account shows
that he never had any intention of conducting a fair and balanced interview.
4. Having failed to read, or even
read about, A City Possessed, Edwards appears to have depended on persons
hostile to the book to direct him to random sections of text. During the
interview, he took these sections out of context and misrepresented them to me
in a disjointed series of aggressive assertions. When I attempted to respond,
he talked over me. When I pointed out that he was wrong, he either ignored my
points or responded with scorn and derision.
5. At no stage did Edwards address
any of the issues of real importance raised by A City Possessed - issues that,
had he read any of the published reviews, commentaries and interviews, he could
have identified with ease. These include, among other things, questions
concerning the nature, causes and effects of sex abuse hysteria and false allegations,
the manner in which sex abuse allegations are investigated and prosecuted, and
the ways in which miscarriages of justice are recognised and corrected.
6. A detailed analysis of the
interview is attached [Appendix 3].
Dr Edwards' Political Agenda
Shortly after my appearance on Edwards, I learnt that Minister of Justice Phil
Goff had made negative comments about the creche case to Dr Edwards, and that
these comments had prejudiced Edwards' view of the case.
Evidence that Edwards was subject to political influence on the topic of his
interview with me may not fall strictly within the ambit of a BSA complaint.
However, when the manifestly unfair and unbalanced interview is considered in
the light of Edwards' role as paid media advisor to the Prime Minister and her
ministers (one of whom has taken a strong political stance against the findings
of my book), it adds weight to the widespread concern that, because of his
close connections with government, Edwards is not, and cannot be, an independent
and impartial broadcaster.
I look forward to your reply
Yours sincerely
Lynley Hood
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note
1
Appendix 1 shows the transcript
of the Edwards at Large programme,
but the copy detailed on the web does not (yet) include the line numbers
referred to by Lynley Hood in her letter of complaint.