(2nd and final response - scroll down for the first )
Our ref 538764 (Complaint ground: 538766, 538989)
Contact Victor Lee
16 April 2021
Mr Alan William Preston
By email: alanwilliampreston@gmail.com
Dear Mr Preston
Your complaint against RNZ and Television New Zealand (TVNZ)
Thank you for your response to Victor Lee’s letter of 22 March 2021, regarding your complaint about TVNZ’s and RNZ's omissions to undertake in-depth discussions, investigations and reports on Julian Assange's case, and on the information that has been made available through Wikileaks.
I understand that your complaint to the Ombudsman had initially focused on TVNZ and RNZ responses to requests for official information. According to you, they have both indicated that ‘they did not have any documents relating to any decisions about whether (or not) to report on Julian Assange‘s case or on information released by Wikileaks’.
Mr Lee checked with you whether your complaint was actually about TVNZ and RNZ’s respective OIA responses, or whether you were complaining about TVNZ and RNZ generally not reporting on the Julian Assange case, and therefore should be reporting on it. You confirmed that your complaint was about the latter.
On that basis, Mr Lee explained two main issues pertaining to your complaint, these are - your complaints lacked personal interest and the Ombudsman not interfering in editorial independence, the detail of which are clearly set out in Mr Lee’s letter. Although you have commented on Mr Lee’s letter, you have not provided any further information that would change the conclusion that the Ombudsman would likely decline to investigate this complaint.1
Notwithstanding the above, I will respond to some of your points below.
Your comments
You say that you ‘take issue with [Mr Lee’s] assertion concluding that [your] interest is ‘no greater than that of the wider public’’. Although you have an issue with that assertion, Mr Lee is correct. He has explained that the Ombudsman may investigate complaints for which complainants have sufficient personal interest that is distinct from the interest the public generally might have in the proper discharge of administrative functions. In your case, on the basis of the available information your complaint does not appear to have sufficient personal interest (irrespective of the cause that you are championing), for which the Ombudsman would likely investigate.
1 This is pursuant to section 17(1)(a) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975.
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
You have also said:
By extension you are implying that ‘ordinary people’ should trust that media have universal access to information and that they will dutifully inform us while giving priority to the things that we need to know about - and that ordinary people have no reason to fear intimidation or reprisals that they might otherwise be subject to - if they were to make enquiries and find and release information about illegalities or breaches of international treaties that their - or the governments of other states are involved or implicated in
Mr Lee has not implied what you have stated above, and has not made any value judgements about ‘ordinary people’ trusting the media. He has merely explained what types of complaints the Ombudsman may consider, i.e. those with sufficient personal interest.
I also acknowledge your following points:
It seems suspiciously unintuitive that an independent professional media organisation would be paying so little attention to the Julian Assange case as the precedent it will set will effectively stop them from working on any in-depth investigations into illegalities or breaches of treaties our own or other states are involved in.
The comments you have raised relate to a politicised issue regarding Julian Assange. If the Ombudsman were to form an opinion on whether or not public media agencies should be reporting on this issue, and to what degree, the Ombudsman would in effect be advocating a position on the newsworthiness of Julian Assange’s circumstances.
I appreciate that the conclusion reached in this letter is not what you would have hoped. However, please be assured that your complaint has been carefully considered.
Accordingly, your complaint at this Office will now be closed.
Yours sincerely
Rachel Petterson
Manager
Page 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(First Response )
Our ref 538764 (Complaint ground: 538766, 538989)
Contact Victor Lee
22 March 2021
Mr Alan William Preston
By email: alanwilliampreston@gmail.com
Dear Mr Preston
Your complaint against RNZ and Television New Zealand (TVNZ)
I write on behalf of Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier.
I refer to your complaint about TVNZ’s and RNZ's omissions to undertake in-depth discussions, investigations and reports on Julian Assange's case, and on the information that has been made available through Wikileaks.
Your complaint
You have concerns that neither RNZ nor TVNZ have undertaken ‘any extensive discussion or investigation on Julian Assange’s imprisonment or on any of the evidence of breaches of the Geneva Convention and other International Human Rights law committed by US, UK and their allies in Iraq and Afghanistan’.
This concerns you because:
∙ You believe TVNZ’s and RNZ’s substantive reporting on this matter, ‘is absolutely pivotal in setting a standard / legal precedent that will limit the ability of our Fourth Estate to hold power to account, should be of great concern to New Zealanders’.
∙ ‘the reality is that the public of New Zealand are overwhelmingly oblivious to this issue and especially of its implications and are therefore unconcerned and in no way interested in expressing support for a political solution’.
∙ You also believe ‘our media are not doing their job - even to protect the fundamental rights of their own profession’.
From my understanding, you are essentially asking for the Ombudsman to require RNZ and TVNZ to undertake ‘in-depth reporting, investigation or discussion of this matter’.
Personal interest
Ombudsmen have authority to consider complaints about the administrative acts and decisions of government agencies, including TVNZ and RNZ. However, an Ombudsman may decline to investigate a complaint if it is considered that the complainant does not have sufficient personal interest over and above the general public.
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
Accordingly, where a complainant is not directly affected by the administrative action in question, the nature of the complainant’s personal interest in the matter becomes relevant. This is because the Ombudsman is unlikely to investigate a complaint where he considers the complainant has an insufficient personal interest in the matter.
In this regard, a complainant should have an interest that is distinct from the interest the public generally might have in the proper discharge of administrative functions. Thus, an interest in the preservation of a particular environment, an intellectual or emotional concern, the satisfaction of righting a wrong, an interest in upholding a principle, or a general sense of grievance, is not regarded as an interest that is greater than that of the public generally.
In this case, I acknowledge that you have an interest in this matter, given that you appear to be associated with www.aotearoa4assange.nz (as this is noted in your email signature). Notwithstanding this, it is not clear how RNZ’s and TVNZ’s omissions to undertake in-depth discussions, investigations and reports on Julian Assange's case, personally affects you beyond the wider interest of the general public. Without this specific personal interest, the Ombudsman would likely decline to investigate this complaint.1
Editorial independence
It is also worth noting, that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to dictate to state-owned media agencies about what they should be reporting on, and to what degree. This would in effect, interfere with a media agency’s ‘editorial independence’, for which it is the freedom of editors to make decisions without any interference from the owners of a media agency, or from outside sources.
For the Ombudsman to consider your complaint and to recommend the outcome you are seeking, would likely contravene RNZ’s Editorial Policy 2007, which states on page 7:
RNZ holds ultimate responsibility for determining methods and content of any commissioned programmes and is solely responsible for what it broadcasts.
Pages 9-10 state:
The Radio New Zealand Act guarantees the independence of the company. RNZ has authority to exercise complete editorial control over all of its programming. By law and in practice neither the Government nor Parliament can directly intervene, although accountability for the expenditure of public funds is sought through the parliamentary process.
Page 13 states:
Independence
This is central to our integrity and credibility. It demands that programme makers not be influenced by pressures from political, commercial or other sectional interests or by their own personal views or activities. There must be no external interference in the
1 This is pursuant to section 17(1)(a) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975.
Page 2
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata
presentation or content of programmes or any improper influence brought to bear internally. RNZ alone has the legal and editorial responsibility for what it broadcasts.
On the basis of the above, even if the Ombudsman were to accept that you had a personal interest, and were to consider your concerns further, it would be unlikely that he would be able to achieve the outcome you seek in this case.
Other avenues
If you have any other issues about RNZ or TVNZ breaching the Programme standards (the Standards), it is open to you make a complaint directly with RNZ or TVNZ about this. If you remain dissatisfied about these concerns, you may then take a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA).2
Alternatively, you may also wish to take the initiative to create your own programme ideas about Julian Assange's case. If so, it would be open to you to engage with TVNZ about the production of these ideas, as per its instructions on its website.
Having carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case, it appears that an Ombudsman investigation is unnecessary. However, if you wish to make any further comments, please respond by 5 April 2021. If I have not heard from you by that date, your complaint will be closed.
Yours sincerely
Victor Lee
Senior Investigator
2 The BSA is an independent statutory body that considers complaints about the breaches of the Standards.
Page 3