N.Z.B.C's attitude on news and views

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33001, 22 August 1972, Page 16

N.Z.B.C's attitude on news and views

There was a common misunderstanding that the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation identified itself with the people or the viewpoints being reported or ventilated; but its job was simply to report or hold a mirror up to society so that it could examine itself—warts and all, Mr R. E. Coury, the public relations manager of the corporation, said yesterday.

The greatest misunderstanding and hasty criticism occurred in the public affairs side, covering both news and current affairs programmes, Mr Coury said to the Rotorua Rotary Club. Years ago it used to be fashionable to decry the organisation as being the mouthpiece of the Government. More recently the criticism was aimed at the exposure given to minority viewpoints, which had be-

come much more insistent and articulate during what was being called the era of the permissive society or the age of dissent.

Much of the criticism came in the name of democracy, Mr Coury said, but the hallmark of a truly democratic society was the proper freedom given to dissent to make itself heard and claim public consideration. While the majority must always have the right to make decisions and in effect to govern, it must allow coherent and significant minorities freedom to question these decisions.

Perhaps at times coverage might seem to have been wasted on some people or points of view, but he suggested that this was safer than the reverse position. On the balance of opposing views, Mr Coury said that sometimes people on one side of a controversy refused to comment or make themselves avaialble to take part in a programme. The producer must then decide whether the advocate of a single viewpoint should still be allowed his say because of his standing in the community or the validity of his ideas. In such cases, the current affairs officer in the programme, instead of being just a chairman, might take the part of a “devil’s advocate” and question the speaker searchingly to provide as much “balance” as possible. The interviewer did not take a personally hostile attitude, but must question on as sceptical as basis as possible—just as an opponent would do. Another complaint was that there was too much emphasis on war and other forms of violence, demonstrations by young people and generally unpleasant or uncomfortable matters. Somewhat to his own surprise, an examination of bulletins over several months had shown that “good news” and neutral variety far outweighed the bad—in frequency if not in impact. This was especially so in news about youth activities. Many unruly demonstrations had been shown, but they had been more than offset by reports and films of worthy activities—from bottle drives by scouts, to first-aid classes, sports events and charitable activities.

“Things are never as bad as they seem, even in the news,” Mr Coury said. The matters were also reported in the newspapers, but there one could select what one wished to read. On television and radio however, there were captive audiences; but a democrat should welcome having a faithful mirror; and, if the truth hurt, then at least he could consider what he could do to put matters right.