Criticism of report on TV plans

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33064, 3 November 1972, Page 10

Criticism of report on TV plans

Netr Zealand Press A««®CilU»on

WELLINGTON, November 2

Because of the autonomy of companies within the Independent Newspapers, Ltd, group-y-a shareholder in the Independent Television Corporation—it was possible for its newspapers to provide different angles and coverage of news events, said the managing director (Mr J. A. Burnet) today.

Mr Burnet was being cross-examined about reports in the “Dominion” newspaper by Mr R. B. Cooke, Q.C., counsel for the Broadcasting Corporation, at the hearing of applications for a warrant for the second television channel.

The hearing is before the Broadcasting Authority. The applicants are I.T.C. and the N.Z.B.C.

Mr Burnet said his company regretted the tendency of national advertising to go to television rather than the newspapers. This was one of the reasons Independent Newspapers had invested in I.T.C. A second channel would take advertising revenue from the N.Z.B.C. and the newspapers but, he said, he could make no assessment of how much advertising these media would lose. DIFFERENCE NOTED

There was a significant difference in the presentation, content, and handling of news between the two daily Wellington newspapers in the group, the “Dominion” and the “Evening Post,” said Mr Burnet.

“The practical situation is that one company has a monopoly of newspapers in the Wellington area,” Mr Cooke said. “Yes, but if we didn’t do our job properly, someone else would come in and take over,” Mr Burnet said. Mr Cooke then asked Mr Burnet about the impartiality of the news coverage in the “Dominion.” He said that after the N.Z.B.C. and I.T.C. had filed their applications with the Broadcasting Authority, newspapers in August published “broad summaries” of what each applicant proposed as far as the channels’ being commercial or non-commer-cial and their hours of transmission. WITNESS “BURIED” Mr Cooke said the “Dominion” report of the first day of the hearing in October

'had the headline, “Proposals jeut second channel hours in half.” But the report of the In.Z.B.C.’s first witness. Mr David Attenborough, the director of programmes for 8.8. C. television, was buried deep in the story and was “given a couple of paragraphs at the end.” Mr Cooke asked Mr Burj net why the newspaper had drawn attention to the N.Z.B.C. hours when it had printed this information before. Mr Burnet said the report was fair and true and reported the essential, important item at the time. “It is right that the ‘Dominion’ billboard that day read ‘N.Z.B.C. slashes TV — two hours’?” Mr Cooke asked. “Our editorial people used their discretion to present a fair and factual presentation of the previous day’s hearing,” said Mr Burnet. OTHER NEWSPAPERS Mr Cooke then compared the “Dominion” report with those in “The Press” and the “New Zealand Herald.” He said “The Press” gave Mr Attenborough extensive coverage, and the “Herald” gave him reasonable coverage. The “Dominion” coverage was “grossly unfair.” he said. Mr Burnet said it was a question of what was most vital and important for the public to know, the hours of transmission of the N.Z.B.C. or the visit by Mr Attenborough. There was no intention of bias in the “Dominion” report. “Do the ‘Herald’ or ‘Press’ companies have any interest in 1.T.C.?” Mr Cooke asked. Mr Burnet: No, not at all. He said he believed that the “Herald” had been approached about becoming a shareholder. TWO EXHIBITS After the lunch adjournment, Mr Cooke submitted two editions of the “Evening Post” as exhibits. One was the issue of October 10 which, he said, had no report on Mr Attenborough. The first substantial report

| of Mr Attenborough, he said, was in his second exhibit, the October 11 edition of the “Evening Post.” Later in the day Mr I. L. McKay, counsel for 1.T.C., submitted the original report of the N.Z.B.C.’s proposals, printed in the “Herald” of August 8. Mr McKay said the “Herald” report highlighted the same aspect of the proposal as the “Dominion” report Mr Cooke said Mr McKay was misunderstanding the point. This was not only the highlighting of the N.Z.B.C proposal in its story and bill board, but the “treatment” given to Mr Attenborough s evidence.