Rights, wrongs and biases

Press, 1 May 1981, Page 11

Rights, wrongs and biases

Review

Ken Strongman

“Close-up” is .usually an excellent programme, but on Wednesday night it wasn’t. In one way, there is an excuse because its main item, the Springbok tour, is an important and emotive matter. In another way, there is no excuse because it is on just such matters that topical documentaries should be at their best.

The introduction was good, showing the sheer ugliness but forthright moral power of the demonstrations, the sheer single-minded, dogged, blinkered recalcitrance of the Rugby Union officials, and the sheer narrowness of the fence on which the Government is so painfully squatting. The various points of view were equally -well represented. There should be no tour because of the racism of South Africa, because it would be bad for the international reputation of New Zealand, and because it would be bad for other New Zealand sports. The tour should go ahead because rugby is just sport, because South Africa has improved and because the sporting contacts would help to break down racism. The two sides have their semiofficial organisations, H.A.R.T. and 5.P.1.R., which in turn have their stickers. So far, it was good, unbiased reporting. However, after this, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the tour, “Close-up” should be criticised for its bias.

Rugby players — mainly pro-tour — were shown boozing, and even toasting the

tour. The anti-tour factions were shown either as persons of sobriety and probity, or as somewhat tee-shirted and hairy. The police were shown talking and training. Surely, rugby players don’t drink all the time’they are not playing, and surely some of the anti-tour people and even members of the police services have the occasional snifter. Care should be taken to avoid these biases by association, particularly oh sensitive matters.

There is another ground for criticism of Wednesday’s programme. How much should television reflect and report events and how much should it influence them? To some extent the influencing of events is unavoidable. However, again it is something which should be guarded against. There were four points at issue. It was said: “The gulf between the Rugby Union and the protesters is widening.” Is it? Surely, this is just an impression, or just a possibility. It may or may not be a fact. After the “Close-up” statement it is more likely to become one. Later, a police official was asked: “You don’t rule out the idea of mob-rioting?” What could he answer? Of course he can’t rule it out, but he might not necessarily expect it. The question was asked for reasons of sensationalism.

In fact, “Close-up” emphasised the whole possibility of potential violence during the tour. Yes, we all know that there could be.

some, but the more often we are told that it is probable by influential sources such as documentary presenters, the more likely it will be. Much is known about self-fulfilling prophecies. Finally, the point was made that rugby grounds themselves could well be prime targets for protesters. Again, this may well be. However, the presenter then listed the various ways in which grounds could be

sabotaged. It sounded like a series of ideas or instructions that could be followed. Doubtless, this was not intentional, but it could have been suggestive. The final criticism of “Close-up” is that it was unbalanced. The last third concerned the plight of- the African elephant. This is important enough in its own right, but at first one thought one was seeing a row of retired front-row forwards.

The entire programme should have been about the tour, and more care should have been taken in its compilation.