By James Murray

With the vapours of the New Zealand election fading from the sky and the dark, ridiculous clouds of the US election gathering on the horizon, it’s hard to know where to stand on pre-election programming.

Revelations today that NZ On Air are seeking legal advice on whether they can add a covenant to their funding rules “requiring broadcasters not to screen programmes likely to be an election issue" ahead of election day have understandably angered Bryan Bruce.

Bruce is the creator of Inside Child Poverty: A Special Report, a documentary screened before last year’s election which received complaints because of a perceived bias towards Labour and Green policies.

Tom Frewen's excellent work over at scoop.co.nz revealed the extent of the complaints to NZ On Air about bias (one, from "Stephen McElrea, who also happens to be John Key’s electorate chairman and the National Party’s northern region deputy chairman") and the panicked email exchanges that followed the airing of the programme.

In New Zealand we have relatively strict laws about the sort of election content one might see on television. They are largely to do with advertising and how these adverts are funded, but there are two parts to the advice on the elections.org website that are relevant.

1)      Electorate candidates cannot run negative advertising.

2)      The rules do not apply to broadcasters’ news, comment or current affairs programmes but broadcasters must ensure that such programmes do not appear to encourage voters to vote for or against particular parties or candidates.

These rules would appear to be eminently sensible. The sort of advertising witnessed in the US, where Mitt Romney was recently portrayed in a negative light because he spoke French, is mercifully absent from New Zealand during election time.

Aside from the humour advertising like this provides the less impressionable voter, the drab election advertising we get in New Zealand, perfectly evinced by the National Party’s advert last year (so boring that no one seems to have posted it on YouTube), is at least an attempt to allow people a reasonably informed decision. It’s incredibly stage-managed of course, and the National Party were guilty of avoiding real interviews with real life journalists in Stephen Joyce’s now-you-see-me-most-of-the-time-you-don’t style campaign, but at least John Key’s supporters weren’t forming Super PACs and accusing Phil Goff of being a pro-life, Chinese-speaking, overly rich puppet of Helen Clark.

Negative advertising is a blight on the US political system; the 2010 mid-terms saw a flurry of such campaigns that have been well documented by Richard Adams of The Guardian.

Nonetheless, they are a by-product of a society that enshrines freedom of speech via its constitution rather than gentleman’s agreement and it would be hard to imagine a controversy similar to the one Bruce is mired in occurring in the States.

NZ on Air is supposed to be independent from government so they are of course querulous about funding programmes that encourage people to vote for one party’s policies over another’s.

But Mr Bruce’s documentary did nothing of the kind. He repeatedly stated that this was not a partisan issue, he discussed and advocated policies held by several of the major parties and most importantly brought an under-discussed election issue to the forefront of people’s minds.

It was a well-made issue-based documentary and inevitably came down in favour of some policies over others, but this does not mean Bruce was shouting ‘Vote Labour!’ from the rooftops of TV3.

In fact if television news and current affairs cannot make issue-based documentaries in the lead up to an election, when does NZ On Air suppose is a better time?

I’m not suggesting that New Zealand wants to end up like America, but NZ On Air must recognise its importance in funding programming that would otherwise not be considered commercial enough to see the light of day. Documentary is a big part of that responsibility – and it’s vital that as a society we take part in a conversation about issues like child poverty.

Whether you agree with the central tenets of Bruce’s documentary or not, his work undeniably got people thinking. It is incredibly patronising to view the entire New Zealand voting public as being so feeble of mind that watching one considerately argued television programme might see them cast their vote in a last-minute, devil-may-care flourish.

Conversely, if Bruce managed to get a sizeable group of people to vote on the issue of child poverty rather than on who their family votes for or the only politician they have heard of then he will have inadvertently strengthened the democratic system.

---

There are two ongoing news stories that inform the above debate. Today, we reported a study that showed the poverty trap is a consequence of birth rather than the sort of opportunities offered to all by the state.

Parental income is a huge factor in the future earnings of a child. As long as this persists, any attempt to break the poverty cycle remains futile.

Researchers were quoted as saying wealthier parents were “better positioned to offer role-modelling, time and resources to help their children succeed”.

It is obviously possible for children from poorer backgrounds to succeed; the Prime Minister himself came from modest beginnings. But on the whole the obstacles to success are far greater when you come from poverty.

This is why it is essential for the Government to make sure New Zealand leads the way in Early Childhood Education, for these are the years when so much of a child’s educational future are decided.

Government’s boast of budget increases and retention of the free 20 hours, but a holistic approach, not dissimilar to that argued for by Bruce, is essential. It starts with a pair of decent shoes and being fed breakfast and ends with ensuring special education specialists are consistently highly trained, properly resourced and come in enough quantity to ensure that caseloads are not debilitating and children who have lower priority obstacles to learning are not ignored through necessity.

It’s an expensive investment – but a long term one that would pay off in the years to come with a more highly educated workforce, fewer young people who languish on benefits after missing the educational boat and a lower prison population.

---

The second story that relates to NZ On Air’s conundrum is to do with proposals by the Law Commission to set up an overall media regulatory body, rather than rely on the current split model of the Press Council and the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

This move has been in the pipeline for a while, with the Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage Chris Finlayson announcing a review into the Press Council last year. Since then the conduct of the media in the UK has become a huge story and even the Prime Minister erroneously accused New Zealand media of using News of the World tactics during the teapot tape saga.

One of the key problems with media regulation as it stands worldwide is regulation of the internet. Websites run by newspapers come under the governance of the Press Council, but sites like this one are not covered by the Broadcast Standards Authority nor are blogs such as Kiwiblog, Whale Oil or The Standard.

There is a gap in the market here and it has allowed more roguish elements of the online world to flaunt general journalism ethics without recourse. Pushing the boundaries is important but too often those who are hurt by pushing the boundaries have no mouthpiece through which to retaliate.

But it’s imperative any new one-size-fits-all regulator is not Government-appointed like the current BSA model, and of course NZ On Air. The model should be more akin to the Press Council, which is appointed by the industry and made up of lay-people and experienced journalists.

The punishments meted out by self-censure may need to be adapted for online media – but it is essential further sections of the media are not held to account by the Government.

Otherwise, do not be surprised to see issue based programming and writing subtly curtailed in the future.

The greater risk is not that people will be influenced to vote in one direction or another – but that people will vote for no reason at all.