When TV3 chose to broadcast a documentary about poverty just four days before last year's general election, it must have known it was being controversial. Such heavily political documentaries are rare in New Zealand, and it's not surprising to find that there's been a backlash from those who feel the programme may have influenced voting behaviour. The question of whether this is a good or bad thing is now being debated thanks to Tom Frewen's uncovering of the behind the scenes story - see his item: NZ on Air Spooked by Political Interference. Frewen reveals that the state broadcasting funding agency NZ On Air was very displeased with TV3's timing and it's now investigating how it might prevent the political programmes it funds from being screened during elections.
The political response to this has been very strong, and is best covered in Claire Trevett's item NZ on Air to stop docos in election lead-up. The agency's moves are labeled as 'heavy-handed', 'worrying', and 'censorship'. Attention is also being focused on the fact that the state agency includes political appointees, such as John Key's electorate secretary, Stephen McElrea. Hence NZ On Air, which worried about its reputation for political impartiality being tarnished by its funding for the Inside Child Poverty programme by Bryan Bruce, is now ironically being accused of being National Party cronies.
The debate about preventing the media from broadcasting political items during an election campaign is an important one. In many ways it's a re-run of the same issues about freedom of speech, democracy discourse, and state regulation of politics that we saw during the fight over the Electoral Finance Act in 2007. Only this time around, the (generally leftwing) proponents of state intervention and regulation of political discourse appear to have swapped sides and are now arguing for a more lassez faire approach. Clare Curran, for example, sums up a sensible position on the issue in her statement that 'Surely it's a good thing that during an election campaign for there to be robust political discussion about issues' - see: RNZ's Film maker angered at NZOA pre-election move (http://bit.ly/yT5GNo). So rather than having less political programmes during the election, perhaps we actually need a lot more. This is a point well made in Tim Watkin's excellent blog post, NZ on Air gets it back-to-front on political docos.
In general, Curran and other critics of NZ On Air's intentions - such as Steven Price, The Standard, and Bomber Bradbury, are making very good and principled critiques of the proposals from NZ On Air. But you have to wonder if those same principled arguments would be made if the tables were turned, and TV3 had broadcast a documentary about, say, 'welfare dependency' a few days before the election. There can be little doubt that the Bryan Bruce poverty documentary - which should be seen as a welcome addition to electoral debate - was heavily political. This is a point well made in Karl du Fresne's most recent blog post on the matter.
Also worth reading are David Farrar's Defence of NZ On Air and John Pagani's call for the 'political cronies' in the agency to be sacked. For a humourous - but insightful - take on the topic, see Denis Welch's Loose talk.
