Sandra Paterson: Interviewers must keep their bias under wraps

It is interesting to watch how journalists sometimes react when they disagree with the person they are interviewing. This was clearly the case when Ian Sinclair, one of Close Up's most experienced reporters, was talking to visiting United States author Tammy Bruce this week.

Bruce was giving her views on political correctness and how people are increasingly reluctant to say what they think. She said she owned a gun and that people had a right to defend themselves and their property.

Sinclair did not roll his eyes, but he may as well have done. His attitude throughout the interview - through his body language, facial expressions and the questions he used - was disapproving and patronising. "I can hear a lot of New Zealanders saying, 'She doesn't know an awful lot about New Zealanders. How can she tell us how we should vote?' " Sinclair smirked.

Which they weren't, and she wasn't. Bruce openly distrusts all politicians and says a change of government alters very little in terms of the prevailing culture.

I don't own a gun and don't particularly want more of them around. And, like Sinclair, I disagree with some of Bruce's other opinions. But viewers are quite capable of making up their own minds about what someone is saying - they do not need cues from a journalist.

Once, as a TV reporter, I sat in a park interviewing a convicted paedophile. It was surreal listening to him talk cheerfully about how he considered sex between adults and children to be normal and good. Despite inwardly loathing everything he stood for, there was nothing to be gained by smirking or putting on a this-guy-is-a-dangerous-nutter expression. His views were out there for all to see and condemn.

After watching Close Up, I switched to 60 Minutes, where reporter Mark Scott was looking at the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in New Zealand. He interviewed a visiting sheik, Khalid Yasin, who was adamant that homosexuals and unchaste women should be put to death, and who explained carefully just how men should hit their "rebellious" wives. Throughout the interview Scott listened. He did not shuffle or convey disapproval and the interview was all the more powerful because of it.

Then came the astonishing interview with Muslim MP Ashraf Choudhary.

"Are you saying the Koran is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances should be stoned to death?" asked Scott.

"No, certainly what the Koran says is correct," said Choudhary.

"So you've got no dispute with that?"

"No dispute the word of Allah, I accept that."

"So stoning to death homosexuals in Islamic society is okay?"

"Well, I think it is okay but I don't think it is practised."

Choudhary also said he agreed with the Koran that people who have sex out of wedlock should be stoned, adding, "in those societies, not here".

The following day he said he was opposed to stoning and violence - something he had ample opportunity to clarify in the interview.

I feel a tad sorry for Choudhary, actually, having to walk a fine and very public line between the expectations of two different cultures.

What interested me more was how the media covered his first comments. Recall the reaction a year ago when Bishop Whakahuihui Vercoe said he believed homosexuality was unnatural and immoral and that one day society would find it unacceptable. It was all over the front page the next day in a storm of controversy.

A Herald editorial said it gave such prominence to the bishop's attitude, "because it is so far out of step with the mainstream today and it is surprising that one of the country's more liberal churches should appoint someone of such an outlook".

How did the print edition of the Herald report Choudhary's remarks - which were arguably even more out of step with the mainstream? Page three. Seven sentences.

How did TV3 news report it? Several stories down, after the first ad break.

The difference, clearly, lay in who was speaking. There is always going to be a sliding scale of newsworthiness depending on rank and file, and as head of the Anglican church Bishop Vercoe has more influence and speaks on behalf of more people than a backbench Muslim politician.

But I still think that as an MP and an influential public figure, Choudhary's views deserved far greater prominence and more immediate discussion.

It was also interesting that MP Chris Carter did not speak up for his gay brothers in Islamic nations and loudly condemn Choudhary's comments.

Imagine if it had been a National MP saying he approved of the way Islamic nations treated homosexuals.

Maybe Bruce was right when she said it was politically correct to criticise what conservative Christians say, but not members of "protected special interest groups" such as ethnic and religious minorities.

By the end of the week, however, my overriding feeling about it all was one of thankfulness that we live in a country where free speech is valued. At least for now. Let the Tammys and Ashrafs say what they will - and let those watching and listening be the judges of right and wrong.