TVNZ's response to the complaints about Paul Henry's behaviour towards Stephanie Mills

Readers who made complaints to TVNZ about Paul Henry's on air treatment of Stephanie Mills have probably received their responses from TVNZ by now. To refresh your memory here's a link to Ms Giraffe's excellent complaint letter which she allowed us to publish as a guest post. (If you really really want to get your blood pressure up you can search this blog for "paul henry" and spend a significant amount of time getting riled up all over again.)

The full reply I've received from TVNZ is below the jump, and here are the crucial paragraphs:

The discussions referring to her in the subsequent Viewer Feedback segments of the programme were inappropriate and not relevant to the reason she appeared on Breakfast. In the circumstances, when Ms Mills was a guest appearing on the programme to discuss a serious issue, such personal comments about her appearance were inappropriate and unfair to her. Accordingly, the Committee considers Ms Mills was treated unfairly and upholds the complaint under this standard.

TVNZ is committed to maintaining broadcasting standards and views this sort of breach very seriously. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. As a result of this incident, a number of discussions have been held within the News & Current Affairs department to clarify TVNZ’s expectations around such matters. The Head of News & Current Affairs has called meetings with the Executive Producer and senior staff of Breakfast, and also with Mr Henry himself, to insist on the need for more care and discretion around editorial decisions about what the programme covers. In particular, Mr Henry has been told that on-air editorial decisions are not his to make and that he must adhere to the Executive Producer’s decisions in this regard.

TVNZ would like to apologise to you and your family for any offence caused by Mr Henry’s remarks. As discussed above, steps have been taken to ensure that broadcasting standards are adhered to.

Now this is a pretty good response in some ways (certainly in contrast to the way complaints about ALAC's awful Lisa Advert were handled). TVNZ upheld the complaint, they have taken some action directly with Paul Henry to address it, and they've apologised.

So what do you think dear readers? Here are ms poinsettia's thoughts to start your cogitative processes off:

But ... I can't help but feel that Henry has got away with it, since all the meetings have been behind the scenes and have not required him to front up publically and say "I was wrong and I am sorry about that". So TVNZ gets the publicity hit from the outrage, yet by not forcing Henry to apologise the show retains its appeal for those gender-norm-loving sexists who apparently see Henry's rudeness as an excellent form of resistance to, ugh, political correctness (since good manners are clearly excessive ocial control).

However, making a formal complaint may not work since I am only a complainant, not the judge. More importantly, Stephanie Mills may just want this story to die and referring it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority may reignite interest in the story and end up revictimising her. Further, I suspect any apology would be of the "I'm sorry if you were offended" variety (which really means "I apologise for your reaction, not my behaviour").

Big thanks to ms p for emailing me about this. She's summed up pretty well how I feel about it. What say the rest of you, readers and writers of The Hand Mirror?

The full letter from TVNZ, including a summary of what happened, my complaint, and their response, is what you'll get if you click on

Dear Julie Fairey
Further to the letter sent on 31 March I wish to advise that TVNZ’s Complaints Committee has completed its enquiry into your formal complaint about Breakfast shown on TV One on 25 March.

Your complaint has been considered with reference to Standard 6 Fairness of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Programme
Breakfast is a mixture of news, serious interviews, magazine segments, review and often frequent good-natured ribbing at the expense of almost anyone in the headlines or visiting the set. Participating guests and viewers alike appreciate this.

In particular the ‘shoot from the lip’ hyperbolic comments of the co-presenter, Paul Henry, are an accepted style and integral part of the daily morning fare for the programme’s growing audience.

On the morning of 25 March, Greenpeace spokesperson Stephanie Mills was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. Following the conclusion of the interview, included in a Viewer Feedback segment of the programme at 7.43am, Paul Henry read out emails received by Breakfast in response to Ms Mills’ appearance. Despite the protestations of his co-host, Alison Mau, saying ‘please don’t’ Mr Henry proceeds to read out various emails received by the programme. Mr Henry begins by stating ’this one quite simply just says “moustache.”’ He comments ‘everyone in my ear is saying don’t read it out.’ After Mr Henry reads out several more emails received from viewers, Ms Mau states “I’m having nothing to do with this, let’s move on to Dancing With The Stars shall we?” to which Mr Henry interrupts by repeatedly and emphatically referring to the fact that there was a woman on television with a moustache.

Later in the morning, at 8.40am, the programme returns to Viewer Feedback received throughout the programme. The banner on-screen identifies the segment as ‘Paul’s Hate Mail.’ Ms Mau proceeds to read out an email from a female viewer explaining common medical causes of female facial hair, the correspondence ends with the viewer’s comment that Mr Henry’s remarks had reduced her to tears. Mr Henry rolls his eyes and says ‘start a group.’ He then questions ‘how hard can it be to wax?’

Acknowledging that the studio had gone quiet, he concludes the discussion by stating ‘at the end of the day, we all, everyone at home was sitting there, we were sitting here and there was a lady with a moustache on. All I did was read out peoples’ comments, I mean it’s like the elephant in the room isn’t it?” Ms Mau agrees and comments, ‘that’s true, that’s all he did was read out comments from you the viewers.’ Mr Henry continues stating ‘You know, god, there’s a lady with a moustache, don’t mention it!’

Your Complaint
You state that
"I have been spurred to write by Henry's treatment of one of Breakfast's guests last week. After the interview with Greenpeace spokesperson Stephanie Mills, Henry proceeded to focus not on the issue at hand(compensation for nuclear testing victims) but something completely irrelevant, ie the appearance of Ms Mills.

"I found this behaviour unacceptable. Nothing Henry said was pushing the envelope, or standing up for free speech, or saying what no one else dared to. In fact his statements merely supported the ongoing judgement of people not on their merits, their words or their actions but on their appearance. That is far from good journalism. I would hope that Breakfast, and our state broadcaster, would aspire to a higher standard than Henry's actions last week (and his defence of them since) signal."

The Relevant Standard
Standard 6 Fairness
In the preparation and presentation of programmes, broadcasters are required to deal justly and fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.

Guidelines
6a Care should be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the extracts used are a true reflection, and not a distortion, of the original event or the overall views expressed.
6b Contributors and participants in any programme should be dealt with fairly and should, except as required in the public interest, be informed of the reason for their proposed contribution and participation and the role that is expected of them.
6c Programme makers should not obtain information or gather pictures through misrepresentation or deception, except as required in the public interest when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
6d Broadcasters should acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.
6e Broadcasters should take particular care when dealing with distressing situations, and with grief and bereavement. Discretion and sensitivity are expected.
6f Broadcasters should recognise the rights of individuals, and particularly children and young people, not to be exploited, humiliated or unnecessarily identified.
6g Broadcasters should avoid portraying persons in programmes in a manner that encourages denigration of, or discrimination against, sections of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, or occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political beliefs. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:
i) factual, or
ii) the expression of genuinely held opinion in news, current affairs or other factual programmes, or
iii) in the legitimate context of a dramatic, humorous or satirical work.
6h Broadcasters should avoid causing unwarranted distress to surviving family members by showing library or archival footage of bodies or human remains. This guideline is not intended to prevent the use of material which adds significantly to the understanding of an issue of public interest.

Ms Mills appeared on Breakfast to discuss the issue of compensation for the health
effects of nuclear testing. The discussions referring to her in the subsequent Viewer Feedback segments of the programme were inappropriate and not relevant to the reason she appeared on Breakfast. In the circumstances, when Ms Mills was a guest appearing on the programme to discuss a serious issue, such personal comments about her appearance were inappropriate and unfair to her. Accordingly, the Committee considers Ms Mills was treated unfairly and upholds the complaint under this standard.

TVNZ is committed to maintaining broadcasting standards and views this sort of breach very seriously. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. As a result of this incident, a number of discussions have been held within the News & Current Affairs department to clarify TVNZ’s expectations around such matters.
The Head of News & Current Affairs has called meetings with the Executive Producer and senior staff of Breakfast, and also with Mr Henry himself, to insist on the need for more care and discretion around editorial decisions about what the programme covers. In particular, Mr Henry has been told that on-air editorial decisions are not his to make and that he must adhere to the Executive Producer’s decisions in this regard.

TVNZ would like to apologise to you and your family for any offence caused by Mr Henry’s remarks. As discussed above, steps have been taken to ensure that broadcasting standards are adhered to.

Right to Refer to Broadcasting Standards Authority and Time Limit
In accordance with section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act you are hereby notified that it is your right, should you be dissatisfied with this decision, to refer the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, P O Box 9213, Wellington, as provided under section 8 of the Act, for the purpose of an investigation and review of the decision. You have 20 working days after receipt of this letter to exercise this right of referral.

Yours sincerely
Dianne Martin
Programme Standards Manager