Sky Open crossed a line for me, however, when the medals table appeared on screen. Where the name New Zealand should have been, Sky Open had inserted (rather crudely) Aotearoa. It seemed to me that for the presenter to use the name informally in her patter was one thing: irritating, as I say, but not something worth complaining about, especially since the Broadcasting Standards Authority has made it clear it approves the use of te reo in the media. But arbitrarily to substitute Aotearoa for New Zealand in the official medals table struck me as qualitatively different. At best, it was an act of conceit and arrogance; at worst, a deception and a manipulation.
I decided to do something I’d never done before: complain to the BSA. But the authority’s rules first required me to approach the broadcaster, so I sent the following email to Sky Open:
“Last night, Thursday August 1, Sky Open’s coverage of the Olympic Games displayed a medals table that listed New Zealand as Aotearoa.
“There is no such country as Aotearoa. Athletes from this country take part in the Games under the name New Zealand, not Aotearoa. They are selected by the New Zealand Olympic Committee, not the Aotearoa Olympic Committee, and they wear the letters NZL, not AOT.
“The medals table displayed last night was not the official one. It appeared to have been tampered with. The official list of participating countries makes no mention of Aotearoa and I would be interested to know whether the International Olympic Committee or the New Zealand Olympic Committee gave permission to Sky Open to use that name in place of the officially recognised one. I suspect not, in which case the medals table was altered without authorisation.
“Unless your response indicates a reversal of policy in relation to the misnaming of New Zealand, it is my intention to make a formal complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under Standard 6 of the Broadcasting Standards Codebook, which relates to accuracy. I am doing this because there could be no more fundamental point of accuracy than to name a country correctly. I await your response with interest.”
Sky Open duly replied (more than three weeks later, but within the 20 working days allowed under the rules). Their reply was as follows:
“The Sky Broadcasting Standards Committee reviewed the content in question and assessed it against the standards in which [sic] you complained.
“The Accuracy standard requires that: ‘Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs and factual content: is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and; does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).’
“As per the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), the use of te reo Māori in broadcasts is a matter of editorial discretion rather than an issue of broadcasting standards. The Authority noted that te reo Māori is an official language of New Zealand and that its use is protected and promoted by existing law.
“You may read the full press release of the BSA’s stance here: https://www.bsa.govt.nz/news/bsa-news/bsa-draws-a-line-under-complaints-about-te-reo
“With regard to the use of ‘Aotearoa’ on the medals table during the Olympics coverage, the word is widely accepted and understood to mean New Zealand, and is unlikely to mislead the audience. In this instance, the Committee determined its use to be an editorial decision and therefore treated as informal feedback rather than a formal complaint. [Clumsy wording: I think they meant my complaint was to be treated as informal feedback.]
“Our task is to assess the content against the Code of Broadcasting Standards. Taking the above factors into account, the Sky Broadcasting Standards Committee determined that the programme did not breach the Code, and your complaint was not upheld.
“Thank you for contacting us, we now consider this matter closed. Please note that you have the right to refer your complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority if you are not satisfied with our response.”
All of which was exactly as I expected. I then submitted my complaint to the BSA, with no greater expectation of success than I had with Sky Open.
After setting out the background circumstances, I wrote (and readers may note that I grovellingly tried to ingratiate myself with the BSA by using an upper-case A for authority, which as a journalist I wouldn’t normally bother to do):
“I have read the Authority’s statement of 9 March 2021 relating to the use of te reo Māori in which the Authority noted that Maori was an official language whose usage was protected under law and stated that its use was an editorial decision for broadcasters.
“My complaint is not about the general usage of te reo Maori, but specifically relates to the substitution of Aotearoa for New Zealand in Sky Open’s Olympic Games coverage. More specifically still, it concerns Sky Open’s use of Aotearoa in what was otherwise an official Games medals table shown on screen on the night of August 1 (and presumably on subsequent occasions, although I can’t confirm that). That table gave the appearance of having been altered, rather crudely, so that New Zealand was listed as Aotearoa.
“I accept Sky Open’s point that Aotearoa is widely understood to mean New Zealand. However it is a name that, at best, has limited official recognition and whose authenticity as a synonym for New Zealand is disputed by reputable scholars and historians.
“I don’t question the right of broadcasters to use Maori words and phrases in a general context, which I consider to fall under the general protection of free speech. While I found the Sky Open presenter’s constant use of Aotearoa in place of New Zealand irritating, I accept that it fell within the Authority’s guidelines. However I submit that Sky Open crossed a line when it displayed what purported to be an official medals table in which it arbitrarily substituted Aotearoa for the country name that is recognised by the International Olympic Committee and under which our athletes competed.
“I submit that it breached the accuracy standard for the reasons set out in my complaint to Sky Open. The name of a country is a matter of fact, not one of editorial discretion. Until such time as a change of name is constitutionally mandated by statute, it remains New Zealand. It follows that Sky Open cannot take refuge in the argument that the usage of Aotearoa was a legitimate editorial decision.
“I repeat that there could be no more fundamental point of accuracy than to name a country correctly, and I invite the Authority to rule accordingly.”
The BSA’s response was prompt (it came within two days) and again it was pretty much as I expected. Their email read as follows:
“Thank you for contacting us regarding your concerns about the use of ‘Aotearoa’ rather than ‘New Zealand’ in Sky Open’s coverage of the 2024 Olympic Games.
“Te reo Māori is an official language of New Zealand. The Authority has previously highlighted that the use of te reo Māori in broadcasts is a matter of the broadcaster’s editorial discretion and does not raise any issues of broadcasting standards (decision number 2020-135). You have suggested your complaint raises different considerations as it’s not the general use of te reo you are concerned about but:
■ an ‘inaccuracy’ in calling New Zealand ‘Aotearoa’ (given it has limited official recognition and given scholars/historians dispute it is a synonym for New Zealand)
■ the broadcaster’s tampering with the country name on what purported to be an official medals table, and use of a name that may not be officially recognised by the Olympic committee.
“However, noting:
■ the accuracy standard does not mandate the use of ‘official names’ or require absolute accuracy – it requires reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy on all material points of fact;
■ New Zealand viewers were unlikely to be misled by the use of Aotearoa; and
■ the standards regime does not regulate any relationship between the broadcasters and the Olympic committee (including any rules around the integrity of an ‘official medals table’)
we can see no reason to depart from the Authority’s previous decision (recognising the use of te reo as a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion).
“In matters outside of broadcasting standards, you can provide feedback to the broadcaster so they’re aware of your concerns. We note you have already done this.
“We hope this assists. If you do have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.”
So: a polite brush-off, just as I expected. The BSA seeks refuge in legalistic prevarications for which its own self-serving policies provide ample scope. Loosely translated, its response says the BSA is tired of people grizzling about the use of te reo and just wants them to bugger off.
“Thank you for contacting us, we now consider this matter closed. Please note that you have the right to refer your complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority if you are not satisfied with our response.”
All of which was exactly as I expected. I then submitted my complaint to the BSA, with no greater expectation of success than I had with Sky Open.
After setting out the background circumstances, I wrote (and readers may note that I grovellingly tried to ingratiate myself with the BSA by using an upper-case A for authority, which as a journalist I wouldn’t normally bother to do):
“I have read the Authority’s statement of 9 March 2021 relating to the use of te reo Māori in which the Authority noted that Maori was an official language whose usage was protected under law and stated that its use was an editorial decision for broadcasters.
“My complaint is not about the general usage of te reo Maori, but specifically relates to the substitution of Aotearoa for New Zealand in Sky Open’s Olympic Games coverage. More specifically still, it concerns Sky Open’s use of Aotearoa in what was otherwise an official Games medals table shown on screen on the night of August 1 (and presumably on subsequent occasions, although I can’t confirm that). That table gave the appearance of having been altered, rather crudely, so that New Zealand was listed as Aotearoa.
“I accept Sky Open’s point that Aotearoa is widely understood to mean New Zealand. However it is a name that, at best, has limited official recognition and whose authenticity as a synonym for New Zealand is disputed by reputable scholars and historians.
“I don’t question the right of broadcasters to use Maori words and phrases in a general context, which I consider to fall under the general protection of free speech. While I found the Sky Open presenter’s constant use of Aotearoa in place of New Zealand irritating, I accept that it fell within the Authority’s guidelines. However I submit that Sky Open crossed a line when it displayed what purported to be an official medals table in which it arbitrarily substituted Aotearoa for the country name that is recognised by the International Olympic Committee and under which our athletes competed.
“I submit that it breached the accuracy standard for the reasons set out in my complaint to Sky Open. The name of a country is a matter of fact, not one of editorial discretion. Until such time as a change of name is constitutionally mandated by statute, it remains New Zealand. It follows that Sky Open cannot take refuge in the argument that the usage of Aotearoa was a legitimate editorial decision.
“I repeat that there could be no more fundamental point of accuracy than to name a country correctly, and I invite the Authority to rule accordingly.”
The BSA’s response was prompt (it came within two days) and again it was pretty much as I expected. Their email read as follows:
“Thank you for contacting us regarding your concerns about the use of ‘Aotearoa’ rather than ‘New Zealand’ in Sky Open’s coverage of the 2024 Olympic Games.
“Te reo Māori is an official language of New Zealand. The Authority has previously highlighted that the use of te reo Māori in broadcasts is a matter of the broadcaster’s editorial discretion and does not raise any issues of broadcasting standards (decision number 2020-135). You have suggested your complaint raises different considerations as it’s not the general use of te reo you are concerned about but:
■ an ‘inaccuracy’ in calling New Zealand ‘Aotearoa’ (given it has limited official recognition and given scholars/historians dispute it is a synonym for New Zealand)
■ the broadcaster’s tampering with the country name on what purported to be an official medals table, and use of a name that may not be officially recognised by the Olympic committee.
“However, noting:
■ the accuracy standard does not mandate the use of ‘official names’ or require absolute accuracy – it requires reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy on all material points of fact;
■ New Zealand viewers were unlikely to be misled by the use of Aotearoa; and
■ the standards regime does not regulate any relationship between the broadcasters and the Olympic committee (including any rules around the integrity of an ‘official medals table’)
we can see no reason to depart from the Authority’s previous decision (recognising the use of te reo as a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion).
“In matters outside of broadcasting standards, you can provide feedback to the broadcaster so they’re aware of your concerns. We note you have already done this.
“We hope this assists. If you do have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.”
So: a polite brush-off, just as I expected. The BSA seeks refuge in legalistic prevarications for which its own self-serving policies provide ample scope. Loosely translated, its response says the BSA is tired of people grizzling about the use of te reo and just wants them to bugger off.
Incidentally, the email was anonymous, being signed simply “BSA”. Sky Open’s email was at least signed by a person, though I choose not to name her here because her identity isn’t relevant.
I was intrigued by the speed with which the BSA came back to me, so I asked whether my complaint had gone before a formal meeting of the authority or had been dealt with summarily, so to speak, on the basis of established policy. The BSA’s reply confirmed my assumption that the complaint didn’t go before the appointed members of the authority, explaining that this was in accordance with its policy not to accept complaints about the usage of te reo Maori. “However, the Authority will be advised of the complaint (and our response).”
All done and dusted, then. It all unfolded exactly as I foresaw. But just a couple of points:
The BSA sidestepped my point that The name of a country is a matter of fact, not one of editorial discretion. To officially list New Zealand as Aotearoa, particularly as it’s not the name recognised by the International Olympic Committee, is to step outside the general protection of “editorial discretion”. I therefore invited the BSA to find that the usage in this instance was inaccurate. Admittedly, breach of the accuracy standard wasn’t the ideal basis for a complaint, but it was the only one of the official broadcasting standards that seemed applicable. Predictably, the authority kicked for touch.
The BSA also used the justification (as did Sky Open) that Aotearoa was widely accepted as meaning New Zealand and therefore wasn’t likely to mislead anyone. I’m not sure that’s a valid defence either. If a TV newsreader referred to a certain former prime minister simply by the name “Jacinda”, for argument’s sake, everyone would know who that referred to, but nonetheless it wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) happen.
It’s worth noting that I twice emailed the New Zealand Olympic Committee, asking whether Sky Open had sought permission to substitute Aotearoa for New Zealand in the official medals table and whether the NZOC approved. No reply on either occasion; not even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. A deafening silence.
In my experience, sporting administrators tend to be fiercely, nigglingly fussy about compliance with rules and conditions surrounding the right to broadcast. I find it interesting that in this instance, the NZOC appeared to be content for Sky Open to take upon itself the right to use a name different from the one officially approved. What does that tell us?
To summarise, I made my complaint purely as a protest gesture, with no expectation of success. But I feel a certain perverse satisfaction in recording that events unfolded exactly as I thought they would.
Do I object to Aotearoa as a name for New Zealand? Not at all, as long as New Zealanders decide that’s what they want the country to be called. I accept there are good arguments for changing the name, just as there are compelling arguments for leaving it as it is. But it’s worth noting that I don’t hear the name being used by New Zealanders (Aotearoans?) in everyday conversation, which surely tells us something.
What I do object to, strenuously, is the name Aotearoa being imposed on us by an elitist ruling caste – and here I include the media and the BSA – that either isn’t interested in whether the populace at large endorses it, or is too scared to put it to the test in a referendum, which is the only fair and democratic way of resolving the issue.
