By: Kim Savage | Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:00 AM

 

The thought of politicians telling a TV network they can't air an episode of Coro Street because the plot line's too thick with politics seems a little ridiculous.

But it's not too far from the picture those on the left are painting of NZ On Air's decision to seek legal advice on its funding requirements. It's looking at whether it should require broadcasters not to screen programmes dealing with subject matter likely to become an election issue during the campaign period.

And it all stems from Bryan Bruce's child poverty doco, aired on TV3 just four days before last year's election. Documents show a board member with close links to National questioning the scheduling, and whether NZ On Air should have known about it.

Labour has since piped up on the issue, at best raising concerns about the agency being "spooked" into seeking advice on the matter, and at worst alleging National's political influence is distorting broadcasting in New Zealand.

The latter's a pretty big call, and it speaks of a country where TV is simply political propaganda for the masses. That's probably not the case.

Ironically, New Zealand on Air's quest here was to protect its reputation as a politically-neutral agency, but in doing so, it's only managed to stir the pot. Was its independence called into question when the doco aired? I'd be surprised. So whether or not there was a potential for viewers to be influenced by the show one way or another, few would have traced any of that back to New Zealand on Air.

So should New Zealand on Air go so far as to dictate when some funded shows can air? Perhaps - if the agency feels it must to protect its perceived neutrality. But then does that mean we'll miss out on programming out important issues during election campaigns, when the debate around them is at its peak?

I don't think Coronation Street fans need worry however - I reckon your show is safe from political interference for now.