BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

A Today FM news bulletin featured an item reporting on pro-trans demonstrations at an Auckland event where ‘anti-trans rights activist’ Posie Parker had been scheduled to speak. The complainant considered the item’s description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans rights activist’ rather than a ‘women’s rights campaigner’ was in breach of the fairness, balance, accuracy and discrimination and denigration broadcasting standards. The Authority found that, given Parker’s views, the description ‘anti-trans rights activist’ was not unfair given its literal accuracy. The balance standard did not apply as the item was a straightforward news report which did not ‘discuss’ the issue and, in any event, listeners were alerted to alternative viewpoints in the item. The discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards were not breached.

Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 4pm news bulletin on 25 March 2023 on Today FM reported:

Anti-trans rights activist Posie Parker was met with disgust at Auckland’s Albert Park this morning. Thousands of pro-trans demonstrators turned up half an hour early to rally against her ideals, which she labels as wanting to protect women’s rights. Counter‑protester Phoebe believes Parker needs to stop and think about what she’s saying: ‘Stop creating hate speech, there’s no place for that here. And to look internally as to why she feels the need to spread that.’ Meanwhile the activist has taken to Twitter, saying she feared for her life after she was forced out of the event by angry crowds.

[2]  Further background to Parker’s arrival in Aotearoa New Zealand can be found in our recent decision Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd.¹

The complaint

[3]  Natalie Absalom complained the broadcast breached the accuracy, discrimination and denigration, balance and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis Parker (also known as Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull) was described as an ‘anti-trans’ activist:

Accuracy

• ‘At no point was Ms Keen-Minshull described accurately as a Women’s Rights campaigner. It was almost like the media report was hoping to stir up hatred against Ms Keen-Minshull by ignoring the real reason she was in New Zealand- to attend two Let Women Speak [events] (what exactly is anti-trans about women and our right to speak?).’

Discrimination and denigration

• The way in which Parker was described was discriminatory to women. It ‘helped to stir up hatred which resulted in not only Ms Keen-Minshull being attacked but many other women at the hands of rageful men’ at Albert Park.

Balance

• The report was biased and unbalanced. MediaWorks mislabelled the event and its intent.
• If a women’s rights campaigner can be described as ‘anti-trans,’ trans rights activists should be described as ‘anti-women.’ The fact that they were not was unbalanced.

Fairness

• ‘Mediaworks are not entitled to lie about [Keen-Minshull] because she has a public profile. This is not fair.’

[4]  In Absalom’s original complaint to MediaWorks about this broadcast, she cited ‘all’ of MediaWorks’ radio stations as being of concern, ‘as they run the same bulletins.’ In responding to the complaint, MediaWorks noted ‘you cannot complain about a bulletin on all stations. However as you have provided a date and time, we have opted to consider your complaint in relation to the news item on Today FM on 25 March at 4pm, given the Today FM team produced the news for most stations.’

[5]  We consider the broadcaster’s approach was appropriate. Under the Broadcasting Act 1989, formal complaints must relate to a specific broadcast,² and the broadcaster considered the complaint in relation to the particular time and description specified. We therefore go on to consider the complaint referral in relation to the bulletin on 25 March at 4pm on Today FM.

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  MediaWorks did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Accuracy

• ‘A common and simple definition of a transgender person is anybody whose identity does not align with their sex at birth. The news item was referring to Posie Parker's campaign against transgender women, where she has gone on record as protesting access by transgender women to “women's spaces”. The implicit message in her rhetoric is that all transgender women using “women's spaces” are a danger to other women. For example, in a 2018 interview, she referred to the case of a transgender individual in a women's jail who sexually assaulted other inmates. Parker's stance, which negatively stereotypes all transgender women as danger to other women, is on its own, enough to correctly refer to her as an anti-trans activist in the Committee's view, despite being a self-described women's rights campaigner. We therefore find that the statement was material and accurate and no breach of this standard has occurred.’

Discrimination and denigration

• ‘The standard applies to broadcasts about sections of the community and does not apply to individuals. The Authority has consistently held that broadcast content must meet a high threshold of vitriol or such that it seriously negatively impacts the reputation of a class of people in order to contravene this standard. It is not the intention of the standard to limit a genuine expression of opinion.’
• ‘When considering if the news broadcast was denigrating or discriminatory against women, we find that it was not, because it did not say anything negative about women as a section of society.’
• It did not consider the complainant’s concern that the broadcast is linked to an ‘attack on women at the hands of rageful men’ as the complainant had not supplied any evidence of this.

Balance

• The concern under this standard was ‘that the item was slanted referring to Posie Parker as a Women’s Rights campaigner. The brief news story did in fact refer to the fact Posie Parker believes she is protecting women’s rights. Therefore we have not identified a breach of this standard.’

Fairness

• ‘[MediaWorks] has found that the broadcast was not unfair to Posie Parker, as she is a very experienced campaigner and activist, and expects and courts media attention, and nothing within the broadcast misrepresented her views, or the events of that day. It was not the intention of the news broadcast to stir up hatred, and instead it presented the main facts of the event.’

The standards

[7]  The fairness standard³ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁴ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

[8]  The balance standard⁵ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁶ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁷

[9]  We consider the fairness and balance standards are most relevant to the substance of the complaint, and have focused our consideration on these standards accordingly. We deal with the remaining standards briefly at paragraph [20].

Our analysis

[10]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[11]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁸

Fairness

[12]  It is well established that the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for a public figure used to being the subject of robust scrutiny and regular media coverage. It is also commonplace for public figures to be criticised without it giving rise to an expectation of participation in every broadcast.⁹

[13]  The complainant has submitted Parker was treated unfairly in that she was misrepresented as an ‘anti‑trans right activist’.

[14]  As part of our discussion in Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd concerning the same issue,¹⁰ we found the use of the descriptor ‘anti-trans’ for Parker was not unfair given its literal accuracy.¹¹ Provided it does not breach broadcasting standards, the right to freedom of expression means broadcasters are free to describe people however they consider appropriate.

[15]  We further note Parker is a prominent and controversial figure in gender ideology debates, outspoken in her views, and familiar with media attention.¹² We do not consider the broadcast in any way exceeded a level of treatment that could be expected of a public figure of Parker’s nature, nor did it leave listeners with an unfair impression of Parker.

Balance

[16]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.¹³

[17]  We do not consider this item amounted to a ‘discussion’ of a controversial issue of public importance. While Parker’s arrival in New Zealand as part of her ‘Let Women Speak’ tour, and the counter-demonstrations this ignited, likely do amount to ‘controversial issues of public importance,’¹⁴ they were not ‘discussed’ as part of this item. Rather, the item was a straightforward news report of approximately 40 seconds on the pro-trans demonstrations at Parker’s event in Albert Park. The Authority has previously found such reports do not constitute a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard.¹⁵ Accordingly, the standard does not apply.

[18]  In any event, the complainant’s concerns under this standard relate to bias against Parker through describing her as an ‘anti-trans rights activist,’ and misrepresenting the event she was speaking at and its intent. The standard is not directed at bias in and of itself,¹⁶ and as we note above, it was not inaccurate or unfair to describe Parker in such a way.

[19]  Further, we note the item did include the perspective of Parker, stating she labels her ideals as ‘wanting to protect women’s rights’ and ‘Meanwhile the activist has taken to Twitter, saying she feared for her life after she was forced out of the event by angry crowds.’ Listeners would have therefore appreciated there were alternative viewpoints on this issue.

Remaining standards

[20]  We did not consider the remaining standards were breached:

• Discrimination and Denigration:¹⁷ The discrimination and denigration standard does not apply to individuals, but to recognised ‘sections of the community’. The complainant is concerned the broadcast’s description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans rights activist’ was discriminatory to women, as it stirred up hatred towards women and resulted in violence at the event. Although women are a section of society for the purposes of the standard, we consider the statement was directed toward Parker as an individual rather than women generally. In any event, we note the importance of freedom of expression means a high level of condemnation, with an element of malice or nastiness, is usually necessary to find a breach of the standard.¹⁸ The statement did not carry any element of condemnation or malice.
• Accuracy:¹⁹ The complainant’s key concern is that the broadcast was inaccurate as it described Parker as an ‘anti-trans rights activist’ rather than a ‘women’s rights campaigner.’ As we have noted above, this was a literally accurate descriptor.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
26 July 2023    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Natalie Absalom’s formal complaint – 27 March 2023

2  MediaWorks’ response to the complaint – 1 May 2023

3  Absalom’s referral to the Authority – 1 May 2023

4  MediaWorks’ confirmation of no further comment – 22 May 2023

¹ Cross and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2023-035 at paras [1]–[6]
² Broadcasting Act 1989, s 6(1)(a); see also The BSA complaints process, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, at 22
³ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
⁵ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
⁷ Guideline 5.1
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁹ See Clough and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-053 at [19]
¹⁰ See Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035 at [30]
¹¹ See Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035 at [31]
¹² “Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull: Who is campaigner Posie Parker and why is she so controversial?” NZ Herald (online ed, 21 March 2023); “What are Posie Parker’s views and why are they so controversial?” RNZ (online ed, 24 March 2023)
¹³ Guideline 5.1
¹⁴ See Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035 at [25]
¹⁵ See Boom and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-059 at [12]
¹⁶ See Steele and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-104 at [17]
¹⁷ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ Guideline 4.2
¹⁹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand