BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld complaints that the action taken by Warner Bros. Discovery in response to a breach of the accuracy and fairness standards – during a Newshub Live at 6pm item on Immigration New Zealand’s decision to allow Posie Parker’s entry to New Zealand – was insufficient. The broadcaster upheld the complaints relating to a clip of Parker, which the reporter stated had been blurred because Parker was ‘using a hand signal linked to white supremacists’. The broadcaster conceded that blurring Parker’s hands was potentially misleading as it prevented audiences from making their own assessment of the footage, and potentially unfair as Parker’s intention was unclear. The broadcaster removed the video in the online version of the story and replaced it with a clip of Parker’s position on neo-Nazis, which the Authority found was sufficient and proportionate action in the circumstances. The Authority did not uphold the remainder of the complaints.

Not Upheld: Action Taken (Accuracy and Fairness), Accuracy, Fairness, Balance and Discrimination and Denigration.

Background¹

[1]  On 9 January 2023, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (also known as Posie Parker, a public figure and activist based in the United Kingdom) publicly announced her intention to travel to Aotearoa New Zealand as part of her ‘Let Women Speak’ tour. She said she would host public events in Auckland | Tāmaki Makaurau and Wellington | Te Whanganui-a-Tara on 25 and 26 March 2023 respectively, at which she would speak, and provide an opportunity for others to speak.

[2]  Prior to arriving in New Zealand, Parker hosted similar events in the United States of America and Australia. Previous events overseas related to the tour resulted in violence and arrests of both attendees and counter‑protesters (including in Melbourne on 18 March 2023).

[3]  The proposed New Zealand events raised concerns for some communities, resulting in various submissions, to Immigration New Zealand (INZ) / the Minister of Immigration, asking for the denial or revocation of any visa already granted to Parker. Members of the community also organised counter‑protests at the time and place of the New Zealand events.

[4]  On 21 March 2023, INZ considered Parker’s circumstances did not meet the statutory threshold required to ‘make her an excluded person and therefore ineligible for a visa or entry’. This was because the decision maker was not satisfied there was reason to believe, based on available evidence at the time, that Parker was likely to pose a threat or risk to security, public order, or the public interest. The Minister was provided with the relevant advice and information at this time, and declined to intervene on 22 March 2023. This information included advice from New Zealand Police | Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa the events would go ahead regardless of whether Parker entered New Zealand (based on events overseas) and that the events were unlikely to result in violence as counter‑protest organisers were encouraging no interaction with event attendees.

The broadcast

[5]  Newshub Live at 6pm on 22 March 2023 then reported on Immigration officials’ decision to not prohibit entry for Parker, and included responses from various politicians and activists. It was introduced by the newsreaders:

Mike McRoberts:   Immigration New Zealand has decided to allow the controversial anti-trans campaigner known as Posie Parker into New Zealand. They reviewed her case on safety grounds after her rally in Melbourne attracted neo-Nazis.

Samantha Hayes:  She'll hold events in Auckland and Wellington and counter‑protests are being planned, with Government MPs set to attend. Here's political reporter, Amelia Wade.

[6]  The item by Wade followed:

Wade:                      The self-identified TERF, AKA a radical transphobe, is coming to Aotearoa.

Footage of Parker: No woman has a penis.

Wade:                      Posie Parker has been granted entry.

Footage of Parker: No man has a vagina.

Wade:                      The Immigration Department has gone through all public information about Posie Parker, real name Kellie Keen. Like her Melbourne rally which masked neo-Nazis supported, and a woman storming the stage who was pulled off in a stranglehold.

Footage of Protester:           Trans rights now.

Wade:                      Parker's issued direct threats to the Prime Minister...

Online video of Parker:        I'll tell you what, Chris.

Wade:                      …using a hand signal linked to white supremacists, which we've chosen to blur.

Online video of Parker [with hand blurred]:          Revoke my visa at your peril.

Wade:                      But Immigration New Zealand concluded there is no reason to believe that she is, or likely to be, a threat or risk.

Shaneel Lal:           This is our turf, and we will not accept any TERFs on it.

Wade:                      Trans rights activist Shaneel Lal says they are genuinely fearful and is planning a counter‑protest.

Shaneel Lal:           This is the first time I feel afraid for my safety going to a protest.

Wade:                      Newshub's been told the chair of Labour's Rainbow Caucus will attend the counter‑protest and there are discussions underway about who else from the Government will also turn out to support the Rainbow community. In a statement, the Immigration Minister, Michael Wood, said this was a decision for officials. But he said he condemned her [Posie Parker’s] world views, calling them incorrect, vile and inflammatory, saying, quote, ‘I find many of her views repugnant and I'm concerned by the way in which she courts some of the most vile people and groups around, including white supremacists.’

Ricardo Menéndez March (Green Party Immigration Spokesperson):  We must remember that this isn’t someone who accidentally had Nazis showing up at her rally.

Grant Robertson:  …that her views are abhorrent.

Wade:                      And Posie Parker’s path to get here, now unblocked.

Summary of the complaints

[7]  Craig Ashton, Fern Hickson and Suzanne Levy (on behalf of Speak Up for Women (SUFW)) complained the item breached several broadcasting standards. The key points of complaint can be summarised as follows (with more detailed arguments outlined in our analysis of each standard, below):

• The broadcast was unfair, inaccurate and denigrated Parker by linking her to white supremacy through:
  
  (i)  stating the neo-Nazis at the Melbourne rally were there to support Parker
  (ii)  including statements from interviewees that Parker ‘courted’ white supremacists, and that it was not accidental that Nazis showed up at her rally
  (iii)  blurring a video of Parker’s hands, alongside the statement Parker was making a symbol linked to white supremacy.
• The broadcast was inaccurate, unfair and denigrated Parker by describing her as a ‘self-described TERF, AKA a radical transphobe’ and in its description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans campaigner’.
• The broadcast was unbalanced as it only contained interviews with those who were opposed to Parker, and was one-sided in its representation of the protesters in Melbourne.

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) upheld an aspect of the complaints under accuracy and fairness in relation to the blurring of Parker’s hand accompanied by the statement that she was making a sign associated with white supremacy. On these two points the broadcaster said:

• ‘We accept that in blurring the hand signal, the audience was denied the vision to decide for themselves if Ms Parker had made the gesture. This was potentially misleading and we have upheld this aspect of the complaint under Accuracy.’
• ‘Considering Ms Parker has publicly stated she does not support white supremacy, we acknowledge Ms Parker’s intention is not abundantly clear in making the hand signal shown in the Broadcast. Arguably this could be considered unfair to Ms Parker and on this basis, we have upheld the complaint under [the fairness] Standard.’

[9]  The broadcaster did not uphold the remainder of the complaints. Its reasons are explained in more detail as part of our analysis under each standard, from paragraph [23].

The relevant standards

[10]  The accuracy, fairness and balance standards are most relevant to the complainants’ concerns:

• The purpose of the accuracy standard² is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.
• The fairness standard⁴ states broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast. It protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes, ensuring they are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.⁵
• The balance standard⁶ states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage. It ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁷

[11]  The discrimination and denigration standard applies only to sections of the community, not to individuals. It therefore does not apply to the complainants’ concerns that Parker was ‘denigrated’ (appropriately dealt with under the fairness standard, as an issue of fairness to Parker as an individual), and we have not addressed it in our decision below.

Our analysis and findings

[12]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[13]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. Our role is to weigh up the right to freedom of expression (which includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of content and information and the audience’s right to receive it) against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the level of harm means placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁸

Action Taken – Accuracy and Fairness

[14]  Where the broadcaster has already upheld a complaint in the first instance, our role is to consider whether the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to remedy the breach.⁹

[15]  We first considered whether we agreed with WBD’s conclusion that there was a breach of the accuracy and fairness standards. WBD explained in its decision on the complaints:

The Newshub editorial team had the benefit of seeing the unedited footage of Ms Parker directly addressing Mr Hipkins in full. Ms Parker repeatedly made the hand signal throughout the duration of the unedited footage and the editorial decision was taken to only show that hand signal once in the Broadcast. The ‘OK hand gesture’ is widely known as a ‘dog whistle’ by white supremacy groups and has been recognised internationally as an underlying symbol of hate. The nature of this type of signal is that it is subtle and easily denied. It was accurate to report that she had made the gesture. It was also accurate to report that the hand signal is linked to white supremacists. The rise of white supremacy in New Zealand has been well-documented in recent years. In the interests of responsible journalism, the editorial decision was taken to blur the one instance shown of Ms Parker making the hand signal so as not to inflame rising tensions around her upcoming visit. We accept that in blurring the hand signal, the audience was denied the vision to decide for themselves if Ms Parker had made the gesture. This was potentially misleading and we have upheld this aspect of the complaint under Accuracy.

…

Considering Ms Parker has publicly stated she does not support white supremacy, we acknowledge Ms Parker’s intention is not abundantly clear in making the hand signal shown in the Broadcast. Arguably this could be considered unfair to Ms Parker and on this basis, we have upheld the complaint under this Standard.

[16]  We have viewed various versions of longer, unblurred clips of Parker’s video. The unblurred footage shows Parker playing with her zip and later her hair, during which it could be argued she made the ‘ok’ symbol multiple times (touching thumb to forefinger).

[17]  We acknowledge this symbol has, in some realms, reportedly been co-opted as a symbol of white supremacy.¹⁰ We also acknowledge the complainants’ comments that the gesture could just as easily have been inadvertent. As noted by the broadcaster, it is difficult to determine whether someone is intentionally making the gesture as ‘the nature of this type of signal is that it is subtle and easily denied’.

[18]  By broadcasting the clip with the blurring, and with a voice-over stating Parker was ‘using a symbol linked to white supremacy’, we agree it was potentially misleading as it drew a conclusion about the footage without allowing viewers the opportunity to assess it for themselves. We also accept it was potentially unfair to Parker on the basis it implied intention, and did not include her position or response.

Action taken

[19]  Turning to the sufficiency of the action taken by the broadcaster in response to the breach, we assessed the severity of the conduct, the extent of the actual or potential harm that may have arisen and whether the action taken appropriately remedied the alleged harm.¹¹ We took into account:

• The allegation Parker was making a gesture linked to white supremacy, or may support white supremacy, is a very serious one. In a previous decision the Authority found ‘the suggestion an individual is racist is one of the most serious allegations that could be made against an individual’s character and conduct’.¹²
• The item was pre-recorded, and the clip could have been presented or treated differently if the broadcaster was unsure of Parker’s intention in making the gesture. While broadcasters have editorial freedom to present content in the way they choose, and we acknowledge the broadcaster’s intention to not inflame rising tensions, broadcasters must still ensure content complies with broadcasting standards.
• In response to upholding this part of the complaints, WBD said Newshub had ‘updated its online reporting to incorporate Ms Parker’s position on white supremacy and we have removed the video with the hand signal blurred from www.newshub.co.nz which we consider sufficient action.’
• The edited online version of the broadcast now includes a written statement at the bottom of the article noting: ‘This online story has been edited to remove a reference to a gesture made by Parker in an online video’, and the video itself was replaced with an interview with Parker where she was asked why neo-Nazis had attended her Melbourne rally, to which she responded:¹³
  
  You would have to ask Nazis why they show up to a women's rights event. I'm pretty sure it's not to support women's rights… How am I going to prevent aggressive men from coming to my event? How on earth would I be able to prevent anyone from coming to a free speech event?
• During the course of this complaints process and the Authority’s deliberations, the broadcaster has also removed the video from two other online articles in which it appeared, as soon as those were brought to its attention by the Authority.

[20]  While we acknowledge the potential harm in the broadcast, we consider the actions taken by the broadcaster in upholding the complaints, removing the video of the blurred hand gesture (in the online version of the broadcast, as well as in other online articles), and in providing a platform for Parker to broadcast her own views on neo-Nazis, were sufficient and proportionate actions. We also note, with regard to breaches of the accuracy standard, broadcasters may correct them in such a manner as is reasonable (eg via broadcast or its website) taking into account:¹⁴

• The nature and impact of the error
• Whether the relevant topic is the subject of ongoing updates and developments in which the correction could appear
• The impact of any other media coverage on the likelihood of the audience being misled
• When the error is identified (and any impact of the passage of time on its newsworthiness).

[21]  In this case the broadcaster has corrected the misleading information on its website by removing it. We do not consider a follow-up broadcast of the unblurred footage (to allow audiences to make their own minds up) was reasonably necessary, and note that would also carry a risk of drawing further attention to the content and compounding the harm. Additionally, Newshub, as well as multiple other news outlets, have broadcast statements by Parker distancing herself from neo-Nazis and white supremacy, lessening the chance of audiences being misled.¹⁵

[22]  In these circumstances, we concluded no further action is reasonably necessary to address the fairness and accuracy breaches, and we do not uphold the complaints with respect to the action taken by the broadcaster.

Remaining standards / aspects of complaints

Accuracy and Fairness – elements not upheld by the broadcaster

The complaints

[23]  In addition to the concerns related to the blurring of Parker’s hand gesture, the complainants also alleged the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair for the following reasons:

• Description of Parker as an anti-trans activist and ‘self-described TERF AKA a radical transphobe’: Parker is not anti-trans, she is a women’s rights activist, and while she has described herself as a TERF, the acronym does not mean ‘radical transphobe’, and there is no evidence Parker describes herself as such. (Hickson, Ashton and SUFW)
• Statements Parker’s rally ‘attracted’ and was ‘supported’ by neo-Nazis:  The neo-Nazis gate-crashed the event, and Parker and others have condemned the neo-Nazis’ attendance at the rally, with Parker stating “I absolutely abhor anything to do with Nazis. It’s preposterous they even exist in 2023.” (Hickson and SUFW)
• Statements from interviewees: The opinions of Shaneel Lal, Minister Michael Wood, MP Ricardo Menéndez March, and Minister Grant Robertson (as quoted above at [6]), were not verified or questioned, and were instead broadcast as fact. (Hickson and SUFW) 

Broadcaster’s response

[24]  The broadcaster did not uphold the remainder of the complaints under accuracy or fairness:

• ‘The Broadcast reported that Ms Parker’s Melbourne rally attracted Neo-Nazis and it included footage of them making the Nazi salute. Regardless of whether Ms Parker had encouraged their support, the presence of these protestors bolstered the numbers in response to the counter‑protestors who were there in support of transgender rights. The [WBD Complaints Committee] maintains it was accurate to report the presence of Neo-Nazis at Ms Parker’s Melbourne event.’
• ‘The [WBD Complaints Committee] is also satisfied that using the term “anti-transgender activist” was warranted and did not mislead the audience. The Committee maintains there is sufficient published rhetoric by Ms Parker to support this claim.’
• ‘In her position as a public figure, [the WBD Complaints Committee] maintains that Ms Parker would expect to be the subject of robust media scrutiny.’

Our analysis and decision

[25]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead. The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.¹⁶

[26]  A consideration of what is ‘fair’ depends on the nature of the programme and the context, including the public significance of the broadcast. We take into account the nature of the individuals (for example, whether they were public figures familiar with the media, as opposed to ordinary persons with no media experience), and whether any critical comments were aimed at them in their professional or personal lives.¹⁷ It is well established the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for a public figure used to being the subject of robust scrutiny and regular media coverage.¹⁸

[27]  For the below reasons, we do not uphold the remainder of the complaints under accuracy or fairness. We have not found potential harm that justifies our intervention or restricting freedom of expression.

Description of Parker as an anti-trans activist and ‘self-described TERF, AKA a radical transphobe’

[28]  We have already decided the issue of describing Parker as a ‘TERF’, and an ‘anti-trans’ activist in a previous decision.¹⁹ In relation to that complaint the Authority found it was not unfair or inaccurate to describe Parker in those terms, based on of her rhetoric toward transgender people and issues, and particularly statements denying the very existence of transgender and gender-diverse people.²⁰

[29]  In this case, when taken in isolation, the reporter’s statement that Parker was a ‘self-described TERF, AKA a radical transphobe’ was arguably incorrect because it suggested: that the term TERF meant ‘radical transphobe’, rather than ‘trans exclusionary radical feminist’; and also that Parker had ‘self‑described’ herself as a ‘radical transphobe’.

[30]  However, context is crucial in assessing how the statement would have been interpreted and understood by the average viewer.²¹ We consider it was obvious from the context of the full item that ‘radical transphobe’ was intended to refer to Parker’s well-documented ‘anti-trans’ views which, as noted above, we have previously found is not an incorrect descriptor of Parker and her views. Accordingly, while it may have been preferable for the item to refer to ‘trans exclusionary radical feminist’ rather than layering an additional definition – on balance, the distinction between ‘transphobe’ and ‘anti-trans’ was not so material or significant as to warrant us upholding the complaints on this point.

Statements Parker’s rally ‘attracted’ and was ‘supported’ by neo-Nazis

[31]  In our view the broadcast was materially accurate in making these statements.

[32]  The broadcast did not state Parker ‘invited’ support from these groups, but rather that these groups attended and supported Parker. As we have previously found,²² their attendance, and performance of Nazi salutes, were demonstrated in footage which viewers were able to see first-hand.

[33]  Concerning whether the group ‘supported’ Parker, we have previously found it is not reasonable (as far as making ‘reasonable efforts’ to ensure accuracy), to expect a broadcaster to identify and understand the motivation for each person attending or participating in a protest.²³ We consider it was open for the reporter to describe the group in this manner, particularly as the neo-Nazis were clearly not counter‑protesters, and they carried large anti-trans signage, indicating support of, or alignment with, Parker’s anti-trans rhetoric.²⁴ Largely, their presence and actions at the Melbourne event were stated as fact, demonstrated in the accompanying footage for viewers to see for themselves. Additionally, the group’s presence at Parker’s Melbourne event was clearly considered relevant to INZ’s review of Parker’s entry into the country, and therefore carried public interest.

[34]  Finally, we also note the broadcaster updated their online reporting of the broadcast to include Parker’s position neo-Nazis were not welcome at her rally, and were not there to support her. While this was not in the original broadcast, it was a step taken by the broadcaster to further ensure accuracy in its coverage overall.

Statements from interviewees

[35]  The Immigration Minister’s statement Parker ‘courts some of the most vile people… including white supremacists’, and the statements from Lal, Robertson and Menéndez March, were their own opinions and would have been understood as such by the audience (we note SUFW described the statements as ‘opinions’). The accuracy standard does not apply to ‘analysis, comment or opinion’.²⁵

[36]  We also do not consider the interviewees’ comments exceeded robust scrutiny of a public figure or went beyond criticising Parker in a professional/public-facing (rather than personal) capacity. They did not give rise to any unfairness, in our view.

Balance

The complaints

[37]  The complainants alleged the broadcast breached the balance standard because:

• There was no balance to the multiple statements linking Parker to white supremacy, including the blurring of Parker’s hand gesture. (Ashton, Hickson and SUFW)
• The segment only included interviews with people who were opposed to Parker and her events; ‘neither [Parker] herself, nor any of her supporters was interviewed for the report.’ (Hickson and SUFW)
• The broadcast discussed Lal’s fears for safety at the Auckland protest, and portrayed the Melbourne protesters as ‘heroes’. It did not ‘report on the ‘violence, hateful speech (including incites to murder [Parker]) and actions this mob committed’ (three of whom were arrested, and a supporter of Parker’s was knocked unconscious). (Ashton, Hickson and SUFW)
• WBD claimed other news outlets provided balance / alternative views – however, the majority of the media has provided negative coverage of Parker. (SUFW)

Broadcaster’s response

[38]  The broadcaster did not agree the balance standard was breached because:

• ‘While the Broadcast canvassed a controversial issue of public importance, [the WBD Complaints Committee] do not agree that the issue was discussed in the manner intended by this broadcasting standard. Guideline 5.1 of the Balance standard outlines that a brief news report does not amount to a discussion. The Broadcast was a straightforward report of Immigration New Zealand’s decision to allow Ms Parker into New Zealand and various responses to that decision. Therefore, the requirement for Balance was not triggered and this standard does not apply.’
• ‘Even if we were to consider the standard applied, we are satisfied that appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented and the audience had the benefit of seeing footage of Ms Parker herself providing the audience with an insight into the views she holds.’
• Further, ‘Ms Parker's recent visit to Australia and New Zealand was widely reported by most media at the time and the Committee maintains that viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage by Newshub and by other media outlets.’

Our analysis

[39]  The Authority has previously found INZ’s decision to allow Parker entry to New Zealand to be a controversial issue of public importance²⁶, and in this broadcast we find the issue was discussed for the purpose of the balance standard. Accordingly, the balance standard applies.

[40]  The next question is whether the broadcaster adequately presented significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest. We consider this has occurred and accordingly find no breach of the balance standard, taking into account:

• The segment was introduced by noting Parker’s entry into New Zealand has been approved despite issues at previous events, and noted Parker was a controversial figure, alerting viewers to the existence of conflicting opinions on the issue.
• The introduction also included the statement that counter‑protests to Parker’s events were being organised, and that politicians were planning to attend. The requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated where the programme is signalled as approaching the topic from a particular perspective.²⁷ We consider the introduction signalled to viewers the broadcast was approaching the issue from the perspective of the counter‑protest organisers and from politicians intending to attend the counter‑protest.
• Both the Immigration Minister’s views (that Parker will be allowed in despite him considering her views ‘repugnant’), and Parker’s (that ‘revoking her visa would be at the peril of the Prime Minister’) were presented in the item.
• Parker’s views were also presented through excerpts of footage of her speaking at other events.
• The broader issue of Parker’s arrival in New Zealand was the subject of further controversy (and in turn media coverage). Viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of relevant alternative perspectives on the issue.²⁸

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

Susie Staley
Chair
9 August 2023    

Appendix

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

Craig Ashton

1  Craig Ashton’s formal complaint – 25 March 2023

2  WBD’s decision on the complaint – 26 April 2023

3  Ashton’s referral to the Authority – 25 April 2023

4  WBD confirming no further comment – 21 June 2023

Fern Hickson

5  Fern Hickson’s formal complaint – 23 March 2023

6  WBD’s decision on the complaint – 26 April 2023

7  Hickson’s referral to the Authority – 10 May 2023

8  WBD confirming no further comment – 21 June 2023

SUFW

9  SUFW’s formal complaint – 18 April 2023

10  WBD’s decision on the complaint – 17 May 2023

11  SUFW’s referral to the Authority (A and B) – 14 June 2023

12  WBD confirming no further comment – 21 June 2023

¹ Information for this section is adopted from the High Court’s judgment in Auckland Pride v Minister of Immigration [2023] NZHC 758
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁴ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
⁶ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁹ See, for example, Horowhenua District Council and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2018-105 at [19]
¹⁰ See ‘Ok hand symbol added to list of hate symbols’ BBC (online ed, 27 September 2023) ‘The finger-and-thumb gesture - which is also a popular emoji - is being used by some as a "sincere expression of white supremacy", according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). But the US anti-hate group says the "overwhelming usage" of the hand gesture today is still to show approval or that someone is OK. Therefore "particular care must be taken not to jump to conclusions about the intent behind someone who has used the gesture".’
¹¹ See for example Newton-Wade & Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2022-116 at [19]
¹² Prager and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-033 at [29]
¹³ Amelia Wade ‘Posie Parker: Counter-protests planned as anti-trans protester gets greenlight for NZ travel, Labour MP expected to attend’ Newshub (online ed, 22 March 2023 – unclear when edit was made)
¹⁴ Guideline 6.6
¹⁵ “Anti-trans activist rally organiser defends event” RNZ (online ed, 21 March 2023); “Posie Parker: Anti-trans rally attracted a range of far-right groups, researchers say” New Zealand Herald (online ed, 28 March 2023); Seni Lasona “Anti-transgender activist Posie Parker announces political party, calls protesters ‘terrorists’” Newshub (29 March 2023); Amelia Wade ‘Posie Parker: Counter-protests planned as anti-trans protester gets greenlight for NZ travel, Labour MP expected to attend’ Newshub (online ed, 22 March 2023)
¹⁶ Guideline 6.2
¹⁷ Guideline 8.1
¹⁸ Guideline 8.1
¹⁹ Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035
²⁰ Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035 at [31]
²¹ Henderson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-053 at [8]
²² See Cross and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2023-035 at [31]
²³ See Shields and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-046 at [16]
²⁴ See similar finding in the New Zealand Media Council’s decision Hamilton Hart v NZ Herald, NZMC 3402 (8 May 2023) at [31] where it states: No one gets to choose their supporters, so while it could have been written more clearly, it is not inaccurate to call them “supporters”.
²⁵ Guideline 6.1
²⁶ Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035 at [23]-[25]
²⁷ Guideline 5.4
²⁸ “Anti-transgender Activist on stoush around her entering NZ” RNZ (online ed, 24 March 2023; “Posie Parker says she feared for her life after Auckland rally chaos” Newshub (online ed, 25 March 2023); “Gender activist Posie Parker hits out at her treatment in New Zealand as Twitter row erupts” Newshub (online ed, 26 March 2023); “Posie Parker departs New Zealand; JK Rowling blasts protest as ‘repellent’” RNZ (online ed, 26 March 2023); Sophie Harris “Tomato juice thrower ‘ready to face consequences if necessary’ after Posie Parker incident” Stuff (26 March 2023); “Anti-trans activist Posie Parker says she will return to New Zealand” Stuff (1 April 2023)