BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about comments made separately by two RNZ commentators to the effect that the UK Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn has ‘terrorist connections’. The complainant submitted the comments breached the balance and accuracy standards, on the basis it was wrong and offensive to suggest Mr Corbyn is a Marxist and supports terrorism, and Nine to Noon refuses to interview anyone sympathetic towards the UK Labour Party. The Authority found the comments were clearly distinguishable as comment, analysis and opinion, rather than statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. The Authority also found the items, in which the commentators gave their analysis of the likely and eventual outcome of the British election, did not amount to discussions of a controversial issue of public importance in New Zealand.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance

The broadcasts

[1]  In the days surrounding the British general election, RNZ broadcast two separate items on Nine to Noon featuring an RNZ UK correspondent, and a political commentator, who gave their views on the likely and eventual outcome of the election.

[2]  The first item was an interview by Kathryn Ryan with UK correspondent, Matthew Parris, on the eve of the British election. Mr Parris gave his views on the likely outcome of the election and commented in particular on the leadership chances of Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn with reference to public perception and popularity. In this context Mr Parris commented, referring to the Labour Party leadership and Mr Corbyn:

…any halfway decent Labour leader would be streets ahead now. But they’ve got stuck with someone who is seen as a hard-left, ideological Marxist who’s had a lot of sympathy for the IRA and Hezbollah and all that kind of thing, and the British public just aren’t ready for that kind of thing.

[3]  The second item was broadcast after the election. In this broadcast Ms Ryan interviewed two political commentators, including Matthew Hooton. At the beginning of the discussion Ms Ryan signalled they would start by talking about the British election result, ‘a few lessons to learn from it and how it was fought and won pretty comprehensively, and second also what the implications are for New Zealand’. Mr Hooton said he did not think there were many implications for New Zealand, firstly as we are not facing anything like the ‘existential’ challenge of Brexit, and secondly:

…nor do we have anyone in a senior political position in New Zealand like Jeremy Corbyn. Basically our politics is much more mainstream than what he was offering to the British people; his connections with terrorist groups – we don’t have people like that so I just think the situation was completely unique, really.

[4]  The two items were broadcast on 12 and 16 December 2019, on RNZ National. As part of our consideration of this complaint the members of the Authority have listened to recordings of both broadcasts, and we have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

 The complaint

[5]  Simon Boyce made two separate complaints to RNZ, that these comments breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. In summary, he considered it was wrong and offensive for commentators to suggest Mr Corbyn is a Marxist and supports terrorism. Mr Boyce also took issue with RNZ’s choice of commentators, saying Nine to Noon refuses to interview anyone even slightly sympathetic towards the UK Labour Party.

The relevant standards

[6]  The accuracy standard (Standard 9) states that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. The objective of this standard is to protect audiences from being significantly misinformed.¹

[7]  The balance standard (Standard 8) states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs and factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest. The objective of the balance standard is to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion (which is important to the operation of an open and democratic society).²

Our decision

[8]  The right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information, is the starting point in our consideration of complaints. Our task is to weigh the value of, and public interest in, the broadcast complained about, against the level of actual or potential harm that may be caused by the broadcast, with reference to the objectives of the standards described above. We may only interfere and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.

[9]  Looking first at the value of these items, we considered both were newsworthy and carried a level of public interest, by offering commentary on the outcome of the British election. In Mr Parris’s case he gave his views on the likely outcome prior to polling day, and Mr Hooton then offered his opinions on the implications for New Zealand of the results of the election (though he did not consider there to be any) and the factors contributing to the outcome.

[10]  The harm alleged in this case is first, inaccurate comments referring to Mr Corbyn as, effectively, someone who has ‘terrorist connections’, and second, RNZ’s choice of commentators generally who in the complainant’s view are largely right-wing.

[11]  For the reasons outlined below, we did not find actual or potential harm of the nature described in the complaint which outweighed the right to freedom of expression or warranted regulatory intervention.

Accuracy

The complaint

[12]  Mr Boyce in his complaint said that Mr Parris ‘is effectively saying that Corbyn is a Marxist terrorist. So under the Accuracy standard, where is the evidence that Corbyn is a terrorist.’ In his referral to the Authority he added:

It cannot be argued that these political discussions (and terrorism) are merely opinion, and not a matter for accuracy or balance. My main point… is that the context in both the U.K. and New Zealand is terrorism from the political right. As in the March attack in Christchurch. Because of that I would have thought that right-wing commentators might hesitate before making false claims about terrorist sympathies, and linking this to a Labour Party politician. To claim that the ‘Left’ supports terrorists is factually wrong and misleading.

[13]  Mr Boyce made similar submissions in relation to Mr Hooton’s comment in the later item.

The broadcaster’s response

[14]  In its decision on the complaint RNZ responded that:

• ‘Clearly [Mr Parris] is offering his opinion as to the perception the electorate had of Mr Corbyn. It was a statement of Mr Parris’s opinion and so is not covered by the accuracy standard.’
• ‘The same observation applies to Mr Hooton’s comments... The comments he made were clearly those of his opinion and are not covered by the accuracy standard. In both cases, even if the statements could be construed as statements of fact, even inaccurate facts, [they] did not affect the thrust of these items.’

Our analysis

[15]  The key issue is whether Mr Parris’s and Mr Hooton’s comments, identified in Mr Boyce’s complaints, were statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applied, or rather whether listeners would have understood them to be the commentators’ analysis, comment and opinion. If they were commentary and opinion, the accuracy standard does not apply.

[16]  The Codebook guidance on distinguishing fact from opinion notes that a fact is verifiable: something that can be proved right or wrong. An opinion, on the other hand, is contestable and others may hold a different view.³ The guidance also lists a number of factors that may be relevant in determining whether a statement is fact or opinion, including:

• the language used
• the language used in the rest of the item (were most of the other statements in the item opinions?)
• the type of programme and the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter (for example, a statement about a notoriously controversial subject could well be opinion)
• whether evidence or proof is provided (the audience is more likely to interpret a statement as fact if supporting evidence is given)
• whether the statement is attributed to someone.

[17]  Having regard to these factors as they apply in this case, we were satisfied that listeners were likely to take the comments complained about as commentary and analysis, rather than unqualified statements of fact. Therefore the accuracy standard did not apply. The factors that support this view are:

• The nature and purpose of the two segments, which was clearly to hear the views and analysis of the featured commentators, specifically in relation to the outcome of the British election and the factors contributing to that outcome.
• Mr Parris prefaced his comments by saying Mr Corbyn is ‘someone who is seen as a hard-left, ideological Marxist who’s had a lot of sympathy for the IRA and Hezbollah and all that kind of thing’. He also followed that by saying, ‘the British public just aren’t ready for that kind of thing’. This clearly positioned the comment as analysis and commentary summarising public opinion of Mr Corbyn.
• Mr Hooton did not similarly preface his comments, but it was nevertheless clear that he was offering his analysis of perceptions of Mr Corbyn and how those perceptions contributed to the British election outcome, given the way in which the discussion was framed by the programme host.
• There is an established audience expectation of these regularly-featured RNZ commentators, and of political commentary in general, such that listeners expect to hear their commentary and analysis and understand that they are giving their views.
• Both comments reflected British media commentary on Mr Corbyn’s election campaign, during which Mr Corbyn was labelled a ‘terrorist sympathiser’ by a Glasgow resident.⁴ One such article explained some of the background, noting that:⁵
• …the reverend’s terrorist sympathiser insult did not come out of nowhere. David Cameron, then serving as prime minister, denounced Corbyn and his colleagues in precisely the same terms when he opposed airstrikes in Syria in December 2015. And Boris Johnson accused Jeremy Corbyn of seeking to ‘legitimate the actions of terrorists’ in his speech after the 2017 Manchester bombing.

[18]  Accordingly we do not uphold the accuracy complaint.

Balance

The complaint

[19]  With respect to the balance standard, we understand Mr Boyce’s main concern to be the choice of commentators on Nine to Noon, whom he views as being, for the most part, right-wing. In this respect he said ‘there is never any balance on this programme’ and the broadcaster ‘has made no attempt to ever provide anyone slightly sympathetic to British Labour’.

The broadcaster’s response

[20]  RNZ found no breach of the balance standard, saying:

With respect to the balance standard, while the topic of the outcome of the British election was newsworthy, it was not a controversial issue of public importance to New Zealanders. Mr Hooton opened his comments by saying that ‘…the first thing is that there aren’t any implications for New Zealand in the sense that…’ which is the strongest indication that the topic is not elevated to one of a controversial issue of public importance in New Zealand.

Our analysis

[21]  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’.⁶

[22]  We understand from Mr Boyce’s complaint submissions that he is primarily concerned with RNZ’s choice of commentators generally. The selection of commentators and overseas correspondents is a matter of editorial discretion for the broadcaster, rather than raising an issue under the balance standard.

[23]  Nevertheless we considered whether the two segments complained about met the criteria described above, and therefore whether the balance standard was triggered.

[24]  It is clear that Nine to Noon is a news and current affairs programme for the purposes of the standard. However we reached the view that the comments relating to the outcome of the British election and Mr Corbyn did not amount to discussions of a controversial issue of public importance, meaning the balance standard did not apply.

[25]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have a ‘significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’.⁷ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.⁸

[26]  As the broadcaster noted in its response to the complaint, the predicted and eventual outcome of the British election was newsworthy and it may well be of interest to New Zealand audiences. However, that is not sufficient to trigger the standard, which is concerned with ensuring the New Zealand public can reach informed and reasoned opinions about controversial issues. The commentary from Mr Parris and Mr Hooton in relation to Mr Corbyn and terrorist groups is not something that has ‘excited conflicting opinion’ or been the subject of ‘ongoing debate’ in this country, nor did it have a ‘significant potential impact’ on New Zealanders.

[27]  As we have said in relation to accuracy, the clear purpose of both items was to hear the views and analysis of RNZ’s UK Correspondent and its political commentators regarding the British election. RNZ was not required to present alternative views either in support of the UK Labour Party or in response to the references to Mr Corbyn and terrorist groups – and listeners would not have expected that, given the clear nature and purpose of the items.

[28]  Overall these broadcasts did not cause actual or potential harm as envisaged by the balance standard. It would be unreasonable and unjustified to limit the broadcaster’s and the commentators’ right to freedom of expression in this case.

[29] Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

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

Judge Bill Hastings

Chair
26 May 2020

Appendix

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

1  Simon Boyce’s formal complaint about 12 December 2019 item (Matthew Parris) – 16 December 2019

2  Mr Boyce’s formal complaint about 16 December 2019 item (Matthew Hooton) – 16 December 2019

3  RNZ’s decision on both complaints – 31 January 2020

4  Mr Boyce’s referral to the Authority of both complaints – 31 January 2020

5  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 1 April 2020

¹ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
² Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
³ Guidance: Accuracy – Distinguishing Fact and Analysis, Comment or Opinion, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 62
⁴ For example, ‘“Why are you running away Jeremy?” Moment Corbyn is brutally heckled in front of cameras’ (Express.co.uk, 13 November 2019); Calling Corbyn a ‘terrorist sympathiser’ is just a way to prevent awkward questions (The Guardian, 20 November 2019)
⁵ Calling Corbyn a ‘terrorist sympathiser’ is just a way to prevent awkward questions (The Guardian, 20 November 2019)
⁶ Guideline 8a
⁷ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁸ As above