BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters’ State of the Nation speech, which stated Peters had compared the previous Labour Government’s approach to co-governance to the Holocaust. The complainant considered this breached the accuracy standard on the basis Peters had referred to Nazi Germany and ‘growing social/racial differences as evident in Germany’ pre-World War II rather than to the Holocaust. The Authority found the broadcast was not misleading, noting the description that Peters had made a comparison to the Holocaust was not materially different to saying he had made a comparison to Nazi Germany. It also noted Peters did not refute the notion that he had made a comparison to the Holocaust when this was directly put to him afterwards, and further the report included footage of the relevant part of Peters’ speech allowing the audience to form their own impressions of his meaning.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  An item on Newshub Live at 6pm on 17 March 2024 reported on New Zealand First Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters’ State of the Nation speech, which he had delivered that day. The broadcast was introduced as follows:

Winston Peters has ramped up the rhetoric against the previous Government, comparing its approach to co-governance to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The Deputy Prime Minister making the comments in Palmerston North during his State of the Nation speech as New Zealand First leader.

[2]  The key part of the broadcast relevant to this complaint is as follows:

Reporter:    The State of the Nation speech was shaping up to be a Peters classic to an adoring crowd. 

[…]

Reporter:     But then he compared the last Labour Government's approach to co-governance to the Holocaust.

Peters:         I've seen that sort of philosophy before. I saw it in Nazi Germany, we all did. We've seen it elsewhere around the world in the horrors of history. But here right in our country and tolerated by people whose job was to keep the system honest, this happened. Where some people's DNA made them better than others.

Reporter:     Peters later doubled down [while speaking to media]. 

Reporter:     Is that appropriate? 

Peters:         Yes it is. Because that's what it's based on. It's based on racial preference, based on somebody being superior.

Reporter:     The Holocaust Centre of New Zealand, said Peters should know better. 

Holocaust Centre rep: It's offensive to the memory of those who were lost and, to the trauma that those who survived still, still bear.

Reporter:     How do you think that would make our Jewish community feel?

Peters:         Excuse me? Next question.

Reporter:     Try as he might, he couldn't dodge the question. 

Reporter:    How do you think that would make our Jewish community feel?

Peters:         Are you clairvoyant are you? Well, I think that they would understand entirely what I'm saying. I've seen the taste and the feint of what that looks like in other countries in other eras. That's what I said. I didn't say what that question said. Because words matter.

[3]  The reporter made two further statements that Peters had compared co-governance to the Holocaust:

Reporter:    It was a day of real differences, particularly when [Peters] compared co-governance to the Holocaust.

[…]

Reporter [in live cross with host]:  Well, Winston Peters actually went off script today when he made those comments. Media were sent a copy of his speech as he was making it, and absolutely nowhere in it did it contain any references to comparing Labour’s co-governance to the Holocaust.

The complaint

[4]  Stan Brandish complained the broadcast misrepresented Peters’ comparison between co-governance and Nazi Germany by claiming he had compared co-governance to the Holocaust ‘rather than to growing social/racial differences as evident in Germany’ pre-World War II. He further stated:

• The reference to the Holocaust was an exaggerated and provocative misquotation of what Peters actually said.
• ‘There was no reference to events during WWII at all.’
• Peters ‘deserves a retraction and apology for the deliberately derogatory, emotive, inflammatory reporting’.
• He did not consider any questions to Peters or subsequent interviews with him not shown in the broadcast (as referred to in the broadcaster’s response) were relevant to his complaint, which was focussed on the description in the particular news item: ‘Broadcast oratory should not contain references relying on off-broadcast interviews and/or comments.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) considered the complaint under the accuracy broadcasting standard. It did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• It did not consider the audience would have been materially misled by the references to the Holocaust, and was satisfied the references ‘would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the overall issue under discussion which focussed on the controversial comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister.’
• ‘The reference stemmed from the reporter’s specific question to Mr Peters that day: “You compared Labour’s approach to co-governance to the Holocaust, is that appropriate?” [The question was not included in the Broadcast.] Mr Peters replied “Yes” to this question and accordingly, the reference was included in the script for that Broadcast.’
• ‘The Broadcast also faithfully reported Mr Peters' explanation and rationale for his comments in which he likened co governance in New Zealand to Nazi Germany. The audience had the benefit of seeing the source material.’
• It noted Peters’ speech ‘attracted significant commentary and analysis across a wide range of media outlets and the story continued to develop in the days following the initial address.’
• By way of context, WBD advised:
  • ‘On Monday 18 March, Mr Peters agreed to and participated in a live studio interview with the AM presenter, Lloyd Burr and the pair discussed Mr Peters' State of the Nation Address. At several points in that interview, Mr Burr referred to the Holocaust and at no point in that interview did Mr Peters contradict or correct that reference. When asked directly “why did you bring the Holocaust into this?” Mr Peters replied, “because last year Waititi from the Māori Party said that Māori had superior DNA. The moment you say that you're heading down the pathway of separatism and apartheid and all the ugly business of racism and exclusivity.” In the Newshub 6pm bulletin that day, on 18 March, the AM clip was rebroadcast as part of a wider story about the Prime Minister calling on all MPs to maintain civility in our politics.’
  • ‘On Tuesday 19 March, the New Zealand First Party issued a press release¹ which outlined Mr Peters' comments from his State of the Nation Address and refuted allegations that he had referred to the Holocaust. This was faithfully reported by Newshub Live At 6pm that evening in the 19 March bulletin.’

Jurisdiction

Did the complaint sufficiently allege a breach of broadcasting standards?

[6]  In order to constitute a ‘formal complaint’ under the Broadcasting Act 1989, a complaint must ‘constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with section 4’. In other words, it must constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with one or more of the broadcasting standards.

[7]  While Brandish did not explicitly cite a particular broadcasting standard as being breached in his complaint to the broadcaster, a standard does not necessarily have to be raised explicitly if it can be reasonably implied into the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.² We are satisfied the language used in Brandish’s complaint to the broadcaster (that Peters was ‘misquoted’) can reasonably be interpreted as raising the accuracy standard, and that implying this standard is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint. This was also the approach taken by the broadcaster.

The standard

[8]  The purpose of the accuracy standard³ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁴ 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.

Our analysis

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

[10]  Our starting point in considering any broadcasting standards complaint is to recognise the important right to freedom of expression – which includes both the broadcaster’s right to present a broad range of material and stories, and the audience’s right to receive that content. It is our role to weigh the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where there is harm at a level that justifies placing a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.⁵

[11]  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.

[12]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁶

[13]  The complainant is concerned the broadcast misrepresented Peters’ statement in relation to co-governance by claiming he had compared co-governance to the Holocaust ‘rather than to growing social/racial differences as evident in Germany’ pre-World War II.

[14]  The broadcast made several statements to the effect that Peters had compared co-governance to the Holocaust:

• ‘Winston Peters has ramped up the rhetoric against the previous Government, comparing its approach to co-governance to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.’
• ‘But then [Peters] compared the last Labour Government's approach to co-governance to the Holocaust.’
• ‘It was a day of real differences, particularly when [Peters] compared co-governance to the Holocaust.’

[15]  We accept these statements were conveyed as statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applies.

[16]  Peters released a media statement⁷ two days after his State of the Nation speech, stating that he had not mentioned co-governance or the Holocaust, and that he had been referring to the Māori Party Co-Leader Rawiri Waititi’s previous comments about Māori having ‘superior genetics.’ In the statement, he noted his full quote was as follows:

It was not just ideological theory, it was race-based theory.  Where some people’s DNA made them, sadly, according to these people, and condoned by their cultural fellow travellers, their DNA made them somehow better than others. 

I’ve seen that sort of philosophy before, I saw it in Nazi Germany, we all did.  We have seen it elsewhere in the world in the horrors of history, but right here in our country tolerated by the very people whose job is to keep the system honest.

[17]  From this, there appears to also be conflicting viewpoints regarding the subject of Peters’ comments about Nazi Germany – whether it was comments made by Waititi or co-governance – however this is not the subject of the complaint and we have focused our assessment on the concerns that Peters made a comparison to the Holocaust.

[18]  While Peters did not directly refer to the Holocaust, we do not consider the description that Peters had made a comparison to the Holocaust was materially different to saying he had made a comparison to Nazi Germany. The Holocaust is often one of the first things to spring to mind when Nazi Germany is mentioned. Peters’ reference to Nazi Germany derives its impact from the Holocaust as the culmination of Nazi ideology and totalitarian politics based on racial hierarchy.

[19]  We further note WBD’s submission that the comparison was not refuted by Peters in response to the question by the reporter (partially posed off air) “You compared Labour’s approach to co-governance to the Holocaust, is that appropriate?” where he stated “Yes it is. Because that's what it's based on. It's based on racial preference, based on somebody being superior.” While the full question was not included in the broadcast, in circumstances where Peters did not refute the comparison in response to this direct question, it was reasonable for the broadcaster to assume that this was the comparison he intended to make. 

[20]  We also note WBD’s submission regarding the AM interview with Peters the following day, where several questions were posed to Peters about his comparison to the Holocaust, and Peters did not refute this notion at any point.⁸ 

[21]  In these circumstances, we do not consider the broadcast’s description of Peters’ comment was inaccurate or misleading.

[22]  In addition, the audience had the benefit of viewing footage of the relevant part of Peters’ speech, in which he only referred to ‘Nazi Germany’. The report also featured further comment from Peters in response to media questions attempting to clarify his meaning, including that he was referring to “racial preference, based on somebody being superior,” and “I think that [the Jewish community] would understand entirely what I'm saying. I've seen the taste and the feint of what that looks like in other countries in other eras. That's what I said. I didn't say what that question said. Because words matter.” Therefore, the audience was able to form their own impressions of Peters’ meaning.

[23]  Having found the programme was not misleading, it is not necessary to determine whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme.

[24]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
7 August 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Stan Brandish’s formal complaint to WBD with accompanying correspondence – 18 March 2024

2  WBD’s response to complaint – 3 May 2024

3  Brandish’s referral to Authority – 7 May 2024

4  WBD’s further comments – 13 May 2024

5  Brandish’s further comments – 14 May 2024

¹ New Zealand First “Press Release: Media Misrepresentation, Inconsistency, and Dripping Bias” (19 March 2024)
² Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
³ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁴ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 6.2
⁷ New Zealand First “Media Release: Media Misrepresentation, Inconsistency, and Dripping Bias” (19 March 2024)
⁸ “Winston Peters, Lloyd Burr clash in fiery AM interview” Newshub (online ed, 18 March 2024)