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 under the accuracy standard about Dr Siouxsie Wiles’ statement ‘It's safe to have the [COVID-19 Pfizer] vaccine if you're pregnant’. The Authority found the statement was materially accurate. In any event, it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on Dr Siouxsie Wiles as an authoritative source.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A segment on The Project looking into ‘legitimate medical reasons for not getting the jab’ included the following comment from Dr Siouxsie Wiles MNZM, microbiologist and researcher:

For some people who are immunocompromised, who do have some forms of cancers, the vaccine might not be as protective as it is for everybody else. And that's why you know you should still get vaccinated. But it's also why everybody around you needs to be vaccinated too. It's safe to have the vaccine if you're pregnant, if you're breastfeeding, if you're trying to get pregnant, or if you've had the infection and recovered.

The complaint

[2]  Wendy Bright complained it was misleading to use the word ‘safe’:

• ‘It is my belief as part of a viewing audience that Dr Siouxie Wiles’ statement that it is "safe to have the vaccine while you are pregnant" is misleading by using the word “safe”’. 
• The New Zealand Data sheet for the Covid 19 Pfizer Vaccine (COMIRNATY) section 4.6 'Pregnancy' says ‘there is limited experience with the use of COMIRNATY in pregnant women. Administration of COMIRNATY in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and fetus.’ As ‘the word 'safe' is not included’, Dr Wiles’ statement is not accurate.
• ‘She does not pre empt her statement with the words “I think”, so therefore [it] cannot be interpreted as opinion. I also fail to see that this statement was delivered as commentary or analysis when the purpose of the programme overall was to inform with factual information of a scientific nature.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Discovery NZ Ltd (Discovery) responded the accuracy standard did not apply to Dr Wiles’ comments as they were commentary and analysis:

Dr Siouxsie Wiles is a trustworthy and reliable source of information on the topic discussed in the Broadcast that day.  As a respected scientist, The Project is entitled to rely on the information she provides. Her comments were clearly her personal opinion to which she is entitled and were presented as commentary and analysis, rather than as statements of fact.  Included in a Broadcast that canvassed the expert opinions of several scientists…reasonable viewers would have understood her comments to be commentary and analysis.

The standard

[4]  The purpose of the accuracy standard¹ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.² It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that any news, current affairs or factual programme is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts.’³ 

Our analysis

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

[6]  Our task is to weigh the value of the programme, in terms of the right to freedom of expression and the public interest in it, against the level of actual or potential harm caused. We may only intervene and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.

[7]  The value of the programme is high given it is disseminating health information relating to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The public interest in this health information means it is important to ensure accuracy.

[8]  In assessing whether the requirements of the accuracy standard were met, we must consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading, and if so, whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that all material statements of fact were accurate and that the programme as a whole did not mislead viewers.

[9]  We consider the authoritative nature of the comments from Dr Wiles, while presented as part of a segment with information from different experts, meant they amounted to statements of fact.

[10]  As we found previously found,⁴ it is not inaccurate to say the vaccine is safe for people who are pregnant or breastfeeding:

• Various health authorities in New Zealand and overseas state the vaccine is safe for pregnant and breastfeeding people,⁵ and recommend its use in those people.⁶
• Since the vaccine’s first approval, many pregnant or breastfeeding people have been vaccinated globally and there is no evidence to suggest greater safety risks for those people.⁷

[11]  In any event, Dr Wiles is an award-winning microbiologist, Associate Professor at Auckland University and heads the Bioluminescent Superbugs Lab.⁸ It was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on Dr Wiles as an authoritative source.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
9 February 2022   

Appendix

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

1  Wendy Bright’s complaint to Discovery – 12 October 2021

2  Discovery’s decision on the complaint – 29 November 2021

3  Bright’s referral to the Authority – 10 December 2021

4  Discovery’s confirmation of no further comments – 13 December 2021

¹ Standard 9 of the Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
³ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, CIV-2011-485-1110 at [98]
⁴ See Marshall and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-138
⁵ Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora “COVID-19 vaccine: Pregnancy and breastfeeding” (10 November 2021) <health.govt.nz>; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “COVID-19: Pregnancy or Breastfeeding” (8 November 2021) <cdc.gov>; Commonwealth of Australia Department of Health “Pregnancy, breastfeeding, and COVID-19 vaccines” (18 October 2021) <health.gov.au>; The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists “COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women and those planning pregnancy” (18 August 2021) <ranzcog.edu.au>
⁶ As above, and see Health Navigator New Zealand “COVID-19 and pregnancy” (11 November 2021) <healthnavigator.org.nz>; New Zealand College of Midwives | Te Kāreti o Ngā Kaiwhakawhānau Ki Aotearoa “Covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy” <midwife.org.nz>; National Institutes of Health “How COVID-19 Affects Pregnancy” <covid19.nih.gov>; UK Health Security Agency “COVID-19 vaccination: a guide on pregnancy and breastfeeding” (8 October 2021) Government Digital Services <www.gov.uk>; National Health Service “Pregnancy, breastfeeding, fertility and coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination” (11 November 2021) <www.nhs.uk>; World Health Organization “The Pfizer BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccine: What you need to know” (2 September 2021) <who.int>
⁷ See Health Navigator New Zealand “COVID-19 and pregnancy” (11 November 2021) <healthnavigator.org.nz>; New Zealand College of Midwives | Te Kāreti o Ngā Kaiwhakawhānau Ki Aotearoa “Covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy” <midwife.org.nz>; Shannon Hall “COVID vaccines safely protect pregnant people: the data are in” (12 January 2022) Nature <nature.com>; and Shimabukuro et al. “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons” (2021) 384 The New England Journal of Medicine 2273
⁸ See The University of Auckland ‘Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles’ <unidirectory.auckland.ac.nz> and Royal Society Te Apārangi ‘150 Women in 150 Words: Siouxsie Wiles’ <royalsociety.org.nz>