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 a ThreeNews item reporting on Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations about Haitian immigrants eating domestic pets, and on Winston Peters having also previously ‘campaigned against the consumption of dog meat’ and ‘[sold] himself as the saviour of pets’. The complainant considered this item breached the accuracy standard because it depicted Peters’ concerns as equivalent to Trump’s unfounded claims, which was materially misleading. The Authority found the broadcast did not portray Peters’ claims in a misleading or inaccurate manner. Although Trump and Peters were cited as having made contentious comments and selling themselves as ‘saviours of pets’, the broadcast did not present evidence to suggest Peters’ claims were unfounded or that he was an object of ridicule. The broadcast clearly outlined Peters’ assertions and the context of those claims. It featured footage of Peters responding to media questions on the matter, allowing the audience to form their own impression of Peters’ claims.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  An item during the 13 September 2024 broadcast of ThreeNews reported that Donald Trump had ruled out a second presidential debate against Kamala Harris. The ThreeNews anchor introduced the segment as follows:

Donald Trump has ruled out another debate with Kamala Harris. Trump says it's because he clearly won Wednesday's debate and only losers ask for a rematch, a verdict at odds with most pundits and polls. And it turns out contentious claims about people eating dogs are nothing new; Winston Peters was at it years ago.

[2]  The item outlined that Trump faced backlash for his unfounded comment made during the debate that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio have been eating domestic pets:

ThreeNews reporter:            Though the campaign has tried to capitalise on Trump, the saviour of pets, the former president has been roundly ridiculed for his claims. The debate moderator fact checked him.

Debate moderator:               There have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.

                                                …

Reporter:                              Our foreign minister refusing to bound in.

Winston Peters:                    If the Americans or any other country tried to interfere with our democracy, I'd be the first to complain. And I'm not doing it with their democracy.

Reporter:                              But as it turns out, this is not Peters’ first dog show.

Reporter [to Peters]:             Have you ever made that assertion?

Peters:                                  I think I’ve given you the answer and you’re wasting my time.

[3]  The report went on to discuss how Winston Peters has also ‘campaigned against the consumption of dog meat’, ‘he too selling himself as the saviour of pets’. In 2000, Peters issued a press release titled ‘Winston to the Rescue of Man's Best Friend’, in which he proposed introducing a member's bill to ban dog exports. 

[4]  When questioned on this topic, Winston Peters was shown responding, ‘I do remember it very well because what was happening was an illegal practice happening out in South Auckland and I found it. The mainstream media, of course, didn't. As usual.’

[5]  In a voiceover, the ThreeNews reporter said:

In [the press release], [Peters] alleged he'd heard ‘disturbing reports from a number of countries about how dogs are savagely tortured by “butchers” before being killed. The press release went on to say, ‘Atrocities are carried out on the dogs by these sadists in order to release more adrenaline in the dogs’ bodies thereby creating a more potent and flavoured meat.’ ‘This abused flesh is highly valued as an aphrodisiac by these ghouls’, specifically mentioning Saint Bernards were being targeted by, quote, ‘Asian dog farmers’.

[6]  The reporter was then shown questioning Peters again:

Reporter [to Peters]:            You found evidence of dogs being- of Saint Bernards being exported for dog meat? To where?

Winston Peters:                   [Unintelligible] his lawyer threatened to sue me, and I say you go right ahead.

Reporter [voiceover]:           Peters maintained he had evidence.

Reporter [to Peters]:            Where were they being exported to, Mr Peters?

Peters:                                 To another country.

Reporter [voiceover]:           That is, of course, the definition of export.

The complaint

[7]  Arthur Jacobson complained the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. The complainant considered the broadcast depicted Winston Peters’ concerns about dog exports as equivalent to Donald Trump’s ‘seemingly distasteful election falsities’, which was materially misleading. Peters ‘wished to spare NZ dogs from being shipped to a painful and unnecessary death’ and ‘was putting forward real and valid concerns’.

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• The broadcast did not contain any material errors of fact and did not materially mislead the audience.
• The broadcast indicated that both Donald Trump and Winston Peters had positioned themselves as ‘saviours of pets’ and ‘called out immigrants for eating dog meat’. However, the politicians’ comments were contextualised. The item said Trump’s claims were fact-checked and refuted, whereas Peters had concerns about an illegal practice taking place in South Auckland. Excerpts of Peters’ press release helped contextualise his position.
• Peters’ position was sufficiently explained. He was questioned by a ThreeNews reporter and the broadcast showed Peters explaining that, in 2000, he was calling out illegal activity taking place in South Auckland.
• Viewers expect commentary and analysis from political reporters and correspondents, and the reporter’s analysis and commentary were consistent with this expectation.

The standard

[9]  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 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

[10]  We have watched 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.³

[12]  The complainant considered the broadcast equated Winston Peters’ comments to those of Donald Trump, thereby suggesting Peters’ concerns about dog meat consumption and exports were unfounded. While the broadcast specified Trump was ‘roundly ridiculed for his claims’ and ‘the debate moderator fact checked him’, Peters’ claims were addressed differently, with no evidence presented to suggest they were unfounded or that he was an object of ridicule.

[13]  The broadcast clearly established the circumstances of Peters’ assertions and explained his concerns at the time. It directly quoted sections of Peters’ press release, including that Peters heard ‘disturbing reports from a number of countries about how dogs are savagely tortured by “butchers” before being killed’.

[14]  The broadcast also featured footage of Peters responding to media questions on the matter. In one excerpt, Peters said, ‘I do remember it very well because what was happening was an illegal practice happening out in South Auckland and I found it. The mainstream media, of course, didn't. As usual.’ When asked where dogs were being exported to, Peters said, ‘To another country’. Having heard Peters’ address the subject, the audience was able to form their own impression of Peters’ claims.⁴

[15]  Trump and Peters were both cited as having made ‘contentious claims about people eating dogs’ and ‘selling [themselves] as the saviours of pets’. It was not materially misleading to make that comparison.

[16]  First, the title of the press release, ‘Winston to the Rescue of Man's Best Friend’, was depicted in the broadcast and supports the claim that Peters has portrayed himself as a ‘saviour of pets’.

[17]  Second, media coverage from the time indicates Peters’ claims were contentious.⁵ In one article, the then-Vice President of the Kennel Club was quoted as expressing doubt there was a trade in dogs because it would cost so much to buy a pedigree animal and send it overseas.⁶ In another article, the columnist criticised Peters and the suggestion specific dog breeds might be exported for consumption, claiming that dog meat is not a delicacy but, instead, ‘a tradition based on poverty not on gourmet preferences’.⁷ 

[18]  The broadcast therefore did not give viewers a wrong idea or misleading impression of Winston Peters’ past concerns about dog meat consumption and dog exports. Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
12 February 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Arthur Jacobson’s initial complaint – 16 September 2024

2  WBD’s decision on the complaint – 10 October 2024

3  Jacobson’s referral to the Authority – 13 October 2024

4  WBD’s confirmation of no further comment – 29 October 2024

¹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
² Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ For a similar finding, see Brandish and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2024-035 at [22]
⁵ See, for example, Kendrick and TV3 Network Services Ltd, Decision No. 2000-122, where a skirt satirising Peters’ claims was broadcast on free-to-air television
⁶ See, for example, Jason Collie “Dogs-for-tucker trade raises Peters' hackles” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 30 June 2000)
⁷ Mathew Loh “Saint Bernard chop suey ? – please, Winston” Scoop (online ed, 29 August 2000)