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 1 News item on Tross Publishing, which it reported had been ‘accused of publishing books that are anti-Māori, inaccurate and harmful’ and discussed the use of its books in schools. While the complainant was concerned the broadcast was ‘anti-white’ and ‘anti-immigrant,’ the Authority found it did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against ‘white’ people, and that immigrants are not a recognised section of the community for the purposes of the standard. It also found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view in the item, the broadcast did not breach the accuracy standard, and Tross Publishing was treated fairly in the broadcast.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1 News on 12 December 2021 discussed the use of books by publisher Tross Publishing in schools. The item was a follow-up to a story run on 4 December 2021 which reported books by Tross Publishing had been described as ‘anti-Māori, hateful and untrue,’ and discussed whether mainstream bookshops should be stocking them.

[2]  The host introduced the item of 12 December as follows:

A Wellington company accused of publishing books that are anti-Māori, inaccurate and harmful, has been going door-to-door, promoting its work at high schools. Tross Publishing has a collection of books that claim Māori come from a dysfunctional, violent and Stone Age culture. But one school has found a use for them - to teach students about misinformation.

[3]  The reporter of the story noted that some of the books describe Māori as ‘dysfunctional and entitled’ and that they have differing accounts of some historical events:

Many books by Tross Publishing refer to historical events like the 1881 Crown invasion of Parihaka. This one says there were no casualties and just a single injury after a child's foot was stood on. It forgets to mention that women were raped, houses were destroyed and people were forcibly evicted from their homes.

[4] As part of the story, the reporter spoke to Glenys Bichan (school librarian and member of the School Library Association of New Zealand Aotearoa), Hemopereki Simon (Kaupapa Māori Researcher) and John James Carberry (Te Tiriti o Waitangi Educator) about their views on books by Tross Publishing being in schools.

[5]  Bichan described books by Tross Publishing as ‘disturbing but surprisingly useful:’

These are great examples of books that are written emotively, written with an agenda. Some of the sources that are used are really old and therefore not challenged, and that's why we have a couple of these texts in our schools because we need to nurture our students to understand the minefield of misinformation.

[6]  Simon had a different view, stating:

When you pick these publications up, they can be traumatizing. As to whether or not it's appropriate in schools - absolutely not.

[7]  Carberry noted that Māori can internalise the messages contained in such publications, and stated:

Hopefully, educators will see it for what it is, which is opinion pieces, and it belongs within that category.

[8]  The reporter also referred to a statement made by Tross Publishing in relation to the issue discussed:

In a statement, Tross Publishing told 1 News all the accusations are false, that its books are based on historical fact without revisionist or other agenda, and are heavily referenced. It also said it resented our continuing attacks on free speech.

The complaint

[9]  Rod Kane complained that this broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards, stating:

• ‘The programme attacked Tross Publishing for publishing what TVNZ called “anti M[ā]ori, inaccurate and harmful” [content]. I have read these books and they are nothing of the kind. They are written by historians, with references, with no axe to grind except for the truth and history as it happened to be put out there, something this govt does not want.’
• ‘The reporter described the books sold by Tross [P]ublishing as “misinformation” and hurtful to M[ā]ori, and that somehow it was wrong to suggest that pre-European [Mā]ori were “dysfunctional and stone age.”’
• ‘The programme attempted to show the publishers in a very bad light and while having woke supporting academics to further the claim, there was absolutely nothing from the other side, no historians like John Robinson or Bruce Moon to back up the correct historical information.’
• The broadcast was ‘completely anti-white, anti-immigrants even though this country has no real M[ā]ori left, we are all the product of immigration.’

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint on the following grounds:

Discrimination and Denigration

• As Tross Publishing is not itself a recognised ‘section of the community’ in accordance with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993 (as required by the standard), the standard does not apply.

Balance

• TVNZ agreed that the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, as is required for the standard to apply. It was satisfied that the programme included a range of significant points of view, including those from Glenys Bichan, Hemopereki Simon, John James Carberry and Tross Publishing.
• It noted ‘the Standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts, not exhaustive ones, to include significant points of view about controversial issues of public importance. Clearly, Tross Publishing’s point of view was highly significant to the story and the reporter made considerable efforts to obtain it, for both the 4 and 12 December stories.’
• It also noted the balance standard allows for balance to be achieved in other coverage during the period of current interest, and that the 4 December story ‘also contained a range of significant points of view and, like this one, included comments from Tross Publishing.’

Accuracy

• TVNZ considered the complainant had not made any allegation that a material point of fact was inaccurate in the broadcast. In any event, it was satisfied that the programme was ‘accurate in material point of fact and that statements of analysis, comment and opinion (to which the Accuracy Standard does not apply) were clearly distinguishable.’

Fairness

• ‘Given the nature of the story, which we agree was critical of Tross Publishing, it was clearly necessary that Tross Publishing was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the Programme. … 1 News provided Tross Publishing with ample opportunity to comment both for this and the earlier 4 December story.’
• ‘The reporter had previously contacted the company on several occasions for the 4 December story, outlining the focus of the story and the specific criticisms of the Tross Publishing books that had been made. Tross Publishing refused to engage meaningfully with the reporter. Nevertheless, to the extent the reporter was able to obtain the company’s point of view through other avenues, it was included in the story.’
• ‘The 12 December story also required the reporter to seek comment from Tross Publishing, which she did, well before the story was broadcast. Tross Publishing provided a response to the reporter the same day, including a statement that the reporter conveyed in the 12 December story.’
• It also noted that the item dealt with an issue of significant public interest - Tross Publishing books, which were described as ‘anti-Māori, inaccurate and harmful,’ being promoted at high school libraries.

The standards

[11]  The discrimination and denigration standard¹ protects against broadcasts which encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief. It protects sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and fosters a community commitment to equality.²

[12]  The balance standard³ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁴ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁵

[13]  The accuracy standard⁶ protects the public from being significantly misinformed.⁷ It states that 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.

[14]  The fairness standard⁸ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured or referred to in programmes.⁹ It ensures individuals and organisations are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. Whether a broadcast was fair will depend on its context.¹⁰

Our analysis

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

[16]  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 reasonable and justified.¹¹

Discrimination and denigration

[17]  The discrimination and denigration standard applies only to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.¹² The complainant’s concerns identified under this standard appear to be that the broadcast is ‘anti-white’ and ‘anti-immigrant’.’

[18]  Immigrants are not a recognised section of the community for the purposes of the standard.¹³  Accordingly, we do not deal with the complaint to the extent it is based on discrimination against immigrants.

[19]  We accept that ‘white’ people are a relevant section of the community and that the standard may apply to them. However, the complainant has not identified a basis on which the broadcast encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against ‘white’ people. The focus of the broadcast was on Tross Publishing and the use of its books in schools. It makes no mention of ‘white’ people and we can see no reasonable basis on which the broadcast could be considered ‘anti-white.’

[20]  We therefore do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Balance

[21]  This standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities to present significant points of view when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news and current affairs programmes.¹⁴

[22]   An issue of public importance is something that would have a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public. A controversial issue will be one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁵

[23]  The complainant did not identify the specific issue in respect of which balancing viewpoints were allegedly missing. However, we consider the issue of whether publications by Tross Publishing should be found in schools to be a controversial issue of public importance dealt with in the broadcast (and arguably captured by the complaint). There are clearly differing views about the historical accuracy of the publications, with some considering them to be ‘anti-Māori, inaccurate and harmful,’ as noted in the broadcast. It follows that the question of whether they should be stocked in, or used by, schools is a matter of public importance, especially in light of the fact New Zealand history will be taught in schools from 2022.¹⁶

[24]  In then considering whether the broadcast made reasonable efforts to reflect significant perspectives on the issue, we note that the item did include a range of significant perspectives from a school librarian, a Kaupapa Māori Researcher, a Te Tiriti o Waitangi Educator and Tross Publishing, who each provided differing points of view on the issue.

[25]  Given the criticisms raised, it was particularly important for the broadcast to include the perspective of Tross Publishing. In this respect, we consider TVNZ gave Tross Publishing a reasonable opportunity, and made reasonable efforts, to provide its perspective as part of the broadcast. Tross Publishing was made aware of the issues that would be discussed in advance of the broadcast and was invited to provide its response. The reporter then read out its response on air verbatim.

[26]  We therefore consider that competing viewpoints were raised during the item to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion on the issue, and that the balance standard was not breached.

[27]  We also note that aspects of the complaint appear more directed at issues of bias in the reporting. As previously recognised by the Authority, the balance standard is not directed at ‘bias’ in and of itself.¹⁷ Broadcasters, as a matter of freedom of expression and editorial discretion, are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus.

Accuracy

[28]  The complainant has not identified any particular statements of fact in the broadcast as being inaccurate. However, having considered the various issues mentioned in the complaint, we consider they are all either:

• issues concerning the portrayal of the books which are sufficiently addressed under the balance standard;
• issues concerning the portrayal of Tross Publishing itself, which are sufficiently addressed under the fairness standard; or
• issues concerning content clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply.¹⁸

[29]  Given the nature of the segment, where the reporter relayed criticisms that had been made about Tross Publishing and sought views from relevant individuals about the use of their books in schools, the broadcast predominantly comprised statements in this latter category.

[30]  We also note viewers were provided with comment from Tross Publishing addressing some of these issues.

[31]  Accordingly, we do not find a breach of the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[32]  The complainant has suggested Tross Publishing was treated unfairly in the broadcast. A consideration of what is fair will depend on the nature of the programme and the context,¹⁹ including whether the audience would have been left with an unduly negative impression of the person or organisation referred to, whether they were given a reasonable opportunity to comment, and the public interest in the broadcast.

[33]  If a person or organisation referred to in a broadcast might be adversely affected, they should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment as part of the programme, before a broadcast.²⁰ What is ‘fair and reasonable’ will depend on the circumstances.²¹

[34]  As noted above, we consider Tross Publishing was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment as part of the programme. It was invited to provide its response to the allegations, which it did, and its comments were read out on air.

[35]  Further, we do not consider the broadcast gave an unduly negative impression of Tross Publishing. Given the nature of the allegations about their publications, we consider there was high value and public interest in discussing whether they should be found in schools.

[36]  In these circumstances, we have identified no harm sufficient to justify regulatory intervention and do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
18 May 2022

Appendix

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

1  Rod Kane’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 13 December 2021

2  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 28 January 2022

3  Kane’s referral to the Authority – 29 January 2022

4  TVNZ providing email excerpts between reporter and Tross Publishing – 10 March 2022

5  Kane’s further comments – 25 March 2022

6  TVNZ confirming no further comments – 28 March 2022

¹ Standard 6 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
³ Standard 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁴ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁵ As above
⁶ Standard 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁷ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁸ Standard 11 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁹ Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
¹⁰ Guideline 11a
¹¹ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
¹² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
¹³ Truijens and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-012
¹⁴ Guideline 8a
¹⁵ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
¹⁶ The Beehive “NZ history to be taught in all schools” (12 September 2019) <www.beehive.govt.nz>
¹⁷ Drinnan and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-083 at [14]; Robinson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-133; Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-021 at [13]
¹⁸ Guideline 9a
¹⁹ Guideline 11a
²⁰ Guideline 11d
²¹ As above