BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority¹ has not upheld a complaint an item on Prime News, reporting on reactions to comments made by ACT Party Leader David Seymour on the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, as well as an incident where two men went to the Ministry and filmed staff while asking about expenditure, breached the accuracy standard. The complainant considered the broadcast breached the standard as it gave the misleading impression that two men had threatened staff at the Ministry as a result of Seymour’s statements, and it was inaccurate to suggest the men ‘threatened’ staff when ‘they only filmed staff while asking about spending’. The Authority agreed the broadcast’s introduction could have given the impression the two men went to the Ministry as a direct result of Seymour’s comments (when this occurred prior). While finely balanced, ultimately it considered any inaccuracy was corrected by a clarification of the sequence of events later in the broadcast. It further found while the description the men ‘threatened’ staff may have been technically inaccurate, it was not materially misleading in the context.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  On 18 August 2023, Prime News aired a report concerning comments made by ACT Party Leader David Seymour on the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. The item was introduced:

David Seymour is refusing to apologize for what he says was a joke about blowing up the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. The Act leader insists it was said in jest, but it was no laughing matter when two men showed up to the agency's Wellington office and threatened staff.

[2]  The item went on to include comments from Seymour, Labour Party Deputy Leader Carmel Sepuloni, and the Police on Seymour’s statements.

[3]  Towards the end of the item, the reporter stated:

ACT's been driving the prosecution against the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ spending, like its $40k leaving bash for its former Chief Executive. On Thursday morning, before Seymour joked about blowing it up, two men went into the Ministry and tried to film staff while asking them about how much the Ministry was spending. Police were called.

The complaint

[4]  John Kirkland complained the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis the introduction to the item implied that two men had gone to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples and threatened staff as a result of Seymour’s comments. In fact, as the broadcast went on to state, this occurred before Seymour made his comments. Further, ‘they only filmed staff while asking about spending.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Sky Network Television Ltd did not uphold Kirkland’s complaint, noting:

We reached out to Warner Bros Discovery, who produce Prime News for us, and their response was “The story's introduction provided no timeframes for the two events being reported. If per chance, a viewer took the inference from the intro that the two events were related, this was corrected by the script in the story in which it was said that on Thursday morning, before Seymour joked about blowing it up, two men went into the Ministry.”

The standard

[6]  The purpose of the accuracy standard² is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ 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

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

[8]  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.⁴

[9]  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 the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[10]  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.⁵

[11]  The complainant has alleged the broadcast breached the standard in two ways:

a)  It gave the misleading impression two men had threatened staff at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples as a result of Seymour’s statements.

b)  It was inaccurate to suggest the men ‘threatened’ staff when ‘they only filmed staff while asking about spending.’

[12]  We address each point below.

Point (a)

[13]  As part of the item’s introduction, the host made the following comment:

The Act leader insists it was said in jest, but it was no laughing matter when two men showed up to the agency's Wellington office and threatened staff.  

[14]  We agree this statement had the potential to create a misleading impression about the sequence of these events. The way the sentence was phrased could have given the impression the two men went to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples as a direct result of Seymour’s comments. Such a misleading impression would have been material in the context of the broadcast, which was focused on reactions to Seymour’s comments (including his own reaction to the fallout surrounding his comments).

[15]  However, the broadcast later stated [emphasis added]:

On Thursday morning, before Seymour joked about blowing it up, two men went into the Ministry and tried to film staff while asking them about how much the Ministry was spending.

[16]  While we consider it to be finely balanced, given the impact that a report’s introduction has in framing a report, ultimately we consider any misleading impression that may have been created was corrected by this clarification of the sequence of events. We therefore consider the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast overall, and, given the clarification, viewers would not have been materially misled.

[17]  We do however remind broadcasters of the importance of ensuring that when summarising upcoming news items that in doing so they then do not become misleading.

[18]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this aspect of the complaint under the accuracy standard.

Point (b)

[19]  In relation to the complainant’s concerns regarding the statement the two men had ‘threatened’ staff when ‘they only filmed staff while asking about spending,’ we accept the description of ‘threatened’ may have been technically inaccurate. While it appears the men did attempt to enter the premises to take video footage and obtain comment from staff on expenditure, according to other reporting it does not appear the men made any direct threats to staff.⁶

[20]  However, we note it was also reported that the men questioned staff in ‘what was considered a reasonably hostile manner’ and that some staff were ‘left feeling quite rattled and anxious’.⁷ It is very possible the staff felt threatened in these circumstances. In this context, we do not consider the description that the men ‘threatened’ staff was materially misleading.

[21]  Further, to the extent any viewer was misled as to the nature of the interaction, this was clarified later in the broadcast [emphasis added]:

On Thursday morning, before Seymour joked about blowing it up, two men went into the Ministry and tried to film staff while asking them about how much the Ministry was spending.

[22]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the second aspect of the complaint under the accuracy standard.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
31 January 2024    

Appendix

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

1  John Kirkland’s formal complaint to Sky – 18 August 2023

2  Sky’s response to the complaint – 28 September 2023

3  Kirkland’s referral to the Authority – 27 September 2023

4  Sky’s confirmation of no further comment – 30 November 2023

¹ Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint.
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 6.2
⁶ Tova O’Brien “Incident at Ministry for Pacific Peoples leaves staff rattled, police called in” Stuff (online ed, 18 August 2023); Anneke Smith “Ministry for Pacific Peoples says staff were abused, lodges police report” RNZ (online ed, 18 August 2023)
⁷ Tova O’Brien ”Incident at Ministry for Pacific Peoples leaves staff rattled, police called in” Stuff (online ed, 18 August 2023)