BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

A segment of Seven Sharp on 13 October 2021 reported on the COVID-19 vaccine. The complaint was the segment breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards as the report incorrectly stated the vaccine was safe for people that are pregnant or breastfeeding. The Authority found the relevant statements were materially accurate. In any event, it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on Dr Nikki Turner as an authoritative source. In dismissing material relied upon by the complainant to challenge the vaccine’s safety, the Authority also cautioned against the risk of contributing to misinformation by drawing conclusions from extracts of information without an understanding of the context. The balance and fairness standards did not apply.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  On 13 October 2021, Seven Sharp interviewed Dr Nikki Turner, Medical Director of the Immunisation Advisory Centre, to discuss the composition and safety of the Pfizer vaccine. Host Jeremy Wells asked Dr Turner if the vaccine was safe for pregnant or breastfeeding people. Dr Turner responded:

Yeah, this vaccine is definitely recommended highly for pregnant people and breastfeeding people. Many people would have seen the news internationally that pregnant people are getting really sick from COVID. So it's really, really more important for pregnant people to have this vaccine. Again, it's not a live vaccine. There's no virus in it, really safe for the mother and…[segment cut out] news about having this vaccine in pregnancy is that you create antibodies, protection, that will cross the placenta and go to the baby as well. So we hope from that, that your baby will also get some protection from being pregnant. In the same way, we're sure it's a really good thing to breastfeed your babies and to be vaccinated while you're breastfeeding. 

The complaint

[2]  Lindsey Marshall complained the Seven Sharp segment breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards as it was incorrect to state the vaccine is safe for pregnant or breastfeeding people. Marshall noted ‘Pfizer’s own health warning message (attached) clearly states at around 5 minutes, that this vaccine is not safe for women intending to be pregnant, pregnant or breastfeeding.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint. It noted:

• ‘The safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine is not a controversial issue of public importance to which the balance standard applies.
• ‘Dr Turner is a credible expert in the subject of immunisation so there was no reason for Seven Sharp to doubt the accuracy of her statements.’
• ‘The remarks made by the Seven Sharp presenters following the interview with Dr Turner were clearly “comment or opinion”, to which the requirement for Accuracy does not apply.’
• The fairness standard does not apply as the complaint does not identify a person or organisation dealt with unfairly in the programme.

The standards

[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 

[5]  We consider the accuracy standard is most relevant to the complaint. However, the balance and fairness standards are dealt with briefly at paragraph [14].

Our analysis

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

[7]  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.

[8]  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.

Accuracy

[9]  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.

[10]  We found the segment was materially accurate and would not have misled viewers. In reaching this conclusion we are influenced by the following:

• Various health authorities in New Zealand and overseas state the vaccine is safe for pregnant and breastfeeding people,⁴ and recommend its use in those people.⁵
• 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.⁶

[11]  In any event, Dr Turner is the Medical Director of the Immunisation Advisory Centre. The Centre played a role in supporting the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.⁷ It was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on Dr Turner as an authoritative source.

[12]  The above findings mean the broadcaster has complied with this standard. We also note it is not the Authority’s role to conclusively establish the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, nor the veracity of the science supporting the vaccine’s safety.⁸ However, given the significant public interest associated with such issues, we wish to briefly address some of the key material presented by the complainant in challenging the vaccine’s safety:

• Audio (described as Pfizer’s health warning for the COVID-19 vaccine)⁹ – Contrary to the complainant’s submissions, the audio does not say the vaccine is ‘not safe’ for those who are pregnant. It recommends a person ‘tell the vaccination provider’ about all medical conditions,¹⁰ including pregnancy / breastfeeding prior to getting the vaccine.¹¹ This advice is reflected in the vaccine’s associated ‘Consumer Medicine Information’ summary on the Medsafe website.¹² We acknowledge Medsafe’s data sheet for the vaccine advises differently, suggesting a balancing exercise between the benefits and risks.¹³ However, similar warnings are in other vaccines’ data sheets,¹⁴ with the accompanying ‘consumer medicine information’ summaries advising consumers to tell their doctor.¹⁵ By contrast, the MMR vaccine datasheet expressly states it is not suitable for people that are pregnant or thinking about being pregnant.¹⁶
• Report: Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorisation Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Thorough 28-Feb-2021 – This report, which on its face appears to be a Pfizer document, provides an integrated analysis of safety data for their ‘investigational COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2)’ including adverse event reports. The complainant has drawn attention to particular data from the report concerning ‘serious adverse events’ with pregnant people. However, on a full reading of the report, it is apparent the data does not represent adverse events confirmed as caused by the vaccine but ‘reports’ of adverse events. The report states, ‘an accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular [adverse event] was caused by the drug’.¹⁷ Further, with regard to the pregnancy related data identified by the complainant, the report concludes: ‘There were no safety signals that emerged from the review of these cases of use in pregnancy and while breast feeding.’ We note Medsafe also publish regular adverse event reports (an important part of the ongoing safety monitoring of the vaccine). The most recent report at the date of this decision notes that out of 8,184,892 total vaccine doses administered, there were 45,984 total adverse event reports from which 0 safety issues have been identified.¹⁸

[13]  Accordingly, we consider the data relied upon by the complainant does not support the safety concerns identified. This situation demonstrates the dangers of drawing conclusions from specific extracts of information or raw data without careful review or an understanding of the relevant context. We caution against such behaviour which runs the very real risk of contributing to misinformation on a significant issue of public safety.

Remaining standards

[14]  We consider the remaining standards did not apply:

• Balance: the balance standard¹⁹ requires reasonable efforts to be made to reflect significant perspectives when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news and current affairs programmes.²⁰ We have previously held the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine was not a controversial issue for the purposes of the standard due to consensus about its safety.²¹ The same applies here.
• Fairness: the fairness standard²² is concerned with preventing undue harm to the dignity and reputation of any person or organisation taking part or referred to in a programme.²³  As the complainant has not identified a person or organisation treated unfairly in the broadcast, this standard does not apply.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
25 January 2022   

Appendix

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

1  Lindsey Marshall’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 14 October 2021

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 9 November 2021

3  Marshall’s referral to the Authority – 15 November 2021

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 15 November 2021

5  Marshall’s confirmation of scope of referral – 19 November 2021

6  Marshall’s further evidence to Authority – 20 November 2021

7  TVNZ’S confirmation of no response to evidence – 25 November 2021

8  Marshall’s further evidence to Authority – 6 December 2021

9  Marshall’s confirmation of source of evidence – 8 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 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>
⁵ 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>
⁶ 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
⁷ The Immunisation Advisory Centre “Our role: the NZ COVID-19 vaccination programme” (20 August 2021) <covid.immune.org.nz>
⁸ See Climie and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-017 at [9] where we held similarly regarding the veracity of science surrounding around climate change
⁹ We note we could not confirm the authenticity of the recording, or whether it is Pfizer’s current response on the customer service line. Nevertheless, for the reasons set out in this decision, we did not need to confirm this.
¹⁰ At 4.35 mins
¹¹ At 4.57 mins
¹² Medsafe “Comirnaty: Consumer Medicine Information” (November 2021) <medsafe.govt.nz> at 2
¹³ Medsafe “Comirnaty: New Zealand Data Sheet”(8 November 2021) <medsafe.govt.nz> at [4.6]
¹⁴ See HPV vaccine (Medsafe “Gardasil 9: New Zealand Data Sheet” (4 March 2020) <medsafe.govt.nz> at [4.6]);Hep B vaccine (Medsafe “Energix-B New Zealand Data Sheet” (11 August 2020) <medsafe.govt.nz> at [4.6]); and influenza vaccine (Medsafe “Afluria Quad / Afluria Quad Junior: New Zealand Data Sheet” (12 March 2021) <medsafe.govt.nz> at [4.6])
¹⁵ See HPV vaccine (Medsafe “Gardasil 9: Consumer Medicine Information” (2019) <medsafe.govt.nz> at 2); Hep B vaccine (Medsafe “Energix-B Consumer Medicine Information” (8 October 2018) <medsafe.govt.nz> at 2); and influenza vaccine (Medsafe “Afluria Quad / Afluria Quad Junior: Consumer Medicine Information” (12 March 2021) <medsafe.govt.nz> at 2)
¹⁶ Medsafe “M-M-R II: Consumer Medicine Information” (January 2021) (<medsafe.govt.nz> at 2
¹⁷ See ‘Methodology’ section outlining the limitations of the report.
¹⁸ Medsafe (31 December 2021) "Adverse events following immunisation with COVID-19 vaccines: Safety Report #39” <www.medsafe.govt.nz>
¹⁹ Standard 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
²⁰ Guideline 8a
²¹ Donald and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-033 at [15]–[18]
²² Standard 11 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
²³ Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21