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 that a broadcast of Mediawatch, which contained commentary on a recently released Media Council decision concerning an article about puberty blockers, breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found the programme was sufficiently balanced, noting its focus was on the Media Council’s decision (including its implications for journalists) and that it did not purport to be a balanced examination of the safety or reversibility of puberty blockers. It found alleged inaccuracies in the broadcast constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Taking into account the Media Council’s role as a public-facing organisation, the Authority noted it can reasonably expect its decisions to be subject to public scrutiny, and found the critique of its decision did not result in unfairness.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  During an item of Midweek Mediawatch, broadcast on 31 May 2023 on RNZ National, the hosts Hayden Donnell and Mark Leishman discussed a recently released decision of the Media Council.¹ The decision concerned a Stuff article headlined ‘Puberty blockers still considered safe and reversible, health ministry says’.² The item featured the following dialogue:

Leishman:   Now another media organisation took a strong editorial line on another issue and got pinged by the Media Council for it.

Donnell:      Yeah this is an interesting one. So as context, the Ministry of Health a few months ago edited a section of its website about puberty blockers which said they were safe and reversible, they removed that language. And that was seized on by what Stuff described as ‘anti-trans’ groups, calling the safety of trans healthcare into question. Stuff actually wrote a story addressing those groups’ claims, in a story headlined ‘Puberty blockers still considered safe and reversible, Health Ministry says.’ The story said the Ministry continued to endorse guidelines from the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa, or PATHA, which state that puberty blockers are considered to be fully reversible, and it quoted a couple of other people in that piece, including a spokesperson for Gender Minorities Aotearoa, and they were all in favour of the blockers. But there was a complaint about that to the Media Council, and the Media Council has ruled that the story lacked balance.

Leishman:   Why was that?

Donnell:      Yeah, its decision said that the article failed because it made no reference to any substantive opinions which query reversibility and long-term safety of puberty blockers. So it noted that the Ministry of Health described puberty blockers as a rapidly evolving area of science, it’s still being studied, and that organisations including the NHS in Britain have said the long-term effects of puberty blockers are unknown. So it said the science isn’t settled, and questions around the treatment should have been noted in the story.

Leishman:   Did Stuff accept that?

Donnell:      It objected to the complaint, so I guess it didn’t really accept that. It essentially said that it didn’t want to ‘both sides’ the debate around this issue, and argued that puberty blockers have been used for decades on children experiencing early puberty, and multiple organisations including the Mayo Clinic back their views. It said it saw the story in a similar context to its coverage of climate change, where it says platforming climate deniers alongside climate scientists leads to perverse outcomes with unjustified doubt being cast on the reality of climate change, or I guess puberty blockers in this case. So the key quote from it in that is that ‘In situations where there is the potential for misinformation, Stuff seeks to clarify the correct information, not amplify misinformation by repeating it.’ Now it’s worth noting too the Media Council was divided in its decision on Stuff’s story. Council members […], they said the article was fine because of its narrow focus, it didn’t actually need any more information than it contained. Now, I’d add that Stuff’s story – and this is the context here – it should be seen in the context of a burgeoning global anti-trans rights movement, which of course New Zealand had some experience with recently with Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s aborted tour. So multiple trans advocacy organisations, I think they see this stuff about puberty blockers, trans healthcare, as a kind of ‘thin end of the wedge’ for anti-trans rights campaigners, or the anti-trans rights movement, where if they can cast aspersions or doubt about this one thing, then it could be an entry point into more serious anti-trans sentiment going mainstream. That’s certainly been one of the methods in places like the UK, where you have a much more toxic debate about trans issues than you do here.

Leishman:   So has there been any criticism of the Media Council’s stance from journalists?

Donnell:      Yeah, I’ve seen a bit, so the Victoria University Law Lecturer Eddie Clark also put this in the context of another recent Media Council decision – it didn’t uphold a similar complaint against NZME over its coverage of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull but it lamented the fact that NZME hadn’t printed any opinion pieces backing her views, and it said ‘the Herald would reasonably be reluctant to give space to some of Ms Keen-Minshull’s views on Islam for example, but there are other core issues worthy of debate.’ That’s the quote from the Council. Now, Stuff senior journalist Charlie Mitchell has publicly criticised this approach as pretty ad hoc, saying you know, why should Islam be exempt from the balance criteria but not trans rights? It seems like a bit of an arbitrary judgement in his eyes. And the Council, in his eyes, again is making things up on the fly, which issues do and do not require balance and he finds that incredibly frustrating. And, he kind of saw the Council determining which subjects are exempt from balance based on pretty highly subjective grounds, basically its own views or prejudices. So that is a pretty difficult situation for a journalist, ‘cos you don’t know which stories are going to be pinged on balance and which aren’t, because it seems to be just a value judgement of the Council.

Leishman:   So why is that so frustrating, I mean is there a solution there?

Donnell:      It seems kind of hard right, you can’t write an exhaustive list of every subject where the science is essentially settled and where it’s not, but it’s worth noting that, in some respects at least, it seems that the Council doesn’t believe that that label of ‘settled science,’ ‘settled debate,’ applies to trans rights or trans healthcare, and it’s not really specified what scientific tests its gone through to reach that conclusion, that’s not specified, and there’s a suspicion that it kind of comes down to just Council members’ personal views maybe in the end. So, that’s a pretty shaky ground for the media to navigate its editorial decisions on. And this is likely to be a continuing and evolving area of debate, it’s likely to be the subject of Media Council complaints in future. But it’s interesting to note that at least one of our major media organisations appears to have a different conclusion to the Council on the credibility of one side of that debate.

The complaint

[2]  Jan Rivers complained that the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. We consider Rivers’ key concerns under each of the standards are:

Balance

• Mediawatch’s reporting on the Media Council’s finding was unbalanced as:
  (i)  It ‘quoted perspectives from only one side of a complex and contested issue’ such as PATHA and Gender Minorities Aotearoa, and did not address perspectives querying the reversibility and long term safety of puberty blockers.
  (ii)  It focused on Stuff’s response to the Media Council finding, and did not canvas the reasons for the finding in the Council’s report and ‘the current review of gender medicine in New Zealand.’³
  (iii)  While the host outlined the context of the Media Council’s decision in terms of a ‘burgeoning global anti-trans rights movement,’ he did not mention further contextual factors such as ‘the rejection of the use of this treatment, except in clinical trials, in several health systems,’ or ‘the right of all patients, including trans people, to treatment that is efficacious and safe.’
  (iv)  As the host presented opposition to the use of puberty blockers as ‘anti-trans,’ he therefore indirectly claimed the Media Council are influenced by anti-trans views, and that the opposition to the use of puberty blockers is equivalent to being anti-Islam.
  (v)  The host’s comments ‘in some respects at least it seems the Council doesn’t believe that that label of settled science, settled debate applies to trans rights or trans healthcare and it’s not really specified what scientific tests it’s gone through to reach that conclusion,’ and ‘there’s a suspicion that it kind of comes down to just Council members’ personal views maybe in the end’ added to the lack of balance.
  (vi)  The audience cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage because the coverage of the issue in New Zealand has mostly been from this one perspective.⁴
  (vii)  Mediawatch rejected a request from the complainant for a right of reply.

Accuracy

• The segment included multiple inaccuracies:
  (i)  While the host indicated the context to the decision was a ‘burgeoning global anti-trans rights movement,’ the actual context is concerns about puberty blockers.
  (ii)  The host inaccurately argued that the reason the use of puberty blockers is questioned is the ‘much more toxic debate around trans issues,’ rather than because of medical research.
  (iii)  The host gave the misleading impression that criticism of any views of transgender advocates and organisations is anti-trans.
  (iv)  The host’s comparison between the issues of trans rights and Islam is not relevant or accurate, as ‘the actual issue being addressed in the complaints is not trans rights.’
  (v)  The host claimed inaccurately that the use of puberty blocker medications represented ‘settled science.’
  (vi)  The host argued inaccurately that the Media Council should demonstrate that they have made ‘scientific tests’ when making decisions. ‘It is not the role of the Media Council to carry out “scientific tests” and it would be most improper of them to attempt to do so.’
  (vii)  The host claimed there was suspicion the Media Council based their decision on personal views rather than evidence, ‘This ‘suspicion’ is based solely on Donnell’s opinion, and it is not sufficient to justify a claim that puts Media Council members into disrepute.’

Fairness

• The broadcast was unfair to the Media Council as it:
  (i)  ‘cast doubt’ on Council members ‘without providing evidence or providing a right of reply.’
  (ii)  implied the Council was ‘going against “settled science” and making decisions based on personal views,’ ‘without making their thinking or the evidence clear.’ This unfairly demeaned their professionalism, noting:
    a.  ‘The MoH is currently pursuing an Evidence Brief assessing the future role of puberty blockers in NZ’s gender medicine for children.’
    b.  ‘In every jurisdiction where such an evidence based review as that being prepared for the MoH has occurred the use of Puberty Blockers  has been severely curtailed because of the poor evidence base this reveals.’
  (iii)  implied that concerns about puberty blockers, and therefore the Council’s decision, was anti-trans.
  (iv)  represented the Media Council as ‘failing to have made scientific tests before making a ruling.’
  (v)  represented the Media Council as being ‘unclear about the issues that require balance [in reporting] and thus making journalists’ jobs more difficult.’
  (vi)  relied heavily on Stuff’s own assessment of the complaint rather than the Council’s reasons in its decision.

[3]  The complainant also provided information in support of her view that the long term effects of puberty blockers are unknown.

[4]  The complainant considered we should consider her complaint with regard to both The Radio New Zealand Charter⁵ (RNZ’s operating principles) as well as the recent Independent External Review of RNZ Editorial Processes.⁶ Our jurisdiction is limited to assessing complaints under broadcasting standards, so we do not take these considerations into account.⁷

[5]  We note some of Rivers’ submissions dealt with issues that were not the subject of the broadcast, including concerns about wider bias by Donnell. Our jurisdiction is broadcast specific, and we have therefore focused our analysis on concerns relating directly to the broadcast.

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  RNZ did not uphold Rivers’ complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘Hayden Donnell, Mediawatch and RNZ (the broadcaster) are all entitled to freedom of expression. This is the starting point in the consideration of any formal complaint. It includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.’

Balance

• ‘The balance standard does not require that every possible view on a complex issue be contained within one broadcast’ and ‘does not require news, current affairs and factual programming to be presented impartially. Within the limits established by the standard, broadcasters are free to promote or challenge particular ideas, philosophies or people. A key consideration is what an audience expects from a programme and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.’
• ‘…the segment in question is about a decision of the Media Council. Mediawatch offers a critical perspective on the media, including media regulation and regulators. Critique of a Media Council decision (with dissent) is very much within the programme’s remit and audience expectations.’

Accuracy

• ‘…the central fact in this segment is the Media Council’s decision, which is accurately reported throughout.’
• ‘In its analysis of the context of the Media Council’s decision, the producers of Mediawatch are free to decide whose opinions to feature. This is a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference.’

Fairness

• RNZ was satisfied that all parties referred to in the broadcast were fairly dealt with.

The standards

[7]  The balance standard⁸ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁹ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁰

[8]  The purpose of the accuracy standard¹¹ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹² 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.

[9]  The fairness standard¹³ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁴ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[10]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[11]  Our starting point when we look at any complaint, is to consider the important right to freedom of expression, which includes both the broadcaster’s right to offer information and the audience’s right to receive it. Our task is to weigh the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcasts, against any harm potentially caused. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint as a breach of standards where the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.¹⁵

[12]  Mediawatch provides robust commentary on, and analysis of, the New Zealand media. In a previous decision, we noted ‘A free and independent media is considered to be at the core of a healthy democracy. It naturally follows that analysis of media is of equal importance’.¹⁶ By extension, analysis of decisions of entities tasked with regulating the media, such as the Media Council, is also of high value. The high public interest in the hosts’ analysis of the recent Media Council decision, and the broadcaster’s freedom of expression must be weighed against the level of harm alleged to have been caused by the broadcast.

Balance

[13]  The balance standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest, unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage. A key consideration is what an audience expects from the programme, and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.¹⁷

[14]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁸

[15]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have a ‘significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’.¹⁹ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.²⁰

[16]  Mediawatch is a factual programme which ‘looks critically at the New Zealand media – television, radio, newspapers and magazines as well as the “new” electronic media.’²¹ The broadcast at issue featured a discussion of the Media Council’s recently released decision Jan Rivers v Stuff (2023) NZMC 3398, which upheld a complaint that a Stuff article,²² reporting on advice from the Ministry of Health that puberty blockers were still considered safe and reversible, lacked balancing comment. We accept that the Media Council’s decision was controversial, given the conflicting opinion and criticism it excited as described in the broadcast. We also accept the decision could be argued to be of ‘public importance,’ given its broader subject matter (the safety of puberty blockers) has been a subject of ongoing conversation.²³ We therefore proceed on the basis the standard applies.

[17]  In then assessing whether the broadcaster presented significant viewpoints on the issue being discussed, we note the following:

• The requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated, where the programme is narrowly focused only on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.²⁴ While the complainant is concerned the broadcast ‘quoted perspectives from only one side of a complex and contested issue,’ and did not address perspectives querying the long term safety of puberty blockers, the programme’s clear focus was on the Media Council’s decision (including its implications for journalists). It did not purport to be a balanced examination of the safety or reversibility of puberty blockers. In this context, the audience would not have expected further discussion of these perspectives.
• The broadcast canvassed the key perspectives in relation to the Media Council’s decision, including that of the Media Council, and Stuff.  While the complainant has argued the broadcast ‘did not canvas the reasons for the finding in the Council’s report,’ we disagree, noting the host stated:
  …its decision said that the article failed because it made no reference to any substantive opinions which query reversibility and long-term safety of puberty blockers. So it noted that the Ministry of Health described puberty blockers as a rapidly evolving area of science, it’s still being studied, and that organisations including the NHS in Britain have said the long-term effects of puberty blockers are unknown. So it said the science isn’t settled, and questions around the treatment should have been noted in the story.
• To the extent the complainant is concerned the host focused on Stuff’s response to the Media Council’s decision, the standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance.²⁵
• The complainant also expressed concern about alleged bias by the host against the Media Council. However, the standard does not require news, current affairs and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias. Within the limits established by this standard, broadcasters are free to promote or challenge particular ideas, philosophies or people.²⁶
• The standard allows for balance to be achieved over time, within the period of current interest. The complainant has argued the audience cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of viewpoints querying the safety and reversibility of puberty blockers. However, we note there is recent reporting indicating this perspective, both by RNZ and other outlets.²⁷
• RNZ had no obligation under this standard to provide the complainant with a right of reply.

[18]  In light of the above factors, we find the broadcaster met its obligations under the standard.

[19]  The complainant has also raised concerns about certain comments made by the host in relation to the Media Council (for example, allegedly implying it is influenced by anti-trans views and that ‘it kind of comes down to just Council members’ personal views maybe in the end’), and has alleged these comments contribute to a lack of balance. We consider these concerns more appropriately relate to fairness to the Media Council, and we deal with these concerns under the fairness standard below.

[20]  Residual aspects of the complaint under this standard are concerned with the complainant’s personal preference as to what the broadcaster should or should not have covered as part of this segment. These types of concerns are generally incapable of being resolved by a complaints process.²⁸ The Authority’s role is to consider whether content broadcast has breached broadcasting standards, not to intervene in matters of editorial discretion in respect of what a complainant may wish to see included.²⁹

Accuracy

[21]  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 reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[22]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.³⁰ However, broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to facts referred to, or upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based.

[23]  When assessing whether statements are analysis, comment or opinion, the following factors may be relevant:³¹

• the language used
• the type of programme
• the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter
• whether the statement is attributed to someone
• whether evidence or proof is provided.

[24]  As a programme which critiques the media and media-related issues, Mediawatch can be expected to feature a higher proportion of analysis, comment or opinion. With this in mind, we respond to the complainant’s specific concerns under this standard below.

How the context was framed

[25]  The complainant argued that while the host indicated the context to the decision was a ‘burgeoning global anti-trans rights movement,’ the actual context is concerns about puberty blockers. The host’s comments about the context of the decision were as follows:

Now, I’d add that Stuff’s story – and this is the context here – it should be seen in the context of a burgeoning global anti-trans rights movement, which of course New Zealand had some experience with recently with Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s aborted tour. So multiple trans advocacy organisations, I think they see this stuff about puberty blockers, trans healthcare, as a kind of ‘thin end of the wedge’ for anti-trans rights campaigners, or the anti-trans rights movement, where if they can cast aspersions or doubt about this one thing, then it could be an entry point into more serious anti-trans sentiment going mainstream.

[26]  We consider listeners would have interpreted these comments as the host’s own opinion and commentary on what he sees as the ‘context’ of Stuff’s story. The language used, including ‘should be seen,’ and ‘I think,’ indicate the nature of the comments as opinion. Further, listeners would understand the choice of ‘context’ in which the story ‘should be seen’ represents a subjective assessment and cannot be proved right or wrong as in the nature of a fact.

[27]  The standard therefore does not apply to these comments. The complainant’s concerns appear to be more related to personal preference and disagreement with the host’s opinion.

The reason the use of puberty blockers is questioned

[28]  The complainant considers the host inaccurately argued that the reason the use of puberty blockers is questioned is the ‘much more toxic debate around trans issues,’ rather than because of medical research.

[29]  As noted above, the standard does not apply to analysis, comment or opinion. In any event, we do not consider the host argued this. Rather, he explained what he saw as the contextual environment leading to Stuff’s story, and how he perceives that ‘multiple trans advocacy organisations’ see the issue of puberty blockers as a ‘thin end of the wedge.’ We do not consider the host argued or implied at any point that the reason puberty blockers have been questioned is solely due to anti-trans sentiment or that medical research was irrelevant.  

[30]  We find no breach of the accuracy standard in this respect.

Criticism of transgender advocates is ‘anti-trans’

[31]  The complainant has argued the host gave the misleading impression that criticism of any views of transgender advocates and organisations is ‘anti-trans’. We do not consider the host made any comments suggesting this. While he noted his view that Stuff’s story should be seen in the context of ‘a burgeoning global anti-trans rights movement,’ at no point did he state or suggest that criticism of the views of transgender advocates or organisations is anti-trans.

Comparison between trans rights and Islam

[32]  The complainant considers the host’s comparison between the issues of trans rights and Islam is not relevant or accurate, as ‘the actual issue being addressed in the complaints is not trans rights.’

[33]  While we note a ‘comparison’ is not a statement of fact that would be subject to the accuracy standard, the relevant comments were:

Yeah, I’ve seen a bit [of criticism], so the Victoria University Law Lecturer Eddie Clark also put this in the context of another recent Media Council decision – it didn’t uphold a similar complaint against NZME over its coverage of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull but it lamented the fact that NZME hadn’t printed any opinion pieces backing her views, and it said ‘the Herald would reasonably be reluctant to give space to some of Ms Keen-Minshull’s views on Islam for example, but there are other core issues worthy of debate.’ That’s the quote from the Council. Now, Stuff senior journalist Charlie Mitchell has publicly criticised this approach as pretty ad hoc, saying you know, why should Islam be exempt from the balance criteria but not trans rights? It seems like a bit of an arbitrary judgement in his eyes.

[34]  Here, the host was conveying analysis and commentary from another journalist about a previous Media Council decision, in relation to the difficulties for journalists in interpreting balance criteria for different issues. Even if, as the complainant argues, the comparison is not relevant or accurate, the content remains analysis and commentary to which the standard does not apply.

Use of puberty blockers ‘settled science’

[35]  The complainant has argued the host claimed inaccurately that the use of puberty blockers represented ‘settled science.’

[36]  The host conveyed Stuff’s response to the Media Council complaint; ‘In situations where there is the potential for misinformation, Stuff seeks to clarify the correct information, not amplify misinformation by repeating it.’ He also provided his own analysis of the potential challenges for journalists arising from the Media Council’s decision and the difficulties of knowing when something constitutes ‘settled science’ as follows:

It seems kind of hard right, you can’t write an exhaustive list of every subject where the science is essentially settled and where it’s not, but it’s worth noting that, in some respects at least, it seems that the Council doesn’t believe that that label of ‘settled science,’ ‘settled debate,’ applies to trans rights or trans healthcare… and there’s a suspicion that it kind of comes down to just Council members’ personal views maybe in the end. So, that’s a pretty shaky ground for the media to navigate its editorial decisions on. And this is likely to be a continuing and evolving area of debate …. But it’s interesting to note that at least one of our major media organisations appears to have a different conclusion to the Council on the credibility of one side of that debate.

[37]  In our view, this reporting and analysis does not constitute a claim that the use of puberty blocker medications represents ‘settled science.’

Other

[38]  We consider the complainant’s remaining concerns under the accuracy standard, in relation to the host’s comments that:

…it’s not really specified what scientific tests its gone through to reach that conclusion, that’s not specified, and there’s a suspicion that it kind of comes down to just Council members’ personal views maybe in the end.

are more appropriately dealt with under the fairness standard (and represent comment or analysis in any event).

[39]  For the reasons set out above, we do not find any breach of the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[40]  The fairness standard states broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.³² A consideration of what is fair depends on the nature of the programme and the context, as well as the nature of the individual or organisation referred to.³³

[41]  The complainant has alleged the broadcast was unfair to the Media Council. Taking into account the following factors, we do not consider the broadcast of was unfair:

• The Media Council is a self-regulatory body funded by the media industry, which provides an independent forum for resolving complaints about written media content.³⁴ As an organisation with a public-facing function, it can reasonably expect its decisions to be subject to public scrutiny.
• Based on the well-known format of Mediawatch, listeners would have understood the broadcast as providing commentary and critique of the Media Council’s decision, as a media-related matter. Listeners were adequately informed of the Media Council’s perspective, and were able to form their own opinion on the matter.
• While the host largely conveyed critique that others had made of the decision, where he was applying his own critique the comments were clearly couched as his own opinion (‘it seems,’ ‘it’s likely,’ ‘it’s interesting to note’).
• It is commonplace for public-facing organisations to be criticised without it giving rise to an expectation of participation in every broadcast.³⁵ In the context of this programme, which was a brief, six-minute overview of the Media Council’s decision and some of the critique it had received, the host’s comments did not give rise to an expectation that the Media Council be able to respond.
• Addressing some of the complainant’s specific concerns:
  • The host’s comments:
  • ‘it’s not really specified what scientific tests it’s gone through to reach that conclusion;’
  • ‘there’s a suspicion that it kind of comes down to just Council members’ personal views maybe in the end;’ and
  • ‘that’s a pretty shaky ground for the media to navigate its editorial decisions on;’
  • amounted to critique/analysis of the Media Council’s decision, which did not exceed the boundaries of the standard in light of its public-facing role.
  • As noted under the accuracy standard, we do not agree the host implied that concerns about puberty blockers, and therefore the Media Council’s decision, was ‘anti-trans.’
  • We do not consider the host implied the Council was ‘going against “settled science.”’
• As previously noted, there is a high public interest in programmes such as Mediawatch, which scrutinise the decisions of public-facing organisations.

[42]  In light of the above factors, and taking into account the high value of the broadcast in terms of freedom of expression, we do not consider the broadcast breached the fairness standard in relation to the Media Council.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
7 November 2023    

Appendix

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

1  Jan Rivers’ formal complaint to RNZ – 29 June 2023

2  RNZ’s response to the complaint – 3 August 2023

3  Rivers’ referral to the Authority – 28 August 2023

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 21 September 2023

¹ Jan Rivers v Stuff (2023) NZMC 3398
² Rachel Thomas “Puberty blockers still considered safe and reversible, health ministry says” Stuff (online ed, 25 September 2022)
³ Ministry of Health “Mental health and wellbeing to inform evidence brief on puberty blockers” (22 August 2023) <www.health.govt.nz>; see also: Patrick Gower, Alice Wilkins “Puberty blocker drugs under review by Ministry of Health” Newshub (online ed, 29 June 2023)
⁴ The complainant provided a list of 23 RNZ stories ‘that mention puberty blockers in the text accompanying programming that have been published from 2018 to the present,’ which she considered illustrated RNZ has not provided balance over time on this issue as ‘only 1 raises concerns about their use in New Zealand and two raise coverage of the debate over their use overseas…’
⁵ RNZ “The Radio New Zealand Charter” <www.rnz.co.nz>
⁶ RNZ “Independent External Review of RNZ Editorial Processes” (28 July 2023) <www.rnz.co.nz>
⁷ Broadcasting Act 1989, s8(1B)
⁸ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1
¹¹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹² Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
¹³ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
¹⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
¹⁶ Charley and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2012-073 at
¹⁷ Guideline 5.4
¹⁸ Guideline 5.1
¹⁹ Guideline 5.1
²⁰ Guideline 5.1
²¹ RNZ “Mediawatch” (accessed 12 October 2023) <www.rnz.co.nz>
²² Rachel Thomas “Puberty blockers still considered safe and reversible, health ministry says” Stuff (online ed, 25 September 2022)
²³ Rachel Thomas “Puberty blockers still considered safe and reversible, health ministry says” Stuff (online ed, 25 September 2022); Ruth Hill “Puberty blocker use jumps as expert backs results” RNZ (online ed, 29 September 2022); Megan Twohey and Christina Jewett “They Paused Puberty, But is There a Cost?” The New York Times (online ed, 14 November 2022); Marc Daalder “Trans health advice scrubbed following complaints” Stuff (online ed, 24 March 2023); Jan Rivers “Jan Rivers: Questions mount around the use of puberty blockers for children” NZ Herald (online ed, 24 April 2023)
²⁴ Guideline 5.4
²⁵ Guideline 5.3
²⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
²⁷ Ruth Hill “Puberty blocker use jumps as expert backs results” RNZ (online ed, 29 September 2022); Megan Twohey and Christina Jewett “They Paused Puberty, But is There a Cost?” The New York Times (online ed, 14 November 2022); Marc Daalder “Trans health advice scrubbed following complaints” Stuff (online ed, 24 March 2023); Jan Rivers “Jan Rivers: Questions mount around the use of puberty blockers for children” NZ Herald (online ed, 24 April 2023)
²⁸ See: Broadcasting Act 1989, s5(c)
²⁹ See: Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” at “Personal Preference” (accessed 12 October 2023) <www.bsa.govt.nz>
³⁰ Guideline 6.1
³¹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
³² Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³³ Guideline 8.1
³⁴ New Zealand Media Council “The New Zealand Media Council” (accessed 15 October 2023) <www.mediacouncil.org.nz>
³⁵ Davis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-061 at [31]–[32]