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 investigating Waka Kotahi’s communications around its use of glyphosate. The complainant stated the item was unbalanced as it did not present views supporting glyphosate’s safety. The Authority found, as the broadcast was narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger debate around glyphosate use, no further balancing material relating to glyphosate safety was required. It noted the item had signalled the existence of other views and glyphosate’s safety was the subject of ongoing media coverage. Accordingly, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware it was the subject of competing points of view and were unlikely to be left misinformed by the broadcast.

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  A 1 News item broadcast on 5 December 2021 investigated Waka Kotahi’s / the New Zealand Transport Agency’s transparency around its use of glyphosate-based herbicide products. The item was introduced as follows:

the Government's transport agency has… been accused… of drenching our highways in the controversial weed killer glyphosate. And tonight, 1 News can reveal their officials are well aware of overuse of chemicals on public roads. They were told how to cut back two years ago, but kept news to themselves.

[2]  The segment referred to documents obtained through Official Information Act requests suggesting Waka Kotahi refused to be interviewed in an earlier report on glyphosate use ‘because it believed the story had negative framing’. The documents referenced included a memorandum recommending ‘immediate action’ and showing ways to cut back on agri-chemical use on public roads.

[3]  The report included interviews with experts who stated:

Prof Ian Shaw:     That's what they're doing [reducing chemical spraying on public roads]. That's good. I wish they'd just tell you that and show us exactly how they're doing this.

James Hollings:   Communication managers are increasingly, I would argue and I think journalists would agree with me, controlling the media messaging.

Gavin Ellis:           These people seem to forget who employs them. They're not employed by some Ministry. They're employed by the people of New Zealand.

[4]  Following presentation of the options Waka Kotahi had identified to cut down use, Professor Shaw stated:

By pulling back and using less of it, we reduce two things. We reduce the impact on the environment, which is crucially important. And secondly, we reduce human harm because of the people actually applying it.

[5]  The item concluded with the reporter reading out, then commenting on, Waka Kotahi’s response:

In a statement, the agency has acknowledged while glyphosate is classified as safe here, it does have environmental and health impacts like all chemical herbicides, and it is seeking to cut back where possible. Trials on alternative options will begin this summer, with a roll-out plan expected by mid-2022. The agency declining to be interviewed yet again.

The complaint

[6]  Graham Robertson complained the broadcast breached the balance standard for reasons including:

• ‘The item included reference to those who are opposed to the use of glyphosate who were described as being the "owners" of Waka Kotahi, presumably by dint of them being taxpayers and citizens. It appeared that you believed these people, who were likely to take umbrage at the so called secret investigation, represented a common view among the taxpayers and citizens of Aotearoa NZ. While you will no doubt prefer to describe the item as being a criticism of Waka Kotahi's so-called secret investigation, the item would have been without purpose if you had given a balanced view on the safety margins of glyphosate. In fact if both sides of this issue were covered, the investigation by Waka Kotahi would have been seen in a very different light. Instead you appeared to be attempting to expose a "cover up".’
• ‘A great many New Zealanders, maybe an overwhelming majority, are very happy to use glyphosate in home gardens and in agriculture as the safest and most cost effective weed killer available for a particular purpose.  Nowhere was this view canvassed in the news item.’
• ‘Only passing reference was made to the safety of glyphosate.’
• The item ‘appeared to be based on one side of the argument only; the views of an anti pesticide viewpoint and an academic who has a record of being opposed to many technological advances in agriculture.’
• ‘At the very least balanced reporting would cover some of the considerable body of scientific opinion that supports the safe use of glyphosate. The one international study that is invariably quoted by anti glyphosate activists is that of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) who describe glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”. However to put that in perspective IARC rates various substances by feeding them to animals with levels of risk being deduced. Their rating of glyphosate when fed to rats is in fact lower than that of processed or red meat. In other words even if glyphosate were consumed by humans they expect it would be less hazardous than bacon or lamb chops.’
• ‘While there is always room for informed discourse, our modern society requires in my opinion a healthy respect for science as the basis for good public policy. Certainly there are always those whose beliefs challenge good science as we have seen in both covid and climate change but there, the media have shown a welcome willingness to give greater emphasis to science over quackery. In the case of glyphosate the science is clearly saying it is very safe and TVNZ have "dropped the ball".’
• ‘A great many New Zealanders will be very annoyed if public money is squandered by Waka Kotahi on more expensive and less effective alternatives to glyphosate. That is a story that should be broadcast.’

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint:

• TVNZ accepted the report discussed a controversial issue of public importance, to which the balance standard applies.
• ‘The report was principally concerned with what it perceived as shortcomings in Waka Kotahi’s communication around the results of a review into its use of glyphosate, and the agency’s intentions in respect of its further use of the chemical. This focus was clearly signalled in the introduction to the report and was apparent.’
• TVNZ considered the item included ‘a range of significant viewpoints’, including statements and internal communications from Waka Kotahi, comments from Professor Ian Shaw, James Hollings and Gavin Ellis, and analysis and commentary by the reporter.
• While recognising different perspectives on the safety of glyphosate, TVNZ noted ‘as quoted in the report, Waka Kotahi’s position is that glyphosate “has environmental and health impacts” and the agency is “seeking to reduce the use of glyphosate and other herbicides where possible”. Irrespective of viewpoints to the contrary, Waka Kotahi’s position is that the glyphosate carries sufficient risk to justify changes to how it is used by the agency.’
• ‘It should be noted that the report stipulated that glyphosate is classified as safe for use in New Zealand, which reflects [the complainant’s] perspective, and also that there is ongoing international debate, which clearly signalled the existence of competing perspectives on the issue. But the health and environmental risks associated with glyphosate were not the focus of the report. The report was concerned with how Waka Kotahi had communicated its position on glyphosate, and its intentions in respect of continued use of the chemical.’
• TVNZ also referred to its previous broadcast in September reporting on Waka Kotahi’s use of glyphosate.¹ ‘Moreover, the safety of glyphosate is a long-running issue and it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be aware of the main perspectives that exist in relation to it.’

The standard

[8]  The balance standard² requires reasonable efforts be made to reflect significant perspectives when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news and current affairs programmes.³ This can be in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

Our analysis

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

[10]  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.⁴

[11]  The standard applies where there is a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ which is ‘discussed’. As we have previously recognised, we consider the safety of this commonly available and widely used weed killer amounts to a controversial issue of public importance.⁵ Although the broadcast focused on Waka Kotahi’s communication around its use of glyphosate, there was more than a mention of the substance’s safety, especially through Professor Shaw’s concluding remarks. Accordingly, the balance standard applies.

[12]  The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented. This enables audiences to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion, which is important to the operation of an open and democratic society.⁶ A key consideration for the Authority is whether viewers were likely to have been misinformed by the omission of the perspectives highlighted by the complainant.

[13]  The assessment of whether a reasonable range of other perspectives has been presented includes consideration of a number of factors, including:⁷

• whether the programme purported to be a balanced examination of an issue
• whether the programme was clearly signalled as approaching a topic from a particular perspective
• whether the programme was narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger, complex debate
• whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage in other media
• the nature of the discussion (was it a serious examination of an issue, or was the issue raised in a brief, humorous or peripheral way).

[14]  In this case, we consider the standard’s objective was satisfied. In reaching our finding, we are influenced by the fact the broadcast focused on Waka Kotahi’s alleged lack of transparency in communications regarding glyphosate use; the safety of glyphosate was referred to in this context:

• The segment was introduced by reference to Waka Kotahi keeping ‘news to themselves’. Although glyphosate was referred to as ‘controversial’, it did not explicitly refer to any safety issues.
• The broadcast was signalled as being a follow-up to a previous item which had explored Waka Kotahi’s use of glyphosate (and its safety).⁸
• Waka Kotahi’s position on glyphosate safety was not questioned. The report investigated Waka Kotahi’s communication of this position and its subsequent use of the chemical despite this position.
• Two of the three experts interviewed had backgrounds in journalism (with the third having a scientific background). Initial comments from all three reflected their responses to Waka Kotahi’s communications; not the safety of glyphosate.
• The report concluded with reference to Waka Kotahi ‘declining to be interviewed yet again’, reiterating the report’s message.

[15]  As the broadcast was narrowly focused on one aspect (Waka Kotahi’s transparency around glyphosate use) of a larger debate around glyphosate use, we do not consider any further balancing material relating to glyphosate safety was required:⁹

• The standard does not require every possible view on a complex issue be contained within one item.¹⁰
• The broadcast did not purport to examine the safety of glyphosate. As noted above, it was not the focus of the broadcast.
• Differing views of glyphosate safety were in any event signalled through: ‘The weed killer is classified as “safe to use” here… But there’s international debate over any long-term impact on… those spraying it.’ While this reference to glyphosate safety may have been ‘passing’ balance is not achieved by the ‘stopwatch’. The standard does not require equal time be given to each viewpoint (particularly in broadcasts focused on a particular aspects of an issue).¹¹
• The standard also allows for balance to be achieved over time within the period of current interest in relation to the relevant issue.¹² Given the nature of the issue (which continues to be of interest as Te Mana Rauhī Taiao / the Environmental Protection Authority is currently undertaking a review of glyphosate use, and its classification, in New Zealand)¹³ viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware it was the subject of competing points of view.¹⁴

[16]  Considering the introduction of the broadcast, the segment’s clearly established perspective, and the ongoing nature of the issue, we consider viewers were unlikely to have been left misinformed by the broadcast.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
30 May 2022   

Appendix

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

1  Graham Robertson’s formal complaint to NZME – 7 December 2021

2  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 24 January 2022

3  Robertson’s referral to Authority – 12 February 2022

4  TVNZ’s response to referral (and accompanying report) – 14 March 2022

5  Robertson’s final comments – 16 March 2022

6  TVNZ confirmation of no further comments – 16 March 2022

¹ Thomas Mead “‘Probable carcinogen’ glyphosate being sprayed on most major NZ highways” 1 News (online ed, 25 September 2021)
² Standard 8, Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
³ Guideline 8a
⁴ Freedom of Expression, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁵ Matthew and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-114 at [9]
⁶ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁷ Guideline 8c
⁸ Thomas Mead “‘Probable carcinogen’ glyphosate being sprayed on most major NZ highways” 1 News (online ed, 25 September 2021)
⁹ Guideline 8c
¹⁰ See Garrett and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-073 at [14]
¹¹ Guideline 8b and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-029 at [11]; End-of-Life Choice Society NZ and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-095 at [18]
¹² Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
¹³ Environmental Protection Authority | Te Mana Rauhī Taiao “Glyphosate: Call for information” <epa.govt.nz>
¹⁴ For example, see Simon Barnett and James Daniels Afternoons “Dr Jacqeuline Rowarth: Glyphosate – Safe or Unsafe” Newstalk ZB (online ed, 7 December 2021), also reported at “Dr Jacqueline Rowarth: In defence of glyphosate” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 7 December 2021); Nick Stringer “Glyphosate is farming’s favourite weed killer. Can NZ learn to live without it?” (1 June 2021) The Spinoff <thespinoff.co.nz>; Katy Jones “Should councils stop using the weedkiller glyphosate?” (5 May 2021) Stuff <stuff.co.nz>