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 an item on 1 News concerning increased racism experienced by public figures in relation to co-governance issues breached the balance, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards. The complainant alleged the association of opponents of co-governance with racist abuse was an attempt to paint all opponents as racist and stop debate. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate and the expert featured could reasonably be relied upon, and the balance standard was not applicable. While the complainant was concerned the broadcasts denigrated opponents of co-governance, this group is not a recognised section of society for the purposes of the standard.

Not upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1 News, broadcast on 31 May 2022, reported on a rise in anti‑Māori sentiment and online abuse. The host introduced the item:

A recent uptick in anti-Māori sentiment is raising concern with experts. They say disinformation groups have pivoted following the anti-mandate protests to issues like co-governance. And it comes as some politicians notice a rise in online abuse.

[2]  The item went on to interview Kate Hannah from The Disinformation Project:

Hannah:  We've been monitoring specifically a rise in anti-Māori sentiment for over a year now, but most recently in the last six weeks, there has been a significant increase.

Reporter:  This expert says following the anti-mandate protest at Parliament, disinformation groups have shifted focus.

Hannah:  We did expect that there would be an uptick in racism and we have seen that. It's particularly around ideas of co-governance, around notions of He Puapua, the Māori Health Authority. 

[3]  The item included accounts and perspectives on the issue of anti-Māori sentiment online from several members of Parliament:

Reporter:  Labour Minister Nanaia Mahuta, who has fronted a lot of these issues, posted a comment she received recently calling her the N-word.

Mahuta:  We wouldn't tolerate it for our young people. I won't tolerate it.

Reporter:  The minister in charge of the Māori Health Authority says he's blocked over a thousand people online.

Peeni Henare:  I've been called, you know, a n****** I have been called by our own people kūpapa and a traitor.

Reporter:  It's not just Māori MPs, National's Christopher Luxon used te reo Māori to pay tribute to the late Joe Hawke and received a spate of negative comments, including "You just lost my vote" and "speak English for F's sake. So sick of Māori stuff." 

Luxon:  For me personally, I want to learn te reo Māori. You know, I have a lesson every Monday. 

Reporter:  The Human Rights Commission says it's noted a spike in recent comments on co-governance. 

Meng Foon:  We have a big part to play in helping our communities understand what co-governance is.

Luxon:  There is real division building in the country around an understanding and interpretation of co-governance.    

Reporter:  Others say MPs are part of the problem.

Chloe Swarbrick:  [MPs] are behaving in ways that they know are stirring up racist sentiment.

The complaint

[4]  Paul Schon complained the broadcasts breached the accuracy, balance and discrimination and denigration standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. His key concerns were:

Accuracy

• An expert said without any evidence that there has been ‘an uptick in [anti-Māori] sentiment and racism particularly around ideas of co governance’.
• The audience was not informed what topics racist comments received by ministers Nanaia Mahuta and Peeni Henare related to.
• The report was unclear whether each instance of racist comments online related to co-governance or not.

Balance

• The item breached this standard as a reasonable range of perspectives were not presented.

Discrimination and Denigration

• ‘sections of our community were by implication denigrated as being racist.’
• ‘This report [has] been deliberately put together in such a way as to intimate anyone, or any group, questioning [co-governance] or wanting to debate such an important topic by association (disinformation groups) and by deliberately weaving in comments and speculation around racism, are being condemned as racist elements who are trying to subvert the progress of co governance which to my mind is reckless. This report is trying to potentially shut down debate by intimating that anyone raising or debating this topic must be racist.’

[5]  In his referral, the complainant added the following key points:

Accuracy

• ‘The broadcaster had the ability to check whether in fact the comments of “racism” was in relation to a specific subject rather than condemning all three subjects [co-governance], He Puapua and the Māori Health Authority.’
• ‘It could be that there is anti-Māori sentiment in relation to the Māori Health Authority that has resulted in racist comments but not in relation to the other issues of debate. I stress it is important to be able to have the debate around [co-governance] without the fear of being labelled racist and I believe this programme has done little to further the on-going understanding of the issues but rather set out to demonise debate through a serious lack of accuracy which they could have rectified given they had a wealth of data from the disinformation monitoring group.’
• ‘The information given by the broadcaster on the issue of accuracy is nonsensical and a diatribe of some of the information from the disinformation monitoring group. None of it is relevant as again it is referring specifically to the Anti mandate group which I am not nor ever have seen as being part of this discussion.’

Balance

• ‘A reasonable range of other perspectives were not presented specifically around co-governance’.
• Co-governance is a controversial issue of public importance.
• Significant points of view were not adequately represented as no one was interviewed on the subjects being debated to give a different perspective.

Discrimination and Denigration

• ‘[It is implied that] racist comments are related somehow to co governance (one of the subjects discussed) but this is not in any way supported with any specific information. This is inferring, by reporting on two entirely different issues (1. Anti-Māori sentiment and racism up tick by individuals and disinformation groups and 2. the subjects of [co-governance], He Puapua and the Māori Health Authority) that somehow an individual or a group of people who have made any comments or are aligned or against the idea of co governance are “racist”.’
• ‘By trying to implicate any group or person entering this debate as “disinformation groups” and by deliberately weaving in comments and speculation around racism throughout the story, [1 News] is by default condemning anyone debating co-governance amongst other topics as racist. This report is trying to potentially shut down debate by individual free people in a democracy by this reporting.’

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following key reasons:

Accuracy

• ‘…a reputable body has found a link between the anti-mandate protests and violent, misogynist and racist online attacks as discussed in the 1 News item. 1 News is entitled to report on this group's findings in this way.’

Balance

• ‘The issue being discussed was a rise in anti-Māori sentiment, with some politicians noticing a rise in online abuse; and it contained comment from experts that disinformation groups have pivoted following the anti-mandate protests to issues like co-governance.’
• ‘The Committee does not agree that this is such an issue, while of public concern it is not controversial.’
• In any case sufficient viewpoints were adequately represented.

Discrimination and Denigration

• ‘Having regard to the prohibited grounds of discrimination set out at Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993, and the sections of the community listed under this standard, we consider that people opposed to co-governance and anti-vaccine mandate protestors are not a protected group for the purposes of this Standard.’

The relevant standards

[7]  The balance standard¹ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.² The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.³

[8]  The accuracy standard⁴ states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. Its purpose is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁵

[9]  The discrimination and denigration standard⁶ states broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any recognised ‘section of the community’. It protects sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and fosters a community commitment to equality.⁷

Our analysis

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

[11]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh 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.⁸

Accuracy

[12]  In assessing whether the requirements of the accuracy standard were met, we must consider whether the broadcast was inaccurate or misleading, and if so, whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure all material statements of fact were accurate and that the broadcast as a whole did not mislead viewers.⁹

[13]  The complainant has alleged firstly that the broadcast misled viewers by inferring there had been an uptick in online racist comments regarding co-governance, He Puapua and Te Aka Whai Ora | the Māori Health Authority when no evidence was presented that particular racist comments related to these topics (and, in particular, to co-governance issues). He also complained the broadcast misled the audience to believe that people and groups who oppose co-governance, He Puapua and Te Aka Whai Ora are racist and/or associated with disinformation groups.

[14]  With regard to the complainant’s first key issue, it amounts to an allegation that evidence is required to prove the statements in the broadcast (rather than an allegation that any particular statement is incorrect). However, the broadcaster is entitled to rely on information provided by experts.¹⁰ The standards do not require that broadcasters present background evidence for each statement of fact during a broadcast. TVNZ was relying on Kate Hannah, an expert on disinformation trends from a reputable, independent research organisation, the Disinformation Project.¹¹ This expert stated ‘We did expect that there would be an uptick in racism and we have seen that. It's particularly around ideas of co-governance, around notions of He Puapua, the Māori Health Authority.’ This clearly draws a link between racist abuse and co‑governance issues. In the circumstances, we do not consider the broadcast was inaccurate or misleading on this point and, in any event, the broadcaster is entitled to rely on the expert in this context.

[15]  The complainant’s desire for the inclusion of more specific evidence effectively amounts to a matter of personal preference regarding what the broadcast should cover. As recognised in section 5(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, such matters are not, in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure.

[16]  Regarding the complainant’s second issue, the broadcast stated that disinformation groups are pivoting to issues like co-governance, while online racism is increasing. In our view, the audience is not likely to understand these comments, or others in the broadcast, as meaning that all groups or persons opposed to co-governance are associated with disinformation groups or influenced by disinformation. They are also not likely to take this item as meaning that everyone opposing co-governance is racist. The broadcast was simply drawing a link between two events.

[17]  On this basis the complaint is not upheld under the accuracy standard for either of the issues raised.

Balance

[18]  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.¹²

[19]  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.¹³

[20]  The complainant argued other perspectives should have been presented in relation to co-governance. We agree that issues associated with co-governance (as well as He Puapua and Te Aka Whai Ora) may constitute controversial issues of public importance. However, the broadcast did not discuss these issues. They were mentioned only peripherally. The broadcast discussed reports of increasing anti-Māori sentiment and online abuse, in relation to these issues, in the context of The Disinformation Project’s recent findings. A brief news report (of just over 2 minutes) on increasing anti-Māori sentiment and online abuse is not an appropriate vehicle to canvas issues of co-governance.

[21]  With regard to what was ‘discussed’ (reports of increasing anti-Māori sentiment and online abuse), this is a factual matter (ie there have been reports). It is not an issue we would expect to excite debate, for which an alternate viewpoint must be broadcast. On this basis, the standard does not apply.

Discrimination and Denigration

[22]  This standard only applies to recognised ‘sections of the community’.¹⁴ The complainant has alleged that the broadcast encouraged discrimination against people who are opposed to co-governance and related issues. Such groups, as the complainant’s submissions recognise, may be comprised of a diverse range of individuals whose opposition is founded on different grounds and principles. As previously recognised by the Authority, such diverse groups are not recognised sections of the community for the purposes of this standard.¹⁵

[23]  In any event, a report that some may oppose an issue on particular grounds, does not, in our view, reflect in any way upon all other opponents.

[24]  For the reasons above, the discrimination and denigration 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
26 October 2022 

Appendix

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

1.  Paul Schon’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 2 June 2022

2.  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 1 July 2022

3.  Schon’s referral to the Authority – 14 July 2022

4.  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 19 July 2022

¹ Standard 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
³ As above
⁴ Standard 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁵ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁶ Standard 6 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁷ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
⁸ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁹ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
¹⁰ Guideline 9d
¹¹ “About us” The Disinformation Project (accessed 4 October 2022) <thedisinfoproject.org>; see also Cate Broughton “Covid-19: Disinformation in Aotearoa has escalated since Delta outbreak” Stuff (online ed, 9 November 2021)
¹² Guideline 8a
¹³ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
¹⁴ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 16
¹⁵ Gray, Scott, Vickers and Vink and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-020 at [25]; Matekohi & Rolleston and Māori Television Service, Decision No. 2021-069 at [16]–[17]; Cycling Action Network and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-092 at [9]