BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld complaints an item on 1 News reporting on events the day of Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull’s (also known as Posie Parker) Auckland rally, including her decision to abandon the event, breached the balance standard. The complainants were concerned with: the item’s description of Parker as ‘anti-trans’; the lack of interviewees supporting Parker in the reports; and the ‘attitude and tone of reporters’ covering the story. The Authority found the item was sufficiently balanced by significant perspectives included both within the broadcast and in other coverage within the period of current interest; and it did not breach standards to describe Parker as ‘anti‑trans’ (given her views). Further, the standard is not directed at ‘bias in and of itself’, meaning broadcasters are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus.

Not Upheld: Balance

Background¹

[1]  On 9 January 2023, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (also known as Posie Parker, a public figure and activist based in the United Kingdom) publicly announced her intention to travel to Aotearoa New Zealand as part of her ‘Let Women Speak’ tour. She said she would host public events in Auckland | Tāmaki Makaurau and Wellington | Te Whanganui-a-Tara on 25 and 26 March 2023 respectively, at which she would speak, and provide an opportunity for others to speak.

[2]  Prior to arriving in New Zealand, Parker hosted similar events in the United States of America and Australia. Previous events overseas related to the tour resulted in violence and arrests of both attendees and counter-protesters (including in Melbourne on 18 March 2023).

[3]  The proposed New Zealand events raised concerns for some communities, resulting in various submissions to Immigration New Zealand (INZ) / the Minister of Immigration, asking for the denial or revocation of any visa already granted to Parker. Members of the community also organised counter‑protests at the time and place of the New Zealand events.

[4]  On 21 March 2023, INZ considered Parker’s circumstances did not meet the statutory threshold required to ‘make her an excluded person and therefore ineligible for a visa or entry’. This was because the decision maker was not satisfied there was reason to believe, based on available evidence at the time, that Parker was likely to pose a threat or risk to security, public order, or the public interest. The Minister was provided with the relevant advice and information at this time and declined to intervene on 22 March 2023. This information included advice from New Zealand Police | Ngā Pirihimana o Aotearoa the events would go ahead regardless of whether Parker entered New Zealand (based on events overseas) and that the events were unlikely to result in violence as counter‑protest organisers were encouraging no interaction with event attendees.

[5]  On 23 March 2023, several organisations representing rainbow communities applied to the High Court for interim orders preventing Parker from entering New Zealand. The Court held an urgent hearing the following morning on 24 March 2023 but declined to grant the relief sought, issuing reasons for its judgment on 5 April 2023.

[6]  Parker therefore entered New Zealand on 24 March 2023 and attempted to complete her Auckland event on 25 March 2023. This was met by a large number of pro-transgender activists and the event was halted. Parker left the country the same day without travelling to Wellington as planned. Although her event did not occur on 26 March 2023, a large pro-transgender rally occurred in Wellington that day.

The broadcast

[7]  The opening item on 1 News, broadcast on 25 March 2023, discussed events at Parker’s rally in Tāmaki Makaurau. The item was introduced by the host, Melissa Stokes, as follows:

Trans rights protesters today forced Posie Parker to abandon her speaking event in Auckland. A group of around 2,000 filled the Albert Park and drowned out the controversial anti-trans activist who eventually had to be escorted away by police. It follows a week of ugly scenes at similar rallies in Australia and attempts to stop the Brit from being allowed to enter New Zealand. Corazon Miller reports.

[8]  The report showed footage of the event and noted Parker was livestreaming ‘as the crowd swelled’. Parker was shown stating she has ‘genuinely never felt so unsafe’ in her life.

[9]  Miller noted ‘emotions [were] running high on both sides’ and the crowd broke through the barriers in place as Parker made her way to the stage (a rotunda in the park). Footage was shown of the rotunda and of Parker being ‘doused in tomato juice’.

[10]  Miller noted that ‘it became increasingly clear’ Parker would not be heard, and ‘it was all over’ 20 minutes later with Parker being escorted off and driven away by police. Parker could be heard stating, ‘I thought they were going to crush us to death.’ The report showed Parker’s later tweet, highlighting that ‘she genuinely feared for her life today and that her activism is simple: Let Women Speak.’

[11]  The report included interviews with several attendees, including:

• An elderly couple who noted ‘we’ve got to step up for lesbians, gay, bi, trans, everyone to be themselves’.
• The person who ‘doused’ Parker with tomato juice, stating ‘I juiced Posie Parker with tomato juice. I dropped a litre of juice on her. (Why?) Because she's spreading hate.’
• Two attendees shown immediately after the above comment stating, ‘That woman you were interviewing attacked her, physically assaulted her. And we're here with all these elderly women… All we wanted to do was hear her speak.’
• An attendee who noted ‘it wasn’t pleasant. Women will speak whether Kellie-Jay is here or not.’
• An attendee who ‘acknowledged the hurt’, stating ‘I do think that some unfortunate things happened today, but I think for the most part, the community came together and protected one another.’
• An attendee who stated ‘I’m glad to hear our voices are drowning out her hate.’

[12]  Miller concluded by stating ‘But as the crowds moved on, it was with a sense of victory.’ The report then turned to a live discussion between Stokes and Miller regarding Parker’s scheduled speaking engagement in Te Whanganui-a-Tara the next day. Miller noted the organisers behind the event had said it was cancelled but declined all on-camera interviews, instead issuing a statement that the cancellation was due to concerns around security and their security team stating ‘they simply couldn’t guarantee being able to keep [Posie] Parker safe’. On that issue, Miller stated:

And it's not too difficult to understand why. When [Posie] Parker arrived at this rotunda behind me here this afternoon, those emotions were clearly already high. And while the intent across both those sides had been to keep the peace, when the two groups converged in a small space like this, it was easy to see just how quickly things can get out of control.

[13]  Stokes then noted many trans-rights protesters attended another demonstration linked to Destiny Church and Vision New Zealand. Stokes said, ‘Vision New Zealand is calling on the Government to stop what it says is the sexualisation of children in school.’

The complaints

[14]  Michael Smyth and Neil Douglas complained the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand as:

• The coverage was ‘biased’ and did not include interviews with people supporting Parker (or Parker herself).
• Douglas was generally concerned with TVNZ’s description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans activist’ when she represents ‘Standing for Women’ and was in New Zealand as part of her ‘Let Women Speak’ tour.
• Interviewing the person who doused Parker with tomato juice ‘when that person should have been escorted away by Police encourages physical attacks.’ (Douglas)
• The reason for Parker’s visit ‘was not clearly shown and the whole coverage was very biased,’ referring in particular to the ‘gleeful’ attitude and tone of the reporters when Parker’s event was called off, when they should have been impartial. (Smyth)

The broadcaster’s response

[15]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaints, noting:

• Significant viewpoints on these issues more broadly ‘have been canvassed in the media throughout the period of interest so it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be well aware of alternative viewpoints that existed.’
• ‘Ms Keen-Minshull is commonly known to be a British anti-transgender rights activist and founder of the group Standing for Women.’²
• Although Parker describes herself as a women’s rights activist, her views are anti-trans, not pro-women, as noted in her quoted position on trans people: ‘trans women are sexual predators who pose a safety threat to girls in female bathrooms, and describing being a transgender woman as a "fetish"’.³ In responding to the referrals, TVNZ also pointed to a later YouTube video where Parker made other ‘anti-trans’ comments.⁴
• Significant ‘viewpoints on [the Posie Parker rally that day] were included in the report including from Posie Parker herself, as well as her supporters’.
• ‘While the woman who threw the tomato juice was interviewed, so too were two women who strongly articulated that this action was wrong. There was no element of condoning violence in the 1 News report.’

The standard

[16]  The balance standard⁵ states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, 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. The standard ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁶

Our analysis

[17]  We have watched the broadcasts and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[18]  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 and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means limiting the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁷

Balance

[19]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The balance standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.⁸

[20]  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’.⁹ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁰

[21]  The broadcast reported on Parker’s event in Auckland. As we have previously found,¹¹ given the public response surrounding Parker’s entry into New Zealand (outlined in the ‘background’ section above), it is arguable the speaking event constituted a controversial issue of public importance which was ‘discussed’ in the broadcast for the purposes of the standard. Accordingly, we have proceeded on the basis the balance standard applies. 

[22] The next question is whether the broadcaster adequately presented significant viewpoints either within the broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest. We are satisfied the broadcaster met its obligations in this respect, taking into account the following:

• The standard allows for balance to be achieved over time, within the period of current interest.¹² As our ‘background’ section notes, the broader issue of Parker’s arrival in New Zealand was the subject of considerable media coverage.¹³ Viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of relevant alternative perspectives on the issue, particularly by the time of this broadcast (the story having been covered in the preceding days as well, both by TVNZ and other media).
• The standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint, but rather that broadcasters make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative significant viewpoints.¹⁴
• Parker’s views were reflected in the broadcast through footage captured by Parker herself, as well as her later tweet.
• The broadcast included comments from a number of attendees who supported Parker’s event, for example:
  • Two attendees stating ‘That woman you were interviewing attacked her, physically assaulted her. And we're here with all these elderly women… All we wanted to do was hear her speak.’
  • An attendee who noted ‘it wasn’t pleasant. Women will speak whether Kellie-Jay is here or not.’
• The broadcast otherwise clearly alerted viewers to alternative perspectives of the event through references to Parker being a ‘controversial’ anti-trans activist, and ‘emotions running high on both sides’ at the event.
• Regarding the complainants’ concerns the coverage generally was ‘biased’, and Smyth’s concern with the ‘attitude’ of the journalists in the report, we note the balance standard is not directed at bias in and of itself.¹⁵ Broadcasters, as a matter of freedom of expression and editorial discretion, are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus.¹⁶

[23]  In light of the above factors, and the widespread media coverage over the relevant period of interest by TVNZ and other outlets, we do not consider the broadcast breached the balance standard.

Other aspects

[24]  Responding to the remaining aspects of the complaints, we note we have recently found the use of the descriptor ‘anti-trans’ for Parker did not breach standards given it is an accurate and reasonable characterisation of her publicly-expressed views.¹⁷ Provided it does not breach broadcasting standards, the right to freedom of expression means broadcasters are free to describe people however they consider appropriate.

[25]  Douglas also raised concerns that the use of the ‘anti‑trans’ descriptor contributed to violence at the rally on 25 March, and that interviewing the person who doused Parker with tomato juice ‘when that person should have been escorted away by Police encourages physical attacks’. Such concerns are usually best addressed under the Promotion of Illegal and Antisocial Behaviour standard (which was not explicitly raised). We are nevertheless satisfied the broadcast would not breach that standard, taking into account:¹⁸

• There is no evidence to support these submissions (that this particular broadcast encouraged or contributed to violence or attacks).
• The item formed part of an unclassified news programme and carried public interest.
• The right to freedom of expression includes the broadcaster’s right, and editorial discretion, to include certain interviewees’ perspectives; it also includes the right of interviewees to express themselves.
• As noted under balance, the item also included comments from people who condemned the actions of the person who doused Parker in tomato juice.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
9 August 2023

Appendix

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

Smyth

1  Michael Smyth’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 26 March 2023

2  TVNZ’s decision on complaint – 20 April 2023

3  Smyth’s referral to the Authority – 7 May 2023

4  TVNZ’s response to referral – 9 May 2023

5  Smyth’s final comments – 19 May 2023

6  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments on complaint – 9 June 2023

7  Smyth’s response to BSA guidance on gender identity issues – 20 June 2023

Douglas

8  Neil Douglas’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 25 March 2023

9  TVNZ’s decision on complaint – 20 April 2023

10  Douglas’s referral to the Authority – 11 May 2023

11  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments on complaint – 12 May 2023

¹ Information for this section is adopted from the High Court’s judgment in Auckland Pride v Minister of Immigration [2023] NZHC 758
² Citing Tim Fitzsimons “Prominent transgender advocate harassed by anti-trans feminists, video shows” NBC News (online ed, 2 February 2019)
³ Citing Patricia Karvelas “Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull's anti-trans rights campaign has become a headache for the Liberal Party. But the issue runs deeper than one MP” ABC (online ed, 26 March 2023)
4 This submission reflects that made in Cross and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-035 at [16]–[17]
⁵ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁸ Guideline 5.1
⁹ Guideline 5.1
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1
¹¹ See Cross and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2023-035 at [25]
¹² Guideline 5.2
¹³ For examples within the week of these broadcasts, see: Stewart Sowman-Lund “What you need to know about the anti-trans campaigner heading to New Zealand” The Spinoff (21 March 2023); “What are Posie Parker's views and why are they so controversial?” 1 News (online ed, 24 March 2023); Raphael Franks “Posie Parker tour of NZ: Anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull arrives in Auckland” NZ Herald (online ed, 24 March 2023); “Posie Parker departs New Zealand; JK Rowling blasts protest as 'repellent'” RNZ (online ed, 26 March 2023); Tess McClure “Anti-trans activist Posie Parker leaves New Zealand after chaotic protests” The Guardian (26 March 2023)
¹⁴ Guideline 5.3
¹⁵ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 15 and see Judge and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-021 at [13]
¹⁶ As above
¹⁷ See Cross and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2023-035 at [31]
¹⁸ Guideline 3.1