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 interview with a woman concerning her removal from an anti-co-governance meeting on Morning Report breached the balance, fairness and accuracy standards. The complainant alleged the broadcaster should have included balancing comment from, or interviewed Julian Batchelor (the speaker at the event concerned). The Authority found the interview did not require balancing comment as it did not ‘discuss’ the issue of co-governance, and did not treat Batchelor unfairly. The woman’s removal alone did not constitute a controversial issue of public importance. The accuracy standard did not apply as the complainant did not allege any statements were misleading.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  During the 25 July 2023 broadcast of Morning Report, host Ingrid Hipkiss interviewed a woman about her protest at an anti-co-governance meeting hosted by Julian Batchelor, and her allegedly violent removal from the event by other attendees. The broadcast was introduced as follows:

A woman who was dragged out of an anti-co-governance meeting says the incident exposes a violent undercurrent in the movement. [Interviewee] was left bruised after protesting a meeting for the group Stop Co-Governance on Saturday night. She was holding a sign and using a whistle to disrupt the event when attendees grabbed her head and legs and pulled her outside. [Interviewee] joins us now.

[2]  The broadcast then goes on to discuss the interviewee’s experiences concerning her alleged assault during her protest and removal from the venue, including details such as how many people were involved, what was said to her and the response of police.

[3]  Comments by the interviewee included:

Well, I actually was invited in to the meeting. There were people there that were racially profiling people and inviting in people that they thought were obviously sharing their kaupapa. Then I went and had a cup of tea, sat down. And when Julian Batchelor started to speak, I pulled out my sign, which said, 'hate speech is not free speech', and started blowing my whistle because I believe that we should give nothing to racism.

…

Well, I would say firstly, nothing justifies violence, and secondly, that what they've shown in the way they attacked me is the kind of violence that they perpetrate on Māori every day.

The complaint

[4]  Ray Spring complained that the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand as:

• RNZ did not report comments from, or interview, speaker at the event Julian Batchelor.
• Batchelor was not given a right of reply.
• Viewpoints opposing co-governance have not been given airtime on RNZ.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  RNZ did not uphold Spring’s complaint for the following reasons:

• The requirement to present significant points of view is reduced or negated where the programme is signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective.
• ‘The interview is quite clearly devoted to [interviewee’s] perspective of the events she describes, with appropriate questioning by the interviewer.’

The standards

[6]  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

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁴ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁵ 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.

[8]  The fairness standard⁶ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁷ 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

[9]  We have listened to 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 demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁸ We consider the complainant’s concerns are best addressed under the balance and fairness standards. However, we briefly address the accuracy standard at [21].

[11]  The complainant has also raised concerns with RNZ’s reporting concerning Julian Batchelor, Stop Co-Governance and anti-co-governance as a whole. Under the Broadcasting Act 1989 (the Act), a formal complaint about a breach of broadcasting standards must relate to a specific broadcast.⁹ The Authority has no jurisdiction to undertake a holistic review of all of a broadcaster’s programming. On this basis, these concerns will not be addressed further.

Balance

[12]  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. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.¹⁰

[13]  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’.¹¹ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹²

[14]  The complainant argued other perspectives should have been presented in relation to co-governance. We agree that issues associated with co-governance may constitute controversial issues of public importance.¹³ However, the broadcast did not discuss these issues. Co-governance was mentioned only as the focus of the event the protester attended, as context for this interview. While the interviewee’s comments included some brief allegations of racism and hate speech, the interview was focused on the way in which the person was removed from the event. For example, the interviewee described where and how she was touched, her feelings during and after the incident and the response of police. On this basis the issue of co-governance was not ‘discussed’ as is required under the standard.

[15]  Further, we do not consider the circumstances of the interviewee’s removal from the event constitute a controversial issue of public importance as contemplated under the standard, as this should be a straightforward police matter rather than a topic that excites debate or conflicting opinion amongst the New Zealand public.

[16]  In any case, the standard states the requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced or in some cases negated where it is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way in which the programme is presented that the programme is approaching the issue from a particular perspective.¹⁴ We consider this broadcast adequately signalled this.

Fairness

[17]  A consideration of what is fair will depend on the nature of the programme and the context, including the public significance of the broadcast. We take into account the nature of the individuals (for example, whether they were public figures familiar with the media, as opposed to regular people with no media experience), and whether any critical comments were aimed at them in their professional or personal lives.¹⁵

[18]  If a person or organisation referred to or portrayed in a broadcast might be adversely affected, that person or organisation should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, before the broadcast. What is ‘fair and reasonable’ will depend on the circumstances.¹⁶ It is well established the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for a public figure used to being the subject of robust scrutiny and regular media coverage. It is also commonplace for public figures to be criticised without it giving rise to an expectation of participation in every broadcast.¹⁷

[19]  The broadcast contained comments that may reflect negatively on Batchelor:

• The alleged ‘violent undercurrent’ in the anti-co-governance movement.
• The interviewee commenting on her sign 'hate speech is not free speech' and her wanting to ‘give nothing to racism', implying hate speech and racism were factors at the event.
• The statement that the incident reflected the violence the attendees perpetrate on Māori every day.

[20]  The complainant has alleged Julian Batchelor was treated unfairly by not having a right of reply to this broadcast. However we note Batchelor is a prominent and controversial figure in co-governance debates, outspoken in his views, and familiar with media attention.¹⁸ The issues above were not the main focus of the broadcast, as discussed under the balance standard above. We do not consider the broadcast in any way exceeded a level of treatment that could be expected of a public figure of Batchelor’s nature, nor did it leave listeners with an unfair impression of Batchelor personally. In these circumstances we do not believe the broadcaster was required to provide a response from Batchelor to the interview given by the protester.

Accuracy

[21]  The complainant has not alleged any statements of fact aired during the broadcast were inaccurate or misleading. On this basis the 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
29 November 2023    

Appendix

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

1  Ray Spring's formal complaint to RNZ - 25 July 2023

2  RNZ's decision on the complaint - 9 August 2023

3  Spring's referral to the Authority and subsequent correspondence - 21-24 August 2023

4  RNZ confirming no further comments - 22 September 2023

¹ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
³ Guideline 5.1
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁶ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁹ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 6(1)(a); see also Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints”
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1
¹¹ Guideline 5.1
¹² Guideline 5.1
¹³ Schon and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-080 at [20]
¹⁴ Guideline 5.4
¹⁵ Guideline 8.1
¹⁶ Guideline 8.4
¹⁷ See Clough and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-053 at [19]
¹⁸ Charlie Mitchell “Julian Batchelor and the apocalypse” The Press (online ed, 10 September 2023); The Platform “Julian Batchelor on the Stop Co-Governance meeting protests” YouTube (26 July 2023); “Julian Batchelor On His Stop Co-Governance Tour & The Events That Drove Him To Speak Out” Reality Check Radio (online ed, 2 June 2023)