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 comments made by Dr Michael Baker and Hon Chris Hipkins during interviews on The AM Show were inaccurate and misleading. When asked (in separate interviews) whether there had been any severe adverse reactions to the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccination recorded in New Zealand, Dr Baker stated he was not aware of any, while Mr Hipkins stated there had been ‘a handful of people’ and ‘a few’ that had experienced side effects in general. At the time of the broadcasts, there were 180 serious adverse reactions that had been reported, 0.02% of the total doses administered. The Authority found that Dr Baker’s statements were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. In relation to Mr Hipkins’ comments, the Authority found that these were not inaccurate or misleading, and would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the issue as a whole.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  On 5 July 2021, The AM Show interviewed Dr Michael Baker, epidemiologist, to discuss the Pfizer vaccine rollout in New Zealand. Host Amanda Gillies asked Dr Baker if he was aware of any serious side effects for people who have had the Pfizer vaccine in New Zealand. Dr Baker responded:

Dr Baker:              Not as far as I'm aware. I mean, you get some mild or even moderate side effects that we know about, which are partly because your immune system is responding to the vaccine, but I'm not aware of any serious side effects reported in New Zealand to date. And they are being very carefully monitored.

[2]  The following day, The AM Show featured an interview with COVID-19 Response Minister Hon Chris Hipkins discussing the 150,000 doses of the Pfizer vaccine that had arrived in New Zealand that week. In this interview, Ms Gillies posed the question about serious side effects to Mr Hipkins:

Ms Gillies:            Chris, I put this question to epidemiologist Michael Baker yesterday, so I said to him, look, there have been blood clots and deaths associated with the AstraZeneca jab and other COVID vaccines. And I just wanted to know, have there been any serious side effects recorded in New Zealand linked to the Pfizer jab? He said no, only minimal. But then we had a lot of people write and say, no, that's not actually the case. I want to put that to you. Have there been any serious side effects linked to the Pfizer in New Zealand that you know of or that have been recorded? Have you got any understanding of that?

Mr Hipkins:           Yes, there have been a few people who have experienced side effects. That's not unusual for this vaccine – that applies with almost any vaccine that gets rolled out. So you do get some people who have an allergic reaction often not to the vaccine, but to the solution that the vaccine’s mixed in with, for example. And so those are all recorded. They're all publicly available, they're on the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring, CARM, website, people can look at those. It is a smaller rate though of reactions than almost any other vaccine we use and just to put that into context -

Duncan Garner:   How many patients are we talking about, how many people?

Mr Hipkins:           Well, it really depends on what you're classing, if you're classing the very the more severe reactions, it's a very small number – a handful of people. There are other people who report well I had an achy arm for a period afterwards or – or I got a bit of a cough or, you know, there are people who have or I was a bit achy for a few days, that's at the mild end, and there are a bigger number of those.

The complaint

[3]  Daniel Summerfield complained Dr Baker’s and Mr Hipkins’s responses were false and misleading, in breach of the accuracy standard. He argued that:

• At the time of the broadcast there were 180 serious adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine recorded in New Zealand on the Medsafe website.
• Dr Baker is considered an independent expert and a trustworthy source of information in relation to COVID-19, and his response of ‘not as far as I’m aware’ deliberately downplayed the risks of the vaccine and was inaccurate.
• Mr Hipkins’s response that there had been ‘a handful of people’ with more severe reactions as a result of the vaccine and only ‘a few’ that had experienced side effects in general also ‘deliberately minimised the very real injuries of the vaccine.’
• The AM Show’s audience sees the show as a trustworthy source of information and would trust these answers to be correct. The AM Show did not challenge Dr Baker or Mr Hipkins on their responses and failed to ‘present to the viewers accurate information that can help with informed consent & decision making on their health choices.’

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Discovery NZ Ltd (Discovery) did not uphold Mr Summerfield’s complaints. In relation to the interview with Dr Baker, Discovery advised:

• It had not identified any material errors of fact in the broadcast.
• As Dr Baker is a respected epidemiologist, and member of the Ministry of Health’s COVID-19 Technical Advisory Group, it was satisfied that he is a trustworthy and reliable source of information on the topic discussed and was entitled to rely on the information he provided.
• Dr Baker’s comments regarding adverse reactions to the vaccine were his genuinely held belief at the time of the broadcast, and he prefaced his comments by saying ‘Not as far as I’m aware.’ As a result, the viewers would be able to judge the integrity of his response for themselves.

[5]  In relation to the interview with Mr Hipkins, Discovery advised:

• It had not identified any material errors of fact in the broadcast and did not agree that the audience was significantly misled.
• As the COVID-19 Response Minister, Mr Hipkins is considered to be a trustworthy and reliable source of information on the Pfizer vaccination rollout in New Zealand, and it was entitled to rely on the information he provided.
• Mr Hipkins’ comments regarding adverse reactions were his genuinely held belief at the time.
• Mr Hipkins noted that the answer to the question of how many patients have had serious side effects from the vaccine depends on what is classed as a severe reaction.
• Mr Hipkins ‘provided viewers with sufficient information to investigate the issue further by drawing attention to the Centre for Adverse Reaction Monitoring so any viewers left with questions or wanting more information were informed of the best and most direct source of that information.’

The standard at issue

[6]  The accuracy standard 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.¹ Its purpose is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.²

Our analysis

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

[8]  In considering complaints, our starting point is the right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information. Equally important is our consideration of the level of actual or potential harm that may be caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.

[9]  Audiences may be misinformed in two ways: by incorrect statements of fact within the programme; and/or by being misled by the programme as a whole.³ Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts.’⁴

[10]  The standard does not apply to statements of comment, analysis or opinion.⁵ An opinion is someone’s view. It is contestable, and others may hold a different view.⁶ However, it is not always clear whether a statement is an assertion of fact or opinion. This will depend on the context and presentation of the statements and how a reasonable viewer would perceive them.⁷

[11]  In assessing whether the requirements of the accuracy standard were met, our role is firstly to determine whether the accuracy standard applied to the broadcast. We must then consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading, and if so, whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that all material statements of fact were accurate and that the programme as a whole did not mislead viewers.

Dr Baker’s comments

[12]  With regard to Dr Baker’s response to whether there had been any serious adverse effects from the vaccine, we found his comments to be statements of opinion. In reaching this view, we took into account the following factors:  

• The AM Show is a news and talk show in which guests are often interviewed in a context that encourages them to present their opinions.
• Dr Baker is a well-known epidemiologist and was interviewed to provide his expert opinion on the issue.
• Dr Baker qualified his response to the question of whether there had been any serious adverse effects from the vaccine by stating ‘Not as far as I’m aware.’ This indicated to viewers that his response may be contestable.

[13]  As a result, the accuracy standard does not apply. We acknowledge that viewers may give more weight to an expert’s opinion on a subject. However, given the qualified nature of Dr Baker’s response, it was open to viewers to verify the question for themselves.

Mr Hipkins’ comments

[14]  We considered that Mr Hipkins’ comments in his interview around serious adverse effects from the vaccine were assertions of fact, given the definitive nature of the language used. Further, it is Mr Hipkins’ role as the COVID-19 Response Minister to speak on behalf of the Government in matters relating to the COVID-19 response, and viewers could reasonably expect to rely on his advice on such a matter, if presented definitively.

[15]  In then considering whether Mr Hipkins’ comments were inaccurate or misleading we noted that, as at the time of the broadcasts, there had been 180 serious adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) reported on the Medsafe website⁸ (as noted by Mr Summerfield). This amounted to approximately 0.02% of the total doses administered at the time (744,883). In addition, there were 4,341 AEFI reports that were non-serious, amounting to approximately 0.5% of the total doses administered. 

[16]  In the context of a discussion about the safety of the vaccine for the population at large, we do not consider that it was inaccurate or misleading for Mr Hipkins to have stated at the outset, ‘Yes, there have been a few people who have experienced side effects’ and that the number that had reported serious adverse reactions was ‘a very small number – a handful of people.’ We consider the phrases ‘a few’ and ‘a handful’ reflected the proportion of adverse reactions in light of the quantity of vaccinations administered. Mr Hipkins was clear that the answer depended on what was classed as a serious or severe reaction.

[17]  To the extent viewers may have been unclear regarding the precise figures, Mr Hipkins went on to state that the statistics on adverse reactions are recorded and publicly available on the CARM website, thereby alerting people to where they could see the exact numbers for themselves.  

[18]  As we have concluded that Mr Hipkins’ comments were not inaccurate or misleading, we do not need to go on to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that all material statements of fact were accurate and that the programme as a whole did not mislead viewers. Nevertheless, we do note that given Mr Hipkins is the COVID-19 Response Minister, Discovery was entitled to rely on his advice on matters relating to the Pfizer vaccination rollout. We also note that after receiving feedback about Dr Baker’s response to the question of whether there had been serious adverse reactions to the vaccine, the broadcaster made efforts to put the question to Mr Hipkins for response.

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

Susie Staley
Acting Chair
27 October 2021   

Appendix

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

A – Dr Michael Baker interview

1  Mr Summerfield’s complaint to Discovery – 15 July 2021

2  Discovery’s decision on complaint – 10 August 2021

3  Mr Summerfield’s complaint referral to BSA – 26 August 2021

B – Hon Chris Hipkins interview

4  Mr Summerfield’s complaint to Discovery – 15 July 2021

5  Discovery’s decision on complaint – 10 August 2021

6  Mr Summerfield’s complaint referral to BSA – 26 August 2021

Further documents

7  Discovery’s confirmation of no further comments – 31 August 2021

¹ Standard 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
³ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 19
⁴ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, CIV-2011-485-1110
⁵ Guideline 9a
⁶ Guidance: Accuracy – Distinguishing Fact and Analysis, Comment or Opinion, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 64
⁷ As above
⁸ Medsafe (30 June 2021) “Safety Report #14 – 5 June 2021” <www.medsafe.govt.nz>