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 a ThreeNews segment breached the accuracy and fairness standards by stating Pete Hegseth has ‘no relevant experience’ for the position of United States Defence Secretary. The Authority found the comment was clearly distinguishable as comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. While the comment can be seen as an overstatement, in the context of the overall broadcast and other reporting regarding Hegseth’s nomination, it was unlikely to mislead viewers, and any potential harm caused by omitting to outline Hegseth’s military experience is not at a level justifying our intervention or restriction of freedom of expression. Noting the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher for politicians and public figures, the Authority also found the brief comment would not have left viewers with an unfairly negative impression of Hegseth.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness.

The broadcast

[1]  During the 16 November 2024 broadcast of ThreeNews, an item reported on then-United States President-elect Donald Trump’s controversial choices for his Cabinet. The ThreeNews anchor introduced the segment as follows:

Donald Trump is facing ridicule over some of his provocative picks for Cabinet. His choices this week have shocked many in Washington - and it's not over, with the President-elect poised to announce more major positions, including the FBI and Treasury chiefs. [ITV News US correspondent] reports. 

[2]  Some of the ‘provocative picks’, including Pete Hegseth, were mentioned by name later in segment, and brief explanations were provided as to why they were controversial:

Robert F Kennedy Jr is an outspoken vaccine sceptic and conspiracy theorist. Kennedy's nomination isn't the only controversial one. Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz is being put forward as Attorney General despite being investigated for sex trafficking. Former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is picked for the Director of National Intelligence yet is sympathetic to both Russia and Syria. And Fox News anchor Pete Hegseth is nominated for Defence Secretary but has no relevant experience.

[3]  The balance of the segment focussed on the pending senate confirmation hearings for the nominated candidates, the prospects of their ultimate appointment and public reaction to Trump’s choices.

The complaint

[4]  Mark Wong complained the broadcast breached the accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis it was inaccurate and unfair to claim Hegseth has ‘no relevant experience’ for the Defence Secretary position. Wong noted Hegseth’s military service includes:

• Rank: Major
• Deployments: Iraq War and War in Afghanistan
• Awards: Two Bronze Stars, two Army Commendation Medals, National Defence Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Expert Infantryman Badge, Combat Infantryman Batch
• Years of Service: 2003 to present (25 years).

[5]  Under the accuracy standard, the complainant stated, ‘any reasonable and objective assessment would conclude that this is relevant experience for a role in defence leadership’. Further, it is irrelevant whether Hegseth has sufficient experience for the Defence Secretary position. The broadcast said he has no relevant experience, a ‘patently false’ claim.

[6]  The complainant also said the broadcast was unfair to Pete Hegseth. Although robust scrutiny of public figures is to be expected, the broadcast did not seek to scrutinise Hegseth’s qualifications or debate the relevance of such qualifications for the Defence Secretary role. Instead, it falsely claimed he had no relevant experience, which ‘unfairly undermined’ Hegseth’s reputation.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Accuracy 

• While it is true that Hegseth has a military background, military service does not automatically make someone a suitable candidate for Defence Secretary. Hegseth ‘has little management experience and the role of Secretary of Defence would put him in charge of 1.3 million active-duty service members and nearly one million civilians who work for the military’. It is therefore not materially misleading to say Hegseth has ‘no relevant experience’.

Fairness

• The broadcast was not unfair to Hegseth and would not have caused serious damage to his reputation.
• It is well established that the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures and politicians (as opposed to a layperson or someone unfamiliar with the media).
• Robust media scrutiny of Pete Hegseth is to be expected, given he was nominated for one of the United States’ top political positions. His nomination was covered extensively internationally, with significant questioning about whether he has adequate experience for the role. In this broadcast, the relevant statement – that Hegseth ‘has no relevant experience’ - was included to explain how President-elect Donald Trump has been questioned over his choices for Cabinet.

The standards

[8]  The accuracy standard (Standard 6) states:

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[9]  The purpose of the fairness standard (Standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹ The standard states:

• Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

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

[11]  It is our role to weigh the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. The Authority may only intervene when limiting the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.²

Accuracy

[12]  The accuracy standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure all material points of fact in news content are accurate.³ However, Guideline 6.1 of the Code of Broadcasting Standards states the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.

[13]  The following factors may be relevant in determining whether a statement was a statement of fact, or was analysis, comment, or opinion:⁴

• the language used
• the type of programme
• the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter
• whether the statement is attributed to someone
• whether evidence or proof is provided

[14]  Pete Hegseth’s nomination for the position of Defence Secretary garnered a strong yet mixed reaction. Critics claimed he does not have the experience necessary to lead the United States’ largest government agency – he has little political, managerial, and diplomatic experience.⁵ Others view him as a ‘breath of fresh air’ and a ‘reformer’.⁶

[15]  In the context of a brief report on why various individuals were controversial picks for Cabinet, we consider the reporter’s statement was clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. The ‘relevance’ of experience is a subjective rather than factual concept. What one person regards as relevant experience for a given job or position, another may not.⁷ This subjectivity of ‘relevant experience’ is reflected through the strong yet mixed reaction to Pete Hegseth’s nomination.

[16]  The thrust of the ThreeNews item was to report that Trump’s latest Cabinet nominations, including that of Hegseth, were highly controversial. Suggesting that Hegseth has ‘no relevant experience’ for the Secretary of Defence position reflects the reporter’s analysis, comment or opinion, based on the criticism Hegseth’s nomination garnered. The accuracy standard therefore does not apply.

[17]  We accept that ‘no relevant experience’ can be seen as an overstatement.  That said, in the context of the overall broadcast, and other reporting regarding Hegseth’s nomination, we consider the statement unlikely to mislead viewers. Further, any potential harm caused by the failure to reference Hegseth’s military experience is not at a level justifying our intervention or restriction of freedom of expression. 

[18]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the accuracy complaint.

Fairness

[19]  It is well established that the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher for politicians and public figures than those unfamiliar with the media.⁸ Politicians and public figures hold a position in society where robust questioning and scrutiny of their policy, roles, and behaviour is encouraged and expected.⁹

[20]  Pete Hegseth is a public figure. He is a former co-host of FOX & Friends Weekend, a popular US morning show, and the broadcast in question discussed his nomination for one of the highest-ranking political positions in the US.

[21]  We do not agree the broadcast unfairly undermined Hegseth’s reputation, as suggested by the complainant. As we have found above, the brief statement was analysis, comment or opinion and, in light of this broadcast and wider ongoing coverage of the nomination, would not leave viewers with an unfairly negative impression of Hegseth.¹⁰

[22]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
26 February 2025  

Appendix

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

1  Mark Wong’s initial complaint – 16 November 2024

2  WBD’s decision on the complaint – 25 November 2024

3  Wong’s referral to the Authority – 25 November 2024

4  WBD confirming no further comments – 14 January 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
² Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
³ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁴ Commentary: Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ See, for example, Phil McCausland and Madeline Halpert “Trump’s ‘anti-woke’ defence pick surprises Washington – here’s why” BBC (online ed, 14 November 2024); Julian Borger “Pentagon stunned after Trump picks Pete Hegseth for defence secretary” The Guardian (online ed, 13 November 2024); Lolita C. Baldor and Tara Copp “Trump’s defense choice stuns the Pentagon and raises questions about the Fox News host’s experience” AP News (online ed, 14 November 2024); “Who is Pete Hegseth, the pro-Israeli Fox News host picked to head Pentagon?” Al Jazeera (online ed, 13 November 2024); Justin M. Higgs “What I learned after helping vet Pete Hegseth for the RNC in 2016” MSNBC (online ed, 17 November 2024); Morgan Phillips “Meet Pete Hegseth: The ‘recovering neocon’ and Pentagon critic who’s been tapped for Defense secretary” Fox News (online ed, 15 November 2024); Hanna Rosin “What Pete Hegseth’s Nomination Is Really About” The Atlantic (online ed, 21 November 2024); United States Department of Defense “About” (31 July 2012) <defense.gov>
⁶ Holly Honderich “Five takeaways from Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing” BBC (online ed, 15 January 2025); Connor O’Brien and Joe Gould “Republicans balk at new Hegseth allegations” Politico (online ed, 22 January 2025)
⁷ For a similar approach, see, for example, Fidoe and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision 2023-094 at [15]
⁸ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <bsa.govt.nz>
⁹ Chapel, Garbutt & Hopcroft and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-042 at [34]
¹⁰ For a similar finding see Hickson and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-041 at [31]