BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

All BSA's decisions on complaints 1990-present

Walls and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2022-025 (18 May 2022)

Members
  • Susie Staley MNZM (Chair)
  • John Gillespie
  • Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i
Dated
Complainant
  • Helen Walls
Number
2022-025
Programme
Mediawatch
Broadcaster
Radio New Zealand Ltd
Channel/Station
Radio New Zealand

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance


The broadcast

[1]  An episode of Mediawatch, broadcast at 9am on 30 January 2022 on RNZ National, recapped recent COVID-19-related media items, including on:

  • Liz Gunn questioning a reporter about alleged medical events following administration of paediatric doses of the COVID-19 vaccine
  • Clarke Gayford helping musician friends access rapid antigen tests at a time when supply was restricted, and the friends were ineligible.

[2]  The Gunn item included the following excerpts:

Colin Peacock:         But even though that was a bit misleading, it wasn't deliberate. Unlike this bid to get the media to report bad stuff about our COVID response.

Liz Gunn:                  Something like 5 kids collapsing

                                 [inaudible]

Liz Gunn:                  Okay, so are you investigating as reporters because that's the role of reporters, to investigate? Wouldn't you be going back in there and investigating?

Colin Peacock:         That's former TVNZ and RNZ host Liz Gunn, now a full blown, and full throated, conspiracy theorist. There, her fellow travellers were filming her harassing a TVNZ reporter on the street about why the media failed to report children collapsing after getting paediatric doses of the COVID vaccine. But the reason that wasn't in the news was, it was rubbish. Gunn and many others had no evidence for the lie that they pushed hard on social media. Her profile as a former news personality did, however, have the effect of highlighting that fake news, as well as the disturbing intimidation she deployed disseminating it. And that's something ZB's Marcus Lush warned his night-time listeners about in the middle of this month.

Marcus Lush:           The people that run the event have said it's not true. And the Minister of Health has said it's not true. As we say, as we always say, just get your news from reputable news outlets.

Colin Peacock:         Among them was the New Zealand Herald, who not only debunked those rumours but also chronicled what it called the 'sad descent down the rabbit hole' of Liz Gunn while they were at it.

[3]  The Gayford item was preceded by, and included, the following excerpts:

Colin Peacock:         However, the anti-vaxxers who fill the airtime on talk radio are not likely to take that advice either. And although they're a minority, there are plenty more in the pipeline, with cherry picked information and half understood pseudo-science.

[caller]:                      - and UV penetrates everywhere. It can go everywhere. It can get into places that you can't wipe -

Francesca Rudkin:  Well, look, John, everyone should be back at work in the next week or two, so try getting in touch again.

Colin Peacock:         That was another caller… telling host Francesca Rudkin last weekend that flooding MIQ with virus killing UV light was the obvious answer, something Donald Trump once suggested when he was the president. But when the BBC asked if this really could work, the boss of a specialist supplier to hospitals told them the one type of UV that could kill COVID is the deadly one that's filtered out by Ozone in our atmosphere.

[unidentified]:           You would literally be frying people. UVC is really nasty stuff. If your eyes are exposed, you know that gritty feeling you get if you look at the sun, it's like that times 10 just after a few seconds.

Colin Peacock:         Now while getting covidiots on the line was no problem on talk radio, the Prime Minister's partner got called a bit of an idiot, too, after a pharmacy in Tauranga called him to say that a DJ mate of his was in the house wanting a rapid antigen test.

Tim Beveridge:         Well, I've read a little bit about it yesterday and I thought, Oh God, what an idiot. And I thought to myself wonder how big a story this will be. And then I got my physical copy of the New Zealand Herald. And there's a well, it's probably about a foot high image of Clarke Gayford.

The complaint

[4]  Dr Helen Walls complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice as Peacock:

  • Presented ‘a one-sided view of the covid response, and [demonised] those New Zealanders who are concerned about vaccine safety.’
  • Described Liz Gunn as:
    • ‘“harassing” a reporter – when she asked reasonable questions and ‘the audio of this interaction did not sound at all like harassment to me’
    • ‘a full blown, full throated, conspiracy theorist’
    • having concerns (regarding the children collapsing after receiving the vaccine) which were ‘rubbish’, without presenting reasonable evidence to contradict them (only stating that Marcus Lush and the New Zealand Herald had already ‘debunked’ them).’
  • ’smugly assumes that the science around vaccination is settled, it is not:
    (a)  ‘[Pfizer’s] trial will not be complete until 2023, and the release of a small portion of trial documents so far indicate that a number of adverse effects have occurred.’
    (b)  ‘According to NZ's own Medsafe data, New Zealanders have now reported 58,135 adverse events, including 2,842 which were defined as 'serious'. In addition, two deaths have been judged as, 'likely due to vaccine-induced myocarditis' (as reported by Stuff, March 29, 2022).’
  • Was ‘generally extremely biased and dismissive of this group of New Zealanders (many of whom, as we know, are M[ā]ori).’ He described their ‘personal research as a, “sad descent down the rabbit hole”, and referred to them as “covidiots”.
  • ‘Even if the science were settled, the larger question of one's right to reject medical treatment was not even touched on in this report. I know many, highly [intelligent] and well-informed people who desire much deeper and more balanced discussion of these issues. Peacock has failed to provide this opportunity, and has instead perpetuated the intolerance and irrationality that has come to dominate the national discussion.’
  • This is unbalanced, discriminatory, hate speech. Whether we believe in the efficacy and safety of this vaccine or not, we should uphold certain standards of decency and consider what kind of a society we want to live in.’

[5]  The complainant also referred to two medical articles and noted:

Five minutes are then given to callers on talk back radio, in what appears to be an effort to associate vaccine hesitancy with (as Peacock puts it) 'cherry picked misinformation and half understood pseudoscience.' While of course there will be a range of views and levels of understanding on either side of this debate, Peacock could look to reputable sources such as The British Medical Journal and he would find that it is not just late night talk back callers who have questions and concerns about the rollout of this medication

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint:

  • ‘Mediawatch looks critically at the New Zealand media - television, radio, newspapers and magazines as well as the “new” electronic media.’
  • While the complainant ‘might interpret Liz Gunn chasing a TV reporter down the street demanding that he investigates an imaginary medical incident as business-as-usual, Mr Peacock is quite entitled to call it “harassment”, especially when it has been described that way in the media. As he said in his report, The New Zealand Herald had thoroughly debunked the alleged paediatric vaccination “incident” Ms Gunn was prosecuting and a number of publications have described her “sad descent down the (conspiracy) rabbit hole”’ (‘The programme was quoting what the New Zealand Herald had published.’)
  • ‘The use of the term “covidiot” was used as a prelude and in conjunction with the term “idiot” in referring to a story about the Prime Minister’s partner Clarke Gayford.’
  • ‘Mediawatch listeners expect to hear a summary and review of important issues in the media. This can and often does include various opinions, all of which may be freely expressed thanks to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.’

The standards

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard1 is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.2 It states that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that any news, current affairs or factual programme is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead.

[8]  The fairness standard3 protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.4 It ensures individuals and organisations are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

[9]  We consider the above standards appropriately deal with the complaint, but briefly deal with the discrimination and denigration, and balance standards at paragraph [26].

Our analysis

[10]  We have listened to 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 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 reasonable and justified.5

Accuracy

[12]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.6

[13]  The standard does not apply to ‘analysis, comment or opinion’.7 A fact is verifiable: it is something that can be proved right or wrong. An opinion is someone’s view: it is contestable, and others may hold a different view.8

[14]  Based on the complaint, we consider the key accuracy-related issues concern:

  • the statement that Gunn ‘harassed’ a reporter when the behaviour did not constitute harassment
  • the statement that Gunn had ‘no evidence’ for the claim regarding children collapsing after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine
  • the suggestion that the science around the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine is settled.

[15]  With respect to each of these allegations:

  • Whether behaviour amounts to ‘harassment’ (as that term is commonly used) involves a degree of subjectivity and generally reflects a person’s opinion; it is not something that can be ‘proved’ in many instances. We consider this aspect of the complaint concerns comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. It is more appropriately dealt with under the fairness standard.
  • There is, and was at the time of broadcast, reputable evidence (from New Zealand health officials) the alleged medical events did not occur.9 On this basis, we are satisfied no more was required from the broadcaster to meet the standard’s requirement of reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy.
  • We have previously found the vaccine’s safety has been established,10 a conclusion recently supported by the High Court.11

[16]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard. We note the complainant also referred us to articles published in the British Medical Journal said to support their complaint. These articles focused on issues of transparency and conflicts of interest. In our view, neither article progresses this complaint.  

Fairness

[17]  The fairness standard states broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in a programme.

[18]  If a person or organisation referred to during a broadcast might be adversely affected, they should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, before a broadcast. What is fair and reasonable will depend on the circumstances.12

[19]  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.13

[20]  Our inquiry is as to whether Gunn, or any other specific individual or organisation referred to in the broadcast, was treated fairly. We note the fairness standard does not apply to any comment directed at COVID-19 vaccine hesitant people generally. As we have previously held, the fairness standard applies to individuals and organisations, not groups of this nature.14

[21]  Having considered the broadcast in light of this complaint, we have concluded Gunn and the other individuals specifically referred to (ie the talkback callers) were treated fairly. In reaching our finding, the following contextual factors are particularly relevant:

  • Mediawatch provides robust commentary on, and analysis of, the New Zealand media.15
  • Sound clips used were gathered from other media stories; they were not created by Mediawatch itself.
  • Gunn has extensive journalism experience and would be familiar with media dealings.16
  • Gunn voluntarily put herself in the spotlight by investigating, posting about, and responding to the relevant claims.17
  • The New Zealand Herald reported security personnel had to intervene to encourage physical distancing between Gunn and the TVNZ reporter.18

[22]  We are also influenced by the following:

  • With regard to Gunn:
    (a)  She has frequently been the subject of news articles due to her views,19 with the New Zealand Herald describing her ‘sad spiral… down the conspiracy rabbit hole’.20
    (b)  Gunn was given an opportunity to respond following those news articles.21
    (c)  Since the broadcast, Gunn has been a prominent figure in related events, such as the protest at Parliament earlier this year.22
  • We have previously found inflammatory comments towards people who are vaccine hesitant,23 or referring to New Zealanders who are not vaccinated as ‘idiots’,24 did not reach the threshold of causing widespread undue offence or distress, or undermining widely shared community standards.
  • The word ‘idiot’ (or ‘covidiot’) was not featured in the top 31 most unacceptable words in broadcasting in our research on the topic this year, and appeared in low frequency as a suggested word to include by participants.25

[23]  With regard to Peacock’s treatment of Gunn, the phrases complained about were likely understood as Peacock’s personal description of Gunn and her actions and were based on the featured news items. As security became involved in Gunn’s investigations, it was, in particular, not unreasonable to describe Gunn’s behaviour as ‘harassment’.

[24]  With regards to Peacock’s use of the term ‘covidiots’ in a manner which may refer to the preceding talkback callers, we consider listeners would have understood the term to reflect Peacock’s opinion on people sharing the callers’ positions, being people who ignore official health advice and/or believe in debunked theories relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was not a personal attack.26

[25]  In any event, we do not consider any of the phrases used in the broadcast reached the threshold required to constitute a breach of this standard.

Remaining standards

[26]  We do not consider the discrimination and denigration, and balance standards applied in this case:

  • Discrimination and Denigration: The discrimination and denigration standard27 applies only to recognised ‘sections of the community’ which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993.28 We have previously found the standard does not apply to groups who oppose or have concerns about vaccinations.29 Therefore, the standard does not apply here.
  • Balance: the balance standard30 requires reasonable efforts be made to reflect significant perspectives when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news and current affairs programmes.31 The media’s treatment of Gunn is not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applies. Further, we have previously held the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine was similarly not a controversial issue due to consensus about its safety.32

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

 

Susie Staley
Chair
18 May 2022   

 

 

Appendix

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

1  Dr Helen Walls’ formal complaint to RNZ – 1 February 2022

2  RNZ’s response to the complaint – 28 February 2022

3  Dr Walls’ referral to the Authority – 8 March 2022

4  Dr Walls’ confirmation of accuracy standard – 24 March 2022

5  RNZ’s response to referral – 5 April 2022

6  Dr Walls’ final comments – 7 April 2022

7  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 29 April 2022


1 Standard 9, Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
2 Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
3 Standard 11, Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
4 Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
5 Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
6 Guideline 9b
7 Guideline 9a
8 Guidance: Accuracy – Distinguishing fact and analysis, comment or opinion, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 64
9 “COVID-19: Ministry of Health denies viral claim children collapsed at North Shore vaccination centre” Newshub (online ed, 18 January 2022); “Covid 19 Delta outbreak: Auckland children did not collapse after vaccine - health officials quash social media lies” New Zealand Herald (online ed, 18 January 2022); Dylan Reeve “No, five kids didn’t collapse at a vaccination site. So who said they did?” (28 April 2022) The Spinoff <thespinoff.co.nz>
10 See NZDSOS Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-005 at [19]
11 NZDSOS Inc v Minister for COVID-19 Response [2022] NZHC 716 at [112] and [115]
12 Guideline 11d
13 Grant & Findlay and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. at [19] citing Davis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-061 at [31]–[32]; and Edwards and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-085 at [23]
14 See Golden and Rose and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-002 at [21]
15 Leyland and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-157 at [14]
16 Damian Venuto “Covid 19: The sad spiral of Liz Gunn down the conspiracy rabbit hole” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 19 January 2022)
17 See Free NZ “Liz Gunn replies” (18 January 2022) Facebook <facebook.com>
18 Damian Venuto “Covid 19: The sad spiral of Liz Gunn down the conspiracy rabbit hole” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 19 January 2022)
19 “Former NZ television presenter Liz Gunn claims earthquake was Mother Nature's response to Jacinda Ardern's Covid-19 announcement” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 24 October 2021); David Farrier “New Zealand goes Loopy: A summary of Aotearoa's top anti-vax & conspiracy theory nitwits” (25 October 2021) Webworm <webworm.co>
20 Damian Venuto “Covid 19: The sad spiral of Liz Gunn down the conspiracy rabbit hole” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 19 January 2022)
21 See William Hewett “COVID-19: Liz Gunn goes off in furious rant after being asked for evidence of children collapsing at North Shore vaccination centre” Newshub (online ed, 19 January 2022): ‘She did not give any evidence or say where she heard the rumour, instead responding with an angry, conspiratorial rant.’
22 Toby Manhire “Figureheads and factions: the key people at the parliament occupation” (18 February 2022) The Spinoff <thespinoff.co.nz>
23 Gray, Scott, Vickers & Vink and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-020 at [22]
24 Oluwole and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-146 at [15]
25 Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Language that may offend in broadcasting” (March 2022) <www.bsa.govt.nz> at 17
26 See Benge and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2022-013 at [20] for a similar finding.
27 Standard 6, Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
28 Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 15
29 Laroche & Breed and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-132 at [7] citing Donald and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-033 at [23]; and Gray, Scott, Vickers & Vink and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-020 at [25]
30 Standard 8, Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice
31 Guideline 8a
32 Donald and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-033 at [15]–[18]