AMANDA VICKERS, CRAIG WOOLLIAMS, PAUL BAKKER, NIKKI HUDSON, TOBIAS TAHI, GAYLENE BARNES AGAINST STUFF (Fire & Fury)

The Discussion

General comment

51. The complaint made by Ms Vickers is the only complaint that specifically challenges factual conclusions in the video on the basis of a clearly identified lack of accuracy. Her complaint challenges the use of the word “disinformation” in relation to many of the comments in the video about what the named individuals such as Kyle Chapman are spreading, and in relation to VFF and its three founders, Alia Bland, Claire Deeks and Libby Johnson. She gives examples of what she says are false accusations. There were no valid complaints from people referred to in the video.
52. To respond to the level of detail in Ms Vickers’ complaint, it is necessary to deal with the references and statements made about each of the individuals referred to, and consider her claims that they are inaccurate.
53. Damien De Ment – clips and commentary
54. Mr De Ment is shown on video clips which appear to be directed to New Zealanders, saying to what appear to be New Zealand politicians that they are culpable of multiple crimes. He talks of “satanic ritual abuse, trafficking on a scale you’ve never, ever imagined. Cloning of humans, for God’s sake, it’s just enormous.” In the final clip he is shown querying whether the politicians and elites will be able to walk down the street without getting themselves killed. Politicians will fear for their lives, “and rightfully so”. Mr De Ment filed a complaint, but out of the Media Council time frame and it was not accepted.
55. Kelvyn Alp – clips and commentary
56. Mr Alp has a site called Counterspin Media, which live-streamed throughout the occupation of Parliament’s grounds. The clips of Mr Alp show him on video denying deaths from Covid. He is also said to have stated on the platform Telegram in the Counterspin chat group that the Christchurch massacre was a false flag event. He is shown proposing a “popular uprising” using ex-military and police personnel. He is shown proposing overthrowing Parliamentarians and “that is including arresting them and putting them on trial and then if it’s bad enough, execute the bastards”. There are posts on his site, Counterspin Media, about chopping the head off the Prime Minister. He is shown as associated with and encouraging the occupation of Parliament grounds. There is no complaint from Mr Alp.
57. Hannah Spierer – clips and commentary
58. Ms Spierer is said to be Mr Alp’s partner. Among other things, she is shown welcoming the former leader of the National Front Kyle Chapman, and has spoken under her former name about child sex trafficking with implications that Governments are involved. There is no complaint from Ms Spierer.
59. Voices for Freedom/founder Claire Deeks - clips and commentary
60. Ms Deeks is a founder of VFF, which opposes the Government’s Covid vaccine and Covid mitigation policies. She says she is not anti-vax but pro-freedom. She is shown urging her followers to “flood the zone”. The American right winger Steve Bannon, now sentenced (subject to appeal) to imprisonment for contempt of Congress, is attributed with that phrase. Indeed, it is a quote from an interview between Mr Bannon and the writer Michael Lewis where he said supporters should “flood the zone with shit”. 
61. Ms Deeks is shown interviewing a German lawyer who says that the Covid pandemic is a hoax by world leaders, and has led to “crimes against humanity”, a phrase created to describe the holocaust. She is on a list of lawyers supporting the “People’s Court of Public Opinion” where votes are sought to indict defendants who appear to be world leaders on a “global conspiracy” charge.
62. She invites followers to sign up to Gab. Gab is a platform that was one of the favourite sites of the Christchurch mass shooter. It features quotes from QAnon. She also invites followers to sign up to another platform, Telegram, on which a user (not Ms Deeks) is shown publicly threatening “trial” towards a named member of Parliament, and another stating “I will remember that fuckface. She will pay that plastic bitch.” Ms Deeks is herself shown on the video making a statement implying that the protestors who turned violent on the last day of the occupation, were agent provocateurs, although not making a direct accusation. She uses the word “plants”.
63. She is quoted saying “…strengthen resilience to start really looking at what it takes to become ungovernable and that way is that when the Government says jump we don’t need to.”
64. Voices for Freedom/founder Alia Bland - clips and commentary
65. Posts from Ms Bland are shown where she indicates that at the time of the measles outbreak there was “vaccine failure” and indicates doubts about the efficacy of vaccines at a time when the epidemic was rife among children in Samoa. She appears to be advocating “natural immunity”. She has shown a video which says that the Capitol riot was caused by agent provocateurs and plants. There is no complaint from Ms Bland.
66. Voices for Freedom/founder Libby Johnson - clips and commentary
67. Ms Johnson is shown asking about the “Nuremberg Code”, and the video voiceover talks about Nuremberg 2.0 and the suggestion leaders can be tried for “crimes against humanity”, and “could be hung”.  Ms Johnson is shown saying after the final day of the occupation of Parliament’s grounds that “it’s not over”. There is no complaint from Ms Johnson.
68. Voices for Freedom supporter Lauren Bransgrove - clips and commentary
69. Ms Bransgrove is shown saying “We will rip the bribes from your hands, we will slash your tires, and we will remove the poison from the truck. If you come for my children, rest assured we will be coming for you.” There is no complaint from Ms Bransgrove.
70. Chantelle Baker - clips and commentary
71. Ms Baker has a large social media following, and opposes the Government’s Covid vaccine and Covid mitigation policies. She is shown in a clip telling her followers that they need to fight back and “just drown their feeds”. She is shown as telling her followers to join the convoy to Parliament. She is shown denying that the protestors who occupied Parliament grounds were violent. She is shown saying that the media spreads lies and propaganda to all of New Zealand. During the violent last day of the occupation when the police moved in, she is shown saying angrily to reporters from the media “it was your propaganda that caused this, your propaganda caused all of this”.  There is no complaint from Ms Baker.
72. Carlene Hereora - clips and commentary
73. Ms Hereora is recorded as expressing extreme hostility and distrust of Government, and after the occupation is ended says on the video, “the next time, and there is going to be a next time, don’t bring a pen, bring a sword”. Ms Hereora is shown talking about child sex trafficking, and making antisemitic remarks about leading figures. There is no complaint from Ms Hereora.
74. Mr Tahi’s complaint
75. As an aside, Mr Tahi has taken strong issue with the quoting of the remark about looking at what it takes to “become ungovernable”, asserting that the remark is quoted quite out of context. He quotes the entire statement with the part that Stuff quotes in italics:
76. We're really proud of what we've created, mostly proud of the network of local groups and people and communities all around New Zealand. And that's the main focus now of what we're doing.
77. We're looking at "Rebuild Free": it's our initiative to help local groups, individuals and communities all around New Zealand to strengthen resilience, to start really looking at what it takes to become ungovernable; in that way is when the government says jump we don't need to because we are resilient, we have put things in place – start off with planting a garden, learn more about your finances and we will do our best to bring more help to you on our webinars, on our website and in live events and so forth.
78. We are unable to agree with Mr Tahi that the full quote and context makes the meaning any different. The word “ungovernable” means what it says. Subsequent statements appear to exhort people to live in a way that avoids obeying Government. We do not agree that there was anything unfair in the way the quote was presented. Ms Vickers in her extensive reply points out that the word “ungovernable” is one innocuous word only used once, but we note that Stuff has referred without contradiction to it being used by another VFF supporter, Gill Booth: “Make yourself a nuisance – become ungovernable.”
79. There is no complaint from VFF or Ms Deeks.

Was it inaccurate to describe the material covered in the video as including “disinformation”?

80. The Media Council approaches this issue on the basis that certain terrible past events such as the holocaust are proven. Included under that definition are the facts that 9/11 happened and was implemented by terrorists, that the Christchurch massacre happened and was at the hand of the right-wing extremist who has been convicted of the murders, and that the global Covid pandemic was real. The Media Council proceeds on the basis that there was no conspiracy of national leaders including the leaders of New Zealand, deliberately to harm the population by promoting the administration of approved vaccines. It proceeds on the basis of the experience of all New Zealanders that there was violence shown by some of the protestors on the last day of the occupation of Parliament grounds.  
81. The above analysis of what is quoted and recorded from the founders of VFF appears to show that they associate themselves with persons who deny the truth of these events, and at times they are associated with those who put the propositions that there is a conspiracy of world leaders in relation to Covid and that world leaders should be treated in the same way as Nazi war criminals were treated when they were tried at Nuremberg, (where many were sentenced to death in the aftermath of World War II). Also that vaccines do not help suppress viruses, and that viral epidemics should not be resisted, (see the reference to natural immunity). The responses emphasise the lack of specific adoption of these extreme views by VFF, but there is a willing association shown by its founders for those who espouse such disinformation.  We have nothing from VFF or its founders offering their explanation for such an association, or stating that they reject the disinformation.
82. We do not accept Ms Vickers’ charts that she prepared for the complaint, designed to show that there was no disinformation. Many of the propositions she claims were put forward in the video, were in fact not put forward. For example, it was not suggested in the video that VFF members are all “secret fascists and neo-Nazis” as Ms Vickers claims. It was not suggested that they have been infiltrated by QAnon. There is evidence that founders of VFF have been against all vaccines. This is given a factual base by the clips shown. There is evidence that the phrase “flood the zone” used by VFF is a Bannon phrase. However, it is not said that Mr Bannon has “infiltrated VFF”, as Ms Vickers claims.
83. Other propositions in the video where VFF members appear to be spreading disinformation are ignored by Ms Vickers. Ms Deeks interviewed a German lawyer who talks about “crimes against humanity committed under the guise of a Corona pandemic”. There is Ms Deeks’ assertion in her online statements after the video that the people who were violent were people she had never seen and “who knows… whether they were plants or anything but they were not the people who’d been there or who cared about the protest”. In fact, in the material before us there is no evidence that there were any “plants” present on the last day of the occupation. There was evidence that Ms Baker was present and would have seen violence, but she appears to deny there was violence. The video is not shown to be inaccurate in its showing of the clips.
84. Other people quoted are much more directly perpetrating disinformation such as the former university lecturer who maintains that the Christchurch massacre was a false flag event and stated that those who colluded in mass genocides and degradation of the human condition should turn themselves in. It is accepted that these extremes are positions that have not been shown to have been adopted by VFF. Nor has it been shown that VFF directly encourages violence. 
85. But as we have set out, it has not been shown that the statements implicating VFF and others in “disinformation” are inaccurate.

Inaccuracy

86. It must be remembered that much of the accuracy of the video must be measured against whether the clips were inaccurate or false, or out of context.  However, save for Mr Tahi querying the use of “ungovernable” discussed above, and Ms Vickers challenging the use of the word “disinformation” there is a lack of specific factual challenge in any of the complaints, including the more lengthy complaints of Mr Tahi and Ms Vickers as to the accuracy of the material presented in the video. This is unsurprising given that none of the people said in the video to be spreading disinformation have themselves complained save for Mr De Ment who was out of time. The complainants have not made the claim that they have been wrongly quoted. They have not provided evidence that the clips were false, or shown out of context (as is asserted in some of the complaints). 
87. We have no information before us to indicate that any of the clips were inaccurate or false, and in the one detailed challenge to context, we do not find the extract to be a distortion or to be unfairly used.
88. We have above set out a number of statements and actions of the three founders of VFF which appear to state or promote disinformation in interviews or references on their websites. Stuff does appear to show links between the founders of VFF and those who are denying that there is a Covid pandemic and other extreme positions. We have no material before us showing that the links shown by Stuff are misleading.
89. Inaccuracy has not been shown. 

Balance

90. The need for balance
91. It is a key Media Council principle that reporting should be balanced. The principle does not apply to opinion pieces, or long running issues where the respective positions have been the subject of a lot of public debate, and the different background perspectives are understood by readers or listeners. However, Stuff makes the point that this was not an opinion piece. In a reversal of the usual position, the complainants say it was an opinion piece.
92. Most of these complaints before us raise lack of balance, presumably because the people criticised in the video were not interviewed by Stuff to get their perspective. The need for balance is an important Media Council principle, and a failure to approach and obtain comment from a party criticised or denigrated in a publication is often a basis for upholding a complaint.
93. There must also be caution in accepting the Stuff proposition in response to the criticism of lack of balance, that because the named subjects of the video would have used the chance to comment as a platform for their views, they should not be approached. That proposition is seen by the complainants as preventing free speech and the suppression by Stuff of views it does not like, and they have a point. Those whose actions are being attacked in an article might expect to have a platform for expressing their position in reply.  However there will come a point where if the views are to be expressed in a hostile way, or where propositions will be put forward that are plainly not in the public good, that may be a legitimate reasons to not seek comment.
94. Therefore, balance in reporting must always involve elements of judgment. To take an extreme example, balance is not required when reporting on the Christchurch massacre, by publishing the views of those who think it a false flag event. Nor is it required from Covid deniers when reporting on Covid-related events. There will be occasions when those who are criticised or whose views are to be contradicted, do not have to be contacted.
95. Stuff, in explaining its decision not to seek comment from those referred to in the video, makes the point that their views were already aired and before the viewer, because their statements about what they think make up much of the video. However, the video is much more than just the clips and quotes of others. There are the statements by the narrator and commentators about the various persons and entities all having links, and the way in which their actions culminated in the occupation of Parliament grounds and the violent last day. These aspects of those substantive opinions of the commentators were not put to those named in the video. So while it is true that the views of those criticised are given prominence in the clips and quotes, and some balance is provided in that sense, this is not in itself a complete answer.
96. There are however four observations to be made.
97. First, the people mentioned in the video have used their own platforms through the likes of Telegram to respond to it. They have been scathing about the video, and The Spinoff, for example, reports that the video has helped the movements it criticises, presumably by providing a basis for bolstering support by adversely commenting about the video on their own platform. The point is that the people mentioned all have their own platforms, and most appear to be expert at getting their views through to their target audiences. VFF is reported to have over 100,000 followers.
98. Second, we accept that there are certain circumstances where to seek the other side’s views is to just give a platform to inflammatory and harmful material. In certain circumstances we are sympathetic to this argument. As we have indicated, we would not expect holocaust deniers to be contacted for their views in an article about the holocaust. For the same reason, we would not expect 9/11 and Christchurch massacre false flag theorists, and those who say there is no Covid pandemic, or that vaccines cannot work, to be contacted about articles wherein their views are criticised. We accept Stuff’s point that to do so would be irresponsible.
99. Third, those who were targeted in the video, were targeted through their views being shown in video clips. Therefore, their views were already aired and before the viewer, because their statements about what they think make up much of it. So to that extent there was already some balance within the video. As we have said, this is not a complete answer, but it is a factor to be weighed in the judgment as to whether the comments of those who were the subject of the video should be further aired. 
100. Fourth, we note that none of the people mentioned in the video have complained to the Media Council. The complaints are by third parties. VFF has sent a written complaint, but despite being invited to do so, has not met the Media Council preliminary requirements.  The lack of complaints from those individuals gives rise to the question whether they would or could have provided “balance” even if they had been approached. 
101. In our assessment, given the points we have set out, we do not think that the Media Council Principles required the individuals targeted in the video to be consulted by Stuff and their views aired as part of the publishing process. As we have said, balance and the requirement to obtain a response involve matters of judgment, and in our view this was a rare case where it has not been shown that responses from those who were the subject of the video were required. Further, as we have said, some balance was achieved by those who were the subject of the programme having their views shown in the various clips.  
102. For these reasons we are unable to uphold the complaints on the basis of lack of balance.

Subterfuge

103. There is no evidence that the clips were obtained by trickery or unfair means. There is no evidence of any subterfuge. Indeed, Stuff makes the point that all the material referred to could be seen on the internet.

Privacy

104. We see nothing to indicate a breach of privacy. All the persons shown have actively engaged in publicly disseminated footage. The allegation that the “privacy of a nurse” was breached is not accepted. The nurse in question has not complained, and she is shown willingly participating in the protest, and speaking to interviewers.
105. Unfair context of the Director-General of the SIS’s statements
106. The Director-General of the SIS was very careful to make it clear that there are only a small group of 40 to 50 individuals who her organisation is actively investigating in relation to violent extremism.  Only some of them had a “connection” to the occupation.  Despite her concern, she was plainly not saying or implying that all anti-vaccine people are in that category, or that all protestors or indeed a substantial number were in that category.
107. This is quite clear on the video. We do not agree with Ms Barnes’ complaint that Ms Penfold in her questions or narrative made it appear that the 40 or 50 individuals the Director-General is referring to are on the “path to Wellington” and are involved in “extreme violence to Covid measures”. To the contrary, the Director-General’s language is unambiguous that only some of the persons of concern had a “connection” with the occupation, and the context of the narrative does not suggest a different meaning to her words.
108. Further, we note that the Director-General herself has not made any complaint that she was quoted inaccurately.

Discrimination

109. We also comment that we see no basis for the proposition that a Māori human rights activist should have been approached for comment. 
110. There is nothing in the video that targets any ethnicity, religion or sex. There is the comment that women are targeted by the disseminators and brought into the fold, but we do not see that as discriminatory.  Māori individuals present their opinions on both sides of the debate within the video, giving a required level of balance.

Decision: The complaint is not upheld.

Council members considering the complaint were the Hon. Raynor Asher (Chair), Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Reina Vaai, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Scott Inglis, and Jonathan Mackenzie.