Andrew Tomlinson against the New Zealand Herald

The New Zealand Herald published a story on August 29, 2024, headlined Far right commentator Candace Owens under scrutiny over planned New Zealand visit.   It also ran a follow-up story on November 27.

Both stories carried background setting out a number of Ms Owens’ provocative and controversial views on subjects including religion, gender, feminism, climate change, racism, Jews, the holocaust, Israel and the conduct of the war in Gaza.

Andrew Tomlinson complained that the stories contained statements about Ms Owens that were false, and which had been refuted.

He said the Herald breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and (4) Comment and Fact. To support his complaint, he provided a YouTube link to a wide-ranging hour-long debate hosted by Piers Morgan which featured Ms Owens.

The Herald said it was not clear what had been "refuted" by the Piers Morgan video/interview.

“If you are referring to Owens' reply to critics that she is not a Holocaust denier, Owens has questioned whether key elements of the Holocaust occurred in videos posted to her own YouTube channel. She referred on her podcast to experiments conducted during the Holocaust by Nazi doctor Josef Mengele as “bizarre propaganda.” The experiments by Mengele (referred to by some victims as the "angel of death") are well-established historical fact.

 “Holocaust denial, as defined by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is "any attempt to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jews". Owens' comments squarely fit within this definition. 

The Media Council noted Mr Tomlinson did not say what statements in the articles were inaccurate. Nor did he provide supporting evidence to show how any statements were false.

If, as the Herald guessed, it was about whether she was a holocaust denier, it has provided information that supports that claim. Ms Owens’ may have denied it but, on its own, a denial is not enough to refute or disprove something. 

The Council did not consider the YouTube debate provided evidence to support the complaint.

Decision: There were no grounds to proceed.