BARBARA MOSES AGAINST THE POST
Case Number: 3569
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: Not Upheld with Dissent
Publication: The Post
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories:
Apology and Correction Sought
Politics
Overview
- On 1 July 2024 Stuff published, in The Post newspaper and online, a news story headlined Justice of the Peace resigns after ordering young mother to remove Palestinian scarf. The complainant cites Principles (1) Accuracy Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy and (6) Headlines and Captions. The complaint is not upheld by a majority of the Media Council. A dissenting opinion from other members of the Media Council is included below.
The Article
- The news story was about an unidentified woman (subsequently referred to as ‘the woman’), accompanied by her 2-year-old daughter, seeking assistance with some papers from a Justice of the Peace (JP) at the Remuera Library in Auckland. The JP, who was identified in the story as Barbara Moses “a prominent member of the Jewish community, (who) refused to verify the woman’s divorce papers until she put away her black-and-white keffiyeh.”
- The article noted the JP subsequently resigned after the incident was “ referred to the Royal Federation of NZ Justices’ Associations, the Ministry of Justice and the Justice Minister”. The woman was quoted as complaining about her treatment by the JP, saying she felt shocked and powerless. She was not a member of the Palestinian community but frequently wore a keffiyeh. The article explained that the keffiyeh is seen by some as an emblem of Palestinian nationalism; but some supporters of Israel view the scarf as a provocation and endorsing what they see as terrorism. After the woman put away the scarf the JP assisted the woman with her papers.
- The article went on to say that Ms Moses, who has been a JP for almost 24 years, “is the widow of jailed former Nathan’s Finance boss Roger Moses. Her daughter, Juliet is a frequent spokesperson for the NZ Jewish Council and writes pro-Israel commentary for various media outlets, including Stuff.” The article also gave an account of the incident from Ms Moses’ point of view, saying she told the woman she was happy to help but felt uncomfortable and unable to focus on helping her while she was wearing the keffiyeh. She offered the woman the option of going to another JP if she preferred not to remove the scarf.
- The online article was accompanied by photographs including one of Juliet Moses, the complainant’s daughter and one of Yasser Arafat wearing a keffiyeh.
The Complaint
- Barbara Moses complained under Principles (1) Accuracy Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy and (6) Headlines and Captions. She also provided further information and comments on The Post’s initial response to her complaint. Under Principle (1) she says the article was unfair and unbalanced because “the woman was quoted and believed and she (Ms Moses) was not, in a one sided and vindictive article about her and her family.” Ms Moses was identified while the woman was not identified and the woman’s story was unverified. She said this meant the story was unbalanced. Ms Moses complained that “a side was obviously chosen, and a particular picture had to be painted, and this was not balance”.
- Under Principle (2) Privacy the complainant raises a number of issues. Ms Moses says JPs are entitled to some privacy. As a JP Ms Moses gave her time voluntarily and the 6000 JPs in New Zealand are unpaid volunteers. It was plainly absurd to subject them to the same level of scrutiny as paid officials or politicians. The complainant says the legal issue mentioned in the article relating to her husband, and dating back to 2011, was historic and irrelevant to her own work as a JP. Its inclusion was gratuitous, nasty and unethical and contravened the privacy principle which says that convictions should be included only when relevant to the story. The article was also accompanied by a photograph of her daughter, Juliet Moses obtained without permission from her Facebook page and inaccurately described as “supplied”.
- In her complaint under Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, Ms Moses says the headline is “misleading, inaccurate and plain wrong”. She did not ‘order’ the woman to take off the scarf but offered her the choice of going to another JP or removing it. The woman seemed to comply willingly by removing the keffiyeh and continuing with Ms Moses’ assistance as a JP.
The Response
- .In its initial response to Ms Moses, The Post said a JP holds a public position, dealing with people in a trusted official relationship. The Post believed Ms Moses inserted her personal views into the situation. Given the response of the JPs Federation and the Ministry of Justice to the incident and the subsequent resignation of the JP, this was clearly a matter of public interest. The option of the woman going to another JP was not a real choice.
- On accuracy and balance, The Post said the facts are largely not in dispute and the explanations of both the woman and Ms Moses were covered, which gave balance to this article. Independent verification is not required where both sides of a situation are described.
- On anonymity and privacy, The Post said the woman came to a JP in her own personal circumstances for official recognition of her documents and had therefore been granted anonymity by Stuff. Ms Moses was acting in her capacity as an office holder and was therefore not entitled to the same level of privacy as the woman. The photograph of Juliet Moses was removed ”as a matter of good faith” following an approach from her to Stuff.
- The Post rejected the notion that reference to the complainant’s husband was unjustified, as his conviction was a matter of public knowledge. The Post said the complainant mentioned her husband and her daughter in a phone conversation with the reporter and the implication was “you were of a prominent Jewish family”. The Post rejected the claim of malice.
The Discussion
- .The Council views this as a news story rather than an opinion piece. The standards of Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance therefore apply. On accuracy, the Council thinks the article was broadly correct on the facts, which are largely accepted by both sides. Ms Moses’s point of view was covered, although at the very end of the article. The identification of her as the JP involved is justified because JPs are public office holders and although working as volunteers, are officially sworn in and have certain powers. This means their actions and decisions will from time to time come to public attention and under legitimate public scrutiny and this story was about a matter of public interest. The description of Ms Moses as “a prominent member of the Jewish community” while coming close to an opinion, in our view does not reach the standard of a breach of the Media Council principles. As a JP, Ms Moses could be viewed by many as a prominent member of the diverse New Zealand community. The complaint is therefore not upheld on the accuracy and balance aspects of Principle (1). We deal with another issue, related to both fairness and privacy, below.
- Principle (2) Privacy states: “Everyone is normally entitled to privacy of person, space and personal information and these rights should be respected by publications. Nevertheless, the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest. Publications should exercise particular care and discretion before identifying relatives of persons convicted or accused of crime where the reference to them is not relevant to the matter reported. Those suffering from trauma or grief call for special consideration”.
- The Council agrees, as set out above, that identifying Ms Moses as the JP involved in the reported incident was justified on a matter of public interest. Regarding the sentence which referred to her late husband, this is a matter of public record and Ms Moses has a public profile and had some power as a JP. The trial was a significant court case at the time that attracted considerable coverage and Ms Moses herself was quoted in connection with it. The sentence complained about was short, further down in the story and part of a paragraph that gave information and context about her wider background, including her daughter being a spokesperson for the NZ Jewish Council. In the context of this article and what had occurred, it was acceptable to include mention of her husband’s conviction and it was not gratuitous. The Post did not breach Principle (2) because the sentence amounted to ‘’publication of significant matters of public record or public interest’’. It also did not identify Ms Moses as a relative of someone convicted – that fact is already in the public domain.
- The complainant also contested the publication of a photograph of her daughter taken from a Facebook page. The Media Council regards material from public Facebook pages as openly available and therefore does not, of itself, normally sustain a finding of a privacy breach under its Principles. We note the photograph was removed from the online story after an approach from the complainant’s daughter. The mention of Juliet Moses as a current spokesperson on Jewish matters can, on balance, be considered information relevant to the story. The attribution of the photo as ‘supplied’ is careless, but in the Council’s view in this case does not reach a level of inaccuracy that supports a finding of a breach.
- In relation to headlines, the complainant says the headline is inaccurate because it refers to her “ordering” the woman to remove the keffiyeh. The complainant believes that because she offered the woman the option of going to another JP if she wished to continue to wear her scarf, that a genuine choice was offered and it could not therefore be claimed the JP had ‘ordered’ the woman to remove it. The Post, on the other hand, believes that there was no real choice offered, as the woman needed to get her papers processed and there was no other JP immediately available. The Council sees this as a genuine difference of opinion, which does not breach the headline Principle on grounds of inaccuracy.
- The complaint is not upheld, with dissent.
Dissent by Marie Shroff, Hank Schouten, Judi Jones and Ben France-Hudson:
- In the preamble to the Media Council Principles, the Council says it seeks to maintain the highest professional standards of journalism, accuracy, fairness and balance, and public faith in those standards. This story was legitimate and newsworthy and rightly reported on an incident of public interest which led to a JP’s resignation. However, the dissenting members believe that that the inclusion of historic and irrelevant information about the conviction of a deceased relative, could in particular be seen as unfair.
- The Privacy Principle requires that reporting convictions of relatives should occur only when the matter is relevant to the matter reported. In the dissenting members’ view it was not relevant to mention the late Mr Moses’ conviction in connection with his wife’s voluntary work as a JP, over 10 years later. It was also completely unrelated to Israeli/Palestine issues. The Post says it was on the public record. It may have been something of interest to the public, but not in the public interest. We believe therefore that this was a breach of Principle (2) Privacy, in relation to the inclusion of irrelevant information about the historic conviction of the complainant’s relative
Council members considering the complaint were Ben France-Hudson (Chair), Hank Schouten, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Katrina Bennett, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom and Richard Pamatatau.
Council member Raynor Asher declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the meeting.