BRIAN GREY AGAINST NEWSHUB
Case Number: 3534
Council Meeting: 29 July 2024
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: Newshub TV3
Principle:
Comment and Fact
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Discrimination and Diversity
Subterfuge
Ruling Categories: Misrepresentation
- Newshub published an article on 15 May 2024, headlined Explained: Where the word ‘woke’ fits in a history of racism. This was an opinion piece in which the author looked at the African American origins of the word ‘woke’ and its more recent use by the political right for things they don’t like.
- The item was prompted by The Act Party leader’ David Seymour’s use of the word to describe “foreign” foods like sushi and quinoa that he wanted removed from school lunches.
- The author wrote that “for anyone with a basic knowledge of the origins of the word ‘woke’ as a colloquialism it is evident that the appropriation of the term is itself racist.”
- He added that “we should be mindful of those who use it to mock and disparage. When someone takes a term to help protect a minority group from the violence of segregation and applies it to sushi, it speaks volumes about them.”
- Brian Grey complained that this was “attack journalism”. It was not fair representation of what “woke” meant and fed into a selective narrative that by using the term the Act party was subscribing to racism.
- He believed the article breached Principles (4) Comment and Fact (5) Columns, Blogs Opinion and Letters (7) Discrimination and Diversity and (9) Subterfuge.
- Newshub said it could not identify any breach of Principle (4). The Article was clearly labelled as an opinion piece by Dr Neal Curtis, a professor of Humanities in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Auckland. The article focused on the appropriation of the term 'woke' by those on the political right.
- Newshub said Principle (4) requires that a clear distinction should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion and that material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate. Dr Curtis was a reputable expert in this field. His comments and facts were sufficiently distinguishable and there were no factual errors.
- The Media Council notes the article was clearly identified as an opinion piece and the author was expressing his opinion that “woke” is now commonly used pejoratively by the right-wing to undermine calls for progressive social change.
- Dr Curtis also set out why he thought its usage had racist connotations and criticised Mr Seymour for using the word.
- Dr Curtis is entitled to say what he thinks and Newshub was entitled to publish his views. This is supported by the Media Council’s Statement of Principles which says there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression. There was no evidence to show how any Media Council Principles were breached.
- Decision: There are no grounds to proceed