JEANETTE WILSON AGAINST THE SPINOFF
Case Number: 3471
Council Meeting: December 2023
Decision: Upheld
Publication: The Spinoff
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Conflict of Interest
Misleading
Elections
Conspiracy Theories
Overview
-
The Spinoff published an article on 19 September 2023 headlined Liz Gunn party only registers three candidates. This
headline and the first paragraph were wrong. Although minor changes were made promptly when the complaint was first made and which clarified
the story was referring to list candidates, the article remained misleading. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) Accuracy,
Fairness and Balance.
The Article
- The brief article concerned the number of candidates Liz Gunn’s party NZ Loyal had been able to register. The first paragraph said: “The political party led by broadcaster-turned-conspiracy theorist Liz Gunn managed only to register three candidates, meaning it wouldn’t have enough to enter parliament even if it scraped above the 5 percent threshold."
- Following Jeanette Wilson’s complaint, the headline was amended to read Liz Gunn party only registers three list candidates and the first paragraph was similarly amended to say the party only managed to “register three candidates on its list…”
The Complaint
- Jeanette Wilson complained that the headline and story were wrong. The party had in fact registered 33 electorate candidates and there were three on its party list. The article needed to be corrected quickly as, being close to the election, it could damage NZ Loyal.
- In her formal complaint to the Media Council, Ms Wilson also complained that The Spinoff had described Liz Gunn as a conspiracy theorist and that The Spinoff was politically biased and had a conflict of interest as it had received payments from the Government.
The Response
- The Spinoff’s editor said the headline was corrected the morning after the story was first published. An email was received from Jeanette Wilson at 2am on September 20. The reporter responded at 7.25am saying the headline had been amended to specify it was “list candidates” rather than just three candidates.
- Twelve hours later Ms Wilson sent another email to say the article was misleading as it suggested NZ Loyal did not have enough candidates to be in parliament if it met the 5 percent party vote threshold as it had 33 registered.
- The editor said the article was not misleading. While the party could have won individual electorates and entered parliament that way, the update substantially addressed the fact that even if NZ Loyal reached the 5 percent threshold, it would have an insufficient number of candidates to send to parliament. The updated headline and copy were an accurate reflection of the party’s position at the time of publication.
- The editor said Ms Wilson’s only complaint to the writer of the article was that the headline was potentially misleading. That was her only complaint and therefore it was the only point the editor would respond to.
- The Spinoff said it would not respond to the other points made in the Media Council complaint – that Ms Gunn had been referred to as a conspiracy theorist or that The Spinoff was biased and had a conflict of interest – as they were not raised with The Spinoff first.
The Discussion
- Media Council Principle (12) Corrections says significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence. This was not done.
- Clearly the headline and first sentence of this story were wrong. The errors were significant, and although The Spinoff swiftly corrected the fact the story was about the number of registered list candidates, that was only one of the errors. The other error, stating that the party would not have enough to enter parliament if it reached the 5 percent party vote threshold, was left untouched.
- This second error arose because the article inaccurately stated that NZ Loyal would not have enough candidates to enter parliament if it reached the 5 percent party vote threshold. If NZ Loyal got five percent of the party vote, even though it could not have been able to fill all the seats allocated, its three list candidates would have been elected to parliament. This clear error was never corrected. It was a serious error, giving the reader a false impression that the party’s candidates could never enter parliament. Nor did the article mention that NZ Loyal had candidates in 33 electoral seats.
- The complaint is upheld on Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
- As for the other points raised by Ms Wilson in her formal complaint, about referring to Ms Gunn as a conspiracy theorist and that The Spinoff received payments from the government, the Council was surprised The Spinoff did not respond with a reasoned defence rather than standing on the point that these issues had not been raised in Ms Wilson’s initial complaint. Media organisations should be aware that the Council takes both the initial complaint to the publisher and the subsequent complaint to the Media Council into consideration when making its decision. Publishers may therefore want to cover matters raised in both when responding to formal complaints.
- However, the Council had sufficient information to consider these issues. Ms Gunn has been described by a number of media outlets as a conspiracy theorist and she herself has embraced the term. In a video announcing plans to launch her party earlier this year Ms Gunn said it was a compliment to be referred to as a conspiracy theorist as it meant she asked questions. Ms Wilson did not provide any arguments to show why it was wrong to describe Ms Gunn as a conspiracy theorist.
- Ms Wilson also complained to the Media Council that The Spinoff was politically biased and had a conflict of interest as it had received payments from the Government. No information was provided to support these claims.
Decision
- The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) in relation to inaccuracy regarding NZ Loyal’s candidates and its ability to enter parliament if it reached the 5 percent threshold. There was a significant inaccuracy and it was not adequately corrected under Principle (12). The complaint about referring to Ms Gunn as a conspiracy theorist and that The Spinoff had a conflict of interest relating to government funding are not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Jonathan Mackenzie, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau.
Council member Rosemary Barraclough declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from voting.