JOHN WILLIAMS AGAINST STUFF
Case Number: 3014
Council Meeting: March 2021
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories: Covid
Overview
- John Williams complains about an article published online by Stuff on 4 March 2021 originally as “Covid-19: Destiny Church leader Hannah Tamaki says she will refuse coronavirus vaccine”, to its final amended version “Covid-19: Hannah Tamaki says she will refuse vaccine despite assurances it will help curb spread of virus.”
The Article
- The article covers Destiny Church’s Hannah Tamaki’s anti-Covid vaccine views in the context of the Tamakis leaving Auckland to continue holding large public gatherings out of town after the government’s announcement of Auckland’s recent level 3 lockdown.
The Complaint
- The complaint largely is that Stuff should not have published the story, effectively giving Hannah Tamaki a platform to air her anti-vaccine views. Mr Williams considered the article irresponsible as it could encourage people not to vaccinate by sharing the views of Mrs Tamaki, thereby exacerbating existing Covid-specific and general anti-vaccination sentiments. He also felt the article could have been more fairly balanced by including the merits of Covid vaccination.
- Mr Williams felt strongly that the international pandemic called for public co-operation with the government’s vaccination efforts for the benefit of the public good. He felt that Stuff’s article undermined the legitimacy and benefits of Covid vaccines and ignored the available information as to their efficacy and safety.
- In the circumstances, Mr Williams considered that the article failed the standards expected of Stuff, as well as being morally and criminally wrong (in effect but not intent). Mr Williams stated that the amended headline and content change of the original article reflected an implicit acceptance by Stuff that it had fallen short in its original article; however, in his view, the changes still did not go far enough in its final versions to correct a lack of balance and fairness.
The Response
- Stuff noted that, in accordance with normal practices of updating information in the digital news industry, it had made four changes from when the article was first published. It was amended to reflect further details, including information about the vaccine rollout and comments from the Prime Minister stating that she expected uptake of the vaccine to be high, information detailing the scrutiny the vaccine underwent before it got approval and Medsafe assurances it is safe, which was included in the headline. The final update included expert views on the matter. All but the expert opinions had been added by the time of Mr Williams' complaint to Stuff. Stuff felt that any concerns about the headline and content had been rectified by the addition of the various expert views.
- Stuff is aware of its responsibility to ensure balanced reporting and felt satisfied that this story, and its coverage overall on the vaccine, has been well balanced. Stuff accepted that all the medical and Government advice is that people should get the vaccine - something Stuff says it has reported on extensively. Stuff noted that it not compulsory and the media also has a duty to inform people that they have that choice. Stuff observed that reporting on the fact of someone's views is not the same as encouraging them. Stuff noted that it was not alone in its decision to publish a story on Hannah Tamaki's views, given The New Zealand Herald, Newshub, NewstalkZB, TVNZ and the Otago Daily Times also ran the story.
The Discussion
- The issue is whether Stuff breached the expected standards of fairness and balance, and whether there was news value in publishing the story.
- Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance states "Publications should :e bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.”
- The purpose and effect of the article was to report on, rather than comment on, analyse or promote one way or the other, Mrs Tamaki’s general anti-Covid vaccine stance. The background and focal context were the Tamakis facing backlash for defying lockdown rules by leaving Auckland to hold large gatherings, which Mrs Tamaki referred to in posts on her Facebook page. Mrs Tamaki’s reported views on the vaccine were very generic and seemed to be her given reason, rightly or wrongly, for leaving Auckland after the level 3 lockdown announcement. Mrs Tamaki’s reasoning for her anti-vaccine views was not covered in any material detail.
- As Mr Williams noted, outside of Mrs Tamaki’s views and sphere of influence, there is already some anti-vaccination sentiment present, both specific to the Covid vaccinations but generally anyway. These views are matters of public interest and longstanding debate and therefore are reported on frequently and widely by the media, including Stuff. It is also the Media’s job to hold people of power and influence to account. The Tamakis have a large following and Hannah Tamaki is the leader of a political party, so reporting her views is very much in the public interest. It is important our news outlets are reporting on and scrutinising the information people like Mrs Tamaki are sharing on social media with their followers.
- As noted in Principle 1, exceptions for opposition views to be given in articles involving controversy or disagreement can apply for long-running issues subject of much media reporting. The exception could have applied even in the earlier article versions. However, once the expert opinions were included, sufficient balance had been achieved in the context of the final version of the article. Readers’ opinions of Mrs Tamaki’s views do not alter that fact of balance.
-
The article did not breach Principle (1) and is not upheld.
Media Council members considering this complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Rosemary Barraclough, Katrina Bennett, Liz Brown, Jo Cribb, Ben France-Hudson, Jonathan MacKenzie, Marie Shroff, Pravina Singh and Tim Watkin.