NEIL WATTS AGAINST THE NZ HERALD
Case Number: 3553
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Te Reo and reporting on Te Ao Maori
Politics
- The NZ Herald published two articles on 22 July and 23 July 2024 on Act’s Treaty Principles Bill.
- The first, headlined The Truth about the Treaty Principles Bill – Barry Soper, was an opinion piece in which Mr Soper commented on the debate about the Bill. The commentary included a line saying, “ACT’s polling shows its stance has the support of 60 percent of the country”.
- The second was a news report headlined Treaty Principles Bill: David Seymour says the bill is New Zealand’s own Reformation. This was based on an interview in which Mr Seymour set out his arguments for the proposed law.
- Neil Watts said he was alarmed by what appeared to be a partisan campaign by the NZ Herald to support this highly contentious Bill.
- He said the poll Mr Soper referred to had been discredited and the next day’s story was a monologue summary of Mr Seymour’s spin that was presented as news with no word of opposition or balance.
- Mr Watts said that set against a barrage of headlines that read like Government PR, NZME and the NZ Herald left themselves open to accusations of consistent cynical partisanship and a lack of fairness, accuracy and balance. This was damaging for our democracy and public discourse and made a mockery of the NZ Herald’s claim to offer New Zealand's best journalism.
- Mr Watts was also concerned that NZME’s chairman was also the deputy chair of the New Zealand Initiative and Genesis Energy. He said the New Zealand Institute was a partner in the Atlas Network which was linked to global oil and gas interests who opposed indigenous people in Australia and Canada.
- “Are we to understand that NZME’s - and thereby the NZ Herald’s - modus operandi is to advance this anti-indigenous cause in Aotearoa/New Zealand, and are the two examples noted above simply the tip of the iceberg in this insidious agenda?”
- The NZ Herald responded that Barry Soper’s article was clearly presented as opinion, and it was not deceptive to report a poll result while the polling company’s methodology was in dispute as this did not immediately negate its previous polls.
- The second article contained Mr Seymour’s response to extensive public criticism at the recent koroneihana and the Waitangi Tribunal’s scathing criticism. These were linked to in the article.
- The NZ Herald said its news reporting was not influenced by any NZME board member and to suggest the involvement of the Atlas Network was a long bow indeed. The NZ Herald had no partisan stance on the Treaty Principles Bill. Nor was there any “anti-indigenous” modus operandi.
- The Media Council does not believe criticisms of these two articles make a valid basis for complaint.
- The first article was clearly marked as opinion. The validity of the poll mentioned in this column may be questioned, but it was clearly identified as an Act poll. Flagging figures as coming from a political party’s poll is a fair indication to readers that the data is not necessarily reliable.
- The second article was an interview with Mr Seymour in which he was given the opportunity to respond to previous criticisms. It is a legitimate part of the debate.
- These were just two of many articles reporting opinions for and against the Treaty Principles Bill and they cannot be taken in isolation to support a claim that the NZ Herald’s reporting has been unfair or unbalanced.
- There is no evidence that the NZ Herald’s coverage has been biased, directed or influenced by NZME’s chair or even that the chair has an agenda as outlined by Mr Watt in his complainant.
- There were no grounds to proceed.