THE WELLINGTON CHINESE UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB AGAINST THE POST

The Discussion

8. Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity says “Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest, and publications may report and express opinions in these areas. Publications should not, however, place gratuitous emphasis on any such category in their reporting. [Emphasis added]
9. The Council notes that the witness was describing the events after the game as he saw them.  Accepting that the witness had no discriminatory intention, the publisher must carry out an editorial function.  It should check all comments it wishes to quote or paraphrase for the danger of there being gratuitous emphasis on a discriminatory factor before publishing.  It should not publish those that cross the line.
10. The fact that there were Chinese soccer players involved in the game would have been apparent from the name of the club, Wellington Chinese United Football Club.  However, the race of the particular players involved in the alleged abuse of the referee was a matter of focus in the article.  It was said that two “highly strung” players from the rival team “made up of largely Chinese players” (emphasis added) accused the referee of being racist.  It is then in the next sentence said by the councillor who was being quoted “he alleged the Chinese players (emphasis added) grabbed and pushed the referee”. 
11. In the complaint it is said by the complainant that “our team is a multi-cultural one with different nationalities, like Chinese, Vietnamese, Kiwi, and etc”.
12. It is the view of the Media Council that it was not necessary for the article as a narrative of an incident to state that the criticised conduct in question was carried out by “Chinese players”.  The predominant racial make-up of the team was already established by its name and did not need to be emphasised.  Also, it may have been inaccurate to say that all the players complaining to the referred were Chinese, although because the facts are unclear on this we take that aspect no further.
13. We understand the point made by The Post that the incident erupted over claims that the referee was racist made by the players in question, and that the race of those alleging racism is context that could be seen as of legitimate interest to readers.  It was “context of the reason for altercation”.  However the racial identity of particular players was not part of the narrative, and speculation as to the reason for the incident can be seen as unnecessarily inflammatory.  The story goes beyond narrative and becomes a criticism of conduct carried out by “Chinese” persons. 
14. It has to be asked whether the same racial description would have been made if the players were of say Pakeha descent.  The racial identification gives a gratuitous and pejorative emphasis to race.  We accept that what happened can be seen as an “unintentional” hint of racism, but whether intentional or not the description is seen as discriminatory.
15. Therefore, although it is a marginal case, the  complaint will be upheld under Principle (7) as the article gratuitously mentioned race.
16. The complaint under Principle (1) regarding a lack of balance based on the story being one-sided is not upheld.  The Post claims that it initially had no way of contacting the club. Once it had obtained contact details it had tried several times to make contact by email and phone but there had been no response.  This has not been shown to be wrong as a matter of fact. 
17. The incident was also a matter of public interest.  There had already been a comment by another witness and those comments could be used.  The Post subsequently became aware two players from the club had received a 10-game ban, and it seemed clear that there had been behaviour at the serious end of the scale.  Offers to hear the club’s side of the story were met with the response from the club that it did not wish to go public for privacy reasons. There was nothing to indicate there was anything more that could be done to achieve balance.  This aspect of the complaint is not upheld.
18.  Given the club’s unwillingness to properly engage with The Post, the Council does not suggest that any balancing article be published.  However, Council does see a need for the references to Chinese players to be removed.

Decision

19. The complaint is upheld with dissent on a breach of Principle (7).  It is not upheld on the basis of lack of balance under Principle (1).

Dissent by Tim Watkins, Katrina Bennett and Rosemary Barraclough:

As dissenters to the decision to uphold this complaint, we do not think it is gratuitous discrimination to describe the players' ethnicity or nationality when an accusation of racism is at the heart of the article or that the omission of a single word - "United" - is sufficient to breach Principle (7). 

The behaviour of the players in question was threatening enough to force a volunteer referee to abandon a match and flee the field. So an eyewitness describing the players as "highly strung" seems a polite choice of words. Abuse of referees is widely criticised. Any pejorative or critical portrayal of the players is entirely down to their alleged behaviour and is unconnected to their ethnicity/nationality. As the complainant stresses, the team is made up of players from a range of countries, so the reporter makes a useful distinction in saying the team is "made up of largely Chinese players"; not all, despite the team name. We also note this is the fourth par and the first mention of ethnicity/nationality. The team name has not yet been used in the article or headline so the make-up of the team has not yet been established. Readers need to know the ethnicity or nationality of the two players to understand their accusation of racism against the referee. Ethnicity and nationality are a legitimate part of a story about alleged racism.

Given those points, we see no gratuitous discrimination in that sentence. 

The next sentence is quoting the witness and uses the words "Chinese players" to clarify which players were "right in his [the referee's] face". While it was arguably careless writing and the use of the words "Chinese United players" (by the reporter or as a correction) would likely have nullified this complaint, we do not believe the current wording - in the context of the whole article and the actions and accusations of the United players - amounts to "gratuitous emphasis" on "race" by The Post. 

Council members considering the complaint were Hon. Raynor Asher (Chair), Rosemary Barraclough, Scott Inglis, Marie Shroff, Richard Pamatatau, Alison Thom, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Tim Watkin and Katrina Bennett.

Council members Hank Schouten and Clio Francis declared conflicts of interest with the complaint and did not vote.