Official Complaint to New Zealand Herald

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Official Complaint to New Zealand Herald

Feel free to pop your name at the bottom, change any bits you don’t like and then send this on to the New Zealand Herald using this form. If you consider its response ‘unsatisfactory’, you can lodge an official complaint with the Press Council. Complain away!

RE:             Complaint regarding article published 11 February 2011

I            Overview

This is an official complaint in regards to the article published on the New Zealand Herald’s online edition written by Paul Holmes and entitled ‘Waitangi Day a complete waste’ (‘the article’). The article breaches Principles 8 and Principle 1, and the Preamble of the New Zealand Press Council’s Statement of Principles, to which the New Zealand Herald has agreed to abide.[1] Further, this article breaches basic standards of good taste and journalistic responsibility.

II            Breach of Principle 8

Principle 8 of the Press Council’s Statement of Principles states that:[2]

‘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.’ [bold added]

This article breaches Principle 8 in that it: a) raises a discussion of race and minority groups in a way that is neither relevant nor in the public interest; and b) places gratuitous emphasis on race and a minority group.

In the article, Holmes goes to great lengths to make hateful and racially charged comments. He either explicitly or implicitly states that all Māori are – among other things – weirdos, lazy, greedy, hateful, ‘loony’, abusive, ‘silly’, self-righteous and manipulative. He refers to ‘Māori ghastliness’, the ‘hopeless failure of Māori to educate their children’, ‘[Māori] bashing their babies’, and ‘a group of hateful, hate-fuelled weirdos who seem to exist in a perfect world of benefit provision’. These comments perpetuate damaging stereotypes of Māori and seek to incite hatred and bigotry amongst readers. There can be no legitimate public interest in an article of this nature.[3] Instead, this article places inappropriate emphasis on race and Māori as a minority group. If Holmes had sought to make legitimate comment on the racial unrest surrounding Waitangi Day, he need not have made sweeping and hateful generalisations about Māori people as of the nature outlined above. Instead, he has used an article purporting to discuss Waitangi Day as a platform to spout harmful and racist slurs in a way that equates to ‘gratuitous emphasis on race and minority groups’. If Holmes had wanted to have a productive discussion on the legitimacy of a national holiday, his comments angled at Māori as outlined above are indeed gratuitous and unwarranted.

III            Breach of Principle I

Principle 1 of the Press Council’s Statement of Principles states that:[4]

Publications should be 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.[Bold added]

This article breaches Principle 1 in that it: a) is inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced; b) deliberately misleads and misinforms readers; and c) a fair voice in opposition to the article is not evident. Instead, reader comments have been allowed in an inflammatory manner that may further mislead readers as to the truth of the article’s contents.

The article makes a number of assertions that are inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. These include (but are not limited to):

1.     That Waitangi Day celebrations in 2012 were a day of great unrest when in there were only minor, non-violent protests.

2.     That Māori are all beneficiaries, greedy and manipulative in seeking Treaty settlements, and that Māori abuse their children. These comments are not clearly identified as opinion and are unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate.

3.     That the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have never been defined. This is plainly inaccurate; see New Zealand Māori Council v. Attorney-General [1991] 2 NZLR 129 (CA), where the Principles of the Treaty are clearly articulated and have since been widely accepted.

Further examples of inaccuracy, unfairness and lack of balance are clearly evident in the article and can be expanded upon by request. These comments grossly misrepresent Māori culture and its peoples, and therefore misinform the reader. I argue that the above comments appear more inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced when viewed in the wider context of the publication. The article has been published in New Zealand’s leading newspaper, implying a sense of legitimacy and high-quality journalism. It was filed under ‘Politics’, not ‘Opinion’. I argue that the credibility of the New Zealand Herald as a publication and that the article was not clearly marked as opinion makes it more likely that the reader would view the comments outlined above to be factually based and legitimate political comment. The Herald’s obligation under Principle 1 to report in an accurate, fair and balanced manner should be seen in light of the framing of this article, and the greater likelihood that Holmes’ false and damaging assertions be seen as factually based.

III            Breach of Preamble

The preamble of the Statement of Principles states that Press Council ‘endorses the principles and spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi and Bill of Rights, without sacrificing the imperative of publishing news and reports that are in the public interest’.[5] The New Zealand Herald has agreed to abide to these principles, imparting an obligation to uphold the principle and spirit of both the Treaty and BORA.

Section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) provides that everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of colour, race and ethnic or national origins.[6] Further, s 20 of BORA provides for the rights of minorities, and states: ‘A person who belongs to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority in New Zealand shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of that minority, to enjoy the culture, to profess and practise the religion, or to use the language, of that minority.’

While the New Zealand Herald is not directly subject to BORA or the above provisions, I would argue that it has breached its obligations under the Preamble of the Press Council Statement of Principles, which endorses BORA and seeks to uphold the above provisions, in publishing the article. This article is discriminatory against Māori on the basis on race and ethic origins (s 19, BORA 1990; s 21, Human Rights Act 1993). It also seeks to incite racial unrest and hatred in a way that may deprive Māori the right to enjoy their culture (s 20, BORA 1990). The Press Council limits the application of BORA where there is a public interest in the content. As stated above in regards to Principle 8, there is no legitimate public interest in an article that incites racial hatred, attacks a minority group and perpetuates damaging stereotypes. Therefore, I would argue that this article breaches the New Zealand Herald’s obligations under the Preamble of the Press Council’s Statement of Principles.

V            Conclusion

I make this as an official complaint to the Online Editor of the New Zealand Herald. I look forward to your response and seeing that you rectify the damage caused by this article.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]

[1] New Zealand Press Council (2012). Principles: Footnotes. Retrieved February 11, 2012 from http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/principles_3.php

[2] New Zealand Press Council (2012). Principles: Statement of Principles. Retrieved February 11, 2012 from http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/principles_2.php

[3] The Press Council defines public interest ‘as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at large so that they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going on, or what may happen to them or to others’. See New Zealand Press Council (2012). Principles: Preamble. Retrieved February 11, 2012 from http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/principles.php

[4] New Zealand Press Council (2012). Principles: Statement of Principles. Retrieved February 11, 2012 from http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/principles_2.php

[5] New Zealand Press Council (2012). Principles: Preamble. Retrieved February 11, 2012 from http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/principles.php

[6] Section 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 states: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993’. Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 sets out the prohibited grounds of discrimination to which BORA refers, including colour, race, and ethnic or national origins.