Compare what TVNZ said to me regarding Mike Hosking and what the BSA has just said

People like Mike Hosking insinuated that Amanda Bailey was being somehow deceitful because she had used this Blog to give her a voice rather than talk to journalists or her employers – when you consider the political manipulation and manufactured manner the mainstream media treated the story and that her managers were aware of this harassment, she had every reason to use a blog over the mainstream media.

This is TVNZs response to my complaint of Hosking’s outrageous attack on Amanda and his refusal to declare his friendship with the owners…

The owners, one of whom I have run into a couple of times given that we frequent a number of their cafes, are good hard-working people who in their own way have revolutionised the food scene with an outstanding series of outlets throughout Auckland deserve none of this.

Yes what Key did was bizarre, but it never warranted this. This is what it is because as always there is more at play than the singular incident. Even if the waitress concerned wandered into this naively, she wandered into a snakes-pit frequented by those driven by political self-interest and nothing more. And if it wasn’t naïve, which makes it worse, and she was looking to hang the Prime Minister out to dry her selfishness caused needless upset and attention to a couple who have done nothing but go about their business.

The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In determining an alleged breach of broadcasting standards, the Committee assesses the importance of the particular speech and the extent to which the values of freedom of expression are engaged, and weigh this against the level of harm in terms of the underlying objectives of the relevant broadcasting standards.

The Seven Sharp comments were given in the context that the ponytail pulling saga had become political as explained by Bill Ralston in the afternoon of 23 April:

“There’s an underlying current of politics throughout all of this and lying at the bottom of it, … She (Ms Bailey) is undoubtedly of a centre-left persuasion, no doubt about that, but then again a lot of her detractors are people of a centre-right persuasion. So once again we’re seeing a news issue turned into pure politics.” http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/ponytail-saga-public-won-t-really-know-happened-until-herald- releases-transcript-6298704

Mr Hosking’s comments raised questions about the political motivation around the discussion of the incidents. There was no suggestion that what the Prime Minister had done was appropriate; however there was some criticism of the motivation of the centre-left and questioning of the motivation of using a left-wing blog to publicise the allegations.

Your Complaint

You state:

Seven Sharp is on TVNZ. TVNZ is the State Broadcaster. As such you have an obligation to hold a certain standard. Last week I believe your host Mike Hosking went well beyond that standard by victim blaming the young woman at the centre of harassment by the Prime Minister of NZ.

Mr Hosking is well known to have conflict of interest issues with Sky City, does he also have conflict of interest issues with the owners of the cafe the young woman was harassed in?

Calling the young woman ‘puffed-up’, ‘self-involved’ and ‘politically motivated’ for having the courage to stand up to intimidating and harassing behaviour by the Prime Minister is outrageous and offensive. That Mike Hosking can victim blame in this manner on national television is an obscenity and it is his mindset which prevents other victims of harassment from stepping forward.

Hosking has breached good taste and decency by victim blaming this young woman.

2

The Relevant Standards

Standard 1 Good Taste and Decency

Broadcasters should observe standards of good taste and decency.

Guidelines

1. 1a  Broadcasters will take into account current norms of good taste and decency bearing in mind the context in which any content occurs and the wider context of the broadcast e.g. programme classification, target audience, type of programme and use of warnings etc.
2. 1b  The use of visual and verbal warnings should be considered when content is likely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers except in the case of news and current affairs, where verbal warnings only will be considered. Warnings should be specific in nature, while avoiding detail which may itself distress or offend viewers.

To constitute a breach of Standard 1 the material shown must be unacceptable to a significant number of viewers in the context that it is shown. Contextual factors include (but are not limited to): the programme classification, the time of broadcast, the intended audience and the use of warnings (if any). In the case of this Seven Sharp bulletin the relevant contextual factors are:

• Seven Sharp is aimed at an adult audience and screens during PGR (Parental Guidance Recommended) time.
• The BSA has acknowledged in Decision 2000-033 that the Authority considers “that children of a vulnerable age are unlikely to watch the news unattended”. This was reinforced in Decisions 2007-115 and 2006-125. In decision 2013-084 the Authority stated [9] while the item aired on ONE News at a time when younger audiences might be watching, we note that during unclassified news programmes, including those broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times, adult supervision is expected as these programmes are likely to contain material that is inappropriate for children. There is an expectation that parents exercise discretion around viewing news and current affairs programmes with their children.
• News broadcasts discuss current events including serious crime such as murder, child abuse and rape and natural disasters of a large scale where people are killed; and there is an expectation that the broadcasts will carry some footage of crimes and disasters including film of bodies, accidents and civil unrest.
• In the main Mr Hosking’s commentary concerned what he saw as the political machinations behind the release of the blogs. These comments are permitted under the standards as a freedom of expression right.
• The presenter directly criticised the waitress once when he says: to quote the waitress concerned today “I felt New Zealand should know”. What a puffed self- involved pile of political bollocks. She had a problem at work the owners were the people to consult not a blogger. This comment relates to the perceived political agenda behind releasing the blogs in the way that they were, not to the allegations the waitress made about John Key’s actions.
• Mr Hosking also states of the waitress that even if the waitress concerned wandered into this naively, she wandered into a snakes-pit frequented by those driven by political self-interest and nothing more. And if it wasn’t naïve, which makes it worse, and she was looking to hang the Prime Minister out to dry her selfishness caused needless upset and attention to a couple who have done nothing but go about their business. This is clearly commentary about the political spin that the

3

issue had been given, and two possible (but not known) reasons for the issue to be publicised in the way that it was discussed.

The Committee acknowledges that these sentiments may be seen by some as being personally critical about the waitress. However the intention was rather to critique what was seen as the politics behind how the blog had been released and the commentaries around the blog. This level of political commentary was opened by the way that the accusations were first revealed and subsequent actions of the many parties involved. Such political discussion is protected by the Bill of Rights Act as a freedom of expression right.

Accordingly we find that the comments would not have offended a significant number of viewers in the context of screening. No breach of standard 1 has been identified.

Standard 4 Controversial Issues – Viewpoints

When discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

Guideline

4a. 4b

No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial issues of public importance. Significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme. This can only be done by judging each case on its merits.

The assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented takes account of some or all of the following:

• the programme introduction;
• whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective (e.g. authorial documentaries, publicaccess and advocacy programmes;
• whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage.

Before considering a complaint under this standard, the Complaints Committee must determine whether the issue being discussed is a ‘controversial issue of public importance.’

The Broadcasting Standards Authority has typically defined an ‘issue of public importance’ as something that would have ‘a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’ (refer BSA decision 2005-125). A ‘controversial issue’ is defined by the BSA as one which has topical currency and excited conflicting opinion or about which there has been on-going public debate (e.g. BSA decision 2006-076). The Committee accepts that this was such an issue.

As discussed under “The Programme” above this was an issue which was being discussed in many news media outlets and by many different commentators. This meant that significant viewpoints on this issue were represented within the period of current interest. The Committee notes that the Seven Sharp segment is a well-known commentary slot where presenters give a ‘final word on topical issues; and that it is permitted under the standards to broadcast opinion and commentary.

In decision 2014-047 concerning Mike Hosking’s comments on global climate change the BSA observed:

[17] … while Seven Sharp is a news and current affairs programme, it takes a sometimes non-traditional, light-hearted or comedic approach to topical issues. Part of the standard format of Seven Sharp is the presenters’ ‘final word’ at the end of each evening’s episode, in which they give their views on a chosen topic of the day. We think viewers would have appreciated in this context that Mr Hosking was not in this segment delivering ‘news’; he

4

was offering his own views in a provocative manner, and he was going against the general consensus (though he is unlikely to be the only person who holds this opinion). Mr Hosking is well-known for this type of monologue where he gives his opinion on any number of issues. Freedom of speech as preserved by the Bill of Rights explicitly entitles Mr Hosking to hold and express an opinion that challenges orthodoxy on the issue of climate change, even if that opinion is unpopular or incorrect.

In the case of this monologue Mr Hosking provides commentary on his perceptions of the political motivations behind the ponytail scandal. Mr Hosking does not dispute that John Key had pulled the waitress’s hair or that these actions were inappropriate in his commentary and he did not dispute the waitress’s rights to protections under employment law.

The Committee understands that the comments do not represent the views of all and could be considered provocative and perhaps rude by some viewers. However Mr Hosking’s right to hold and express his opinion on this issue is protected by the Bill of Rights Act. No breach of standard 4 has been identified.

Standard 5 Accuracy

Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming:

• is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and/or
• does not mislead.Guidelines
  1. 5a  The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.
  2. 5b  In the event that a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
  3. 5c  News must be impartial.

  You have not made an allegation that any point of fact was inaccurate in the segment. In any case the comments were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion which is permitted under this standard. No breach of standard of standard 5 has been identified.

  Standard 6 Fairness

  Broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.

  Guidelines

  1. 6a  A consideration of what is fair will depend upon the genre of the programme (e.g. factual, dramatic, comedic or satirical programmes).
  2. 6b  Broadcasters should exercise care in editing programme material to ensure that the extracts used are not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed.
  3. 6c  Except as justified in the public interest:
     • Contributors and participants should be informed of the nature of their participation
     • Programme makers should not obtain information or gather pictures through misrepresentation;
     • Broadcasters should avoid causing unwarranted distress to surviving family members by showing footage ofbodies or human remains.
  4. 6d  Broadcasters should respect the right of individuals to express their own opinions.
  5. 6e  Individuals and particularly children and young people, taking part or referred to should not be exploited, humiliated or unfairly identified.

5

6f Where the programme deals with distressing circumstances (e.g. grief and bereavement) discretion and sensitivity are expected.

This standard is designed to protect those people and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcast. You have complained that the comments were unfair to the waitress.

In Kiro and Radioworks Ltd, the Authority stated that the fairness standard:

… does not prevent criticism of public figures. Indeed, it is an essential element of free speech that even the most trenchant criticism of public figures be allowed. …The question for the Authority is whether that criticism overstepped the boundaries of fairness, that is, whether it strayed into abusively personal territory.

The Committee considered the following in regard to this aspect of your complaint:

• The waitress was not named or shown in the Seven Sharp segment, even though this information was available in other news media.
• Mr Hosking does not dispute that John Key had pulled the waitress’s hair or that these actions were inappropriate in his commentary.
• In the main Mr Hosking’s commentary concerned what he saw as the political machinations behind the release of the blogs. These comments are permitted under the standards as a freedom of expression right.
• The presenter directly criticised the waitress once when he says: to quote the waitress concerned today “I felt New Zealand should know”. What a puffed self- involved pile of political bollocks. She had a problem at work the owners were the people to consult not a blogger. This comment relates to the perceived political agenda behind releasing the blogs in the way that they were, not to the allegations the waitress made about John Key’s actions.
• Mr Hosking also states of the waitress that Even if the waitress concerned wandered into this naively, she wandered into a snakes-pit frequented by those driven by political self-interest and nothing more. And if it wasn’t naïve, which makes it worse, and she was looking to hang the Prime Minister out to dry her selfishness caused needless upset and attention to a couple who have done nothing but go about their business. This is clearly commentary about the political spin that the issue had been given, and two possible (but not known) reasons for the issue to be publicised in the way that it was discussed.The Committee understands that these sentiments could be considered to be trenchant criticism of the politics behind the way the accusations were released and the possibly political motivation of the waitress (although no firm statement is made about this). We acknowledge that these sentiments are very close to being personally critical about the waitress. However we also understand that this level of political commentary was opened by the way that the accusations were first revealed and subsequent actions of the many parties involved and that such political discussion is protected by the Bill of Rights Act. No breach of standard 6 has been identified.Standard 7 Discrimination and DenigrationBroadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.Guideline

7a This standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material that is:

6

• factual, or
• the expression of genuinely held opinion in news, current affairs or other factual programmes, or • legitimate humour, drama or satire

The BSA has consistently defined denigration to mean the blackening of the reputation of a class of people. The use of this definition goes back at least as far as 1992, and has been followed in numerous subsequent decisions.

The BSA has also consistently stated that in light of the right to free expression contained in s14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, a high threshold must be crossed before a breach of the standard will be found.

The Committee does not agree that the comments would lead to the denigration or discrimination of any section in society. The comments were intended as legitimate contribution to a wider debate and were not intended to be nasty or offend. Mr Hosking is clear that he does not know the waitress’s motivations for the revelation and allows that she may have unwittingly “wandered into a snakes-pit”. He does give his opinion on the political motivation of some of the commentators as his right; and such discussion is protected under the Bill of Rights Act. No breach of standard 7 has been identified.

Standard 8 Responsible Programming

Broadcasters should ensure programmes

• are appropriately classified;
• display programme classification information;
• adhere to timebands in accordance with Appendix 1;
• are not presented in such a way as to cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress ; and
• do not deceive or disadvantage the viewer.Guidelines
  1. 8a  Broadcasters should use established classification codes.
     • Classification symbols should be displayed at the beginning of each programme and after each advertising break.
     • Warnings should be considered when programme content is likely to offend or disturb a significant number of the intended audience.
  2. 8b  All promos (including promos for news and current affairs) should be classified to comply with the “host programme” (the programme in which they screen):
     • Promos for AO programmes shown outside AO time should comply with the classification of the host programme;
     • Promos shown in G or PGR programmes screening in AO time should comply with the G or PGR classification of the host programme;
     • When a promo screens during an unclassified host programme (including news and current affairs) in G or PGR time, the promo must be classified G or PGR and broadcasters should pay regard to Standard 9 – Children’s Interests.
     • When a promo screens adjacent to an unclassified host programme (including news and current affairs) in G or PGR time, the promo should comply with the underlying timeband.
     • Broadcasters should be aware that promos showing footage of violence or other explicit material outside the context of the original programme may be unacceptable to viewers in the context of the host programme in which they screen.
  3. 8c  Except as justified in the public interest, news flashes screening outside regular news and current affairs programmes, particularly during children’s viewing time, should avoid unnecessary, distressing or alarming material or should provide a prior warning about the material.
  4. 8d  Advertisements and infomercials should be clearly distinguishable from other programme material.
  5. 8e  Broadcasters should ensure that there is no collusion between broadcasters and contestants that results in unfair advantage to any contestant.

7

…and this is what the BSA have now said about the very same interview that TVNZ defended…

Ponytail comments: Complaints upheld
The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has upheld four complaints about comments made by broadcaster Mike Hosking about the waitress at the centre of the “Ponytailgate” scandal.

In April, a waitress wrote in a blog post that Prime Minister John Key had repeatedly pulled her ponytail during visits to the cafe where she worked.

During a segment that aired at the end of TV One’s Seven Sharp on April 23, Hosking said the waitress’ motivations for speaking out were “selfish” and “a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks”.

He also claimed the owners of the cafe were the victims of the incident.

The authority upheld the complaints, ruling that Hosking’s comments were unfair to the waitress adding that due to the nature of his ‘Final Word’ segment, there was no opportunity for her to respond or defend herself.

While public figures were expected to be the subject of media scrutiny, the BSA concluded the waitress was not a public figure in the usual sense, despite the publicity her accusations received.

“In reaching these findings we do not mean to say anything about the rights or wrongs of the ponytail incident.

“[A] person who is not a public figure should be able to speak up and make assertions whether they are right or wrong without being treated unfairly and in an intimidatory way by a television presenter speaking from the platform of a powerful broadcaster”, the authority said.

…so TVNZs defence of Hosking was a farce.

Let’s recall what Hosking did here. When Amanda had the courage to make a stand and have her voice heard here on this blog for being harassed by the Prime Minister at her place of employment, Hosking decided to attack her. For having the PM touch her over 10 separate times, Hosking decided to make this about politics. After the Herald and Rachel Glucina behaved appallingly and made the ethics of journalism look like a joke, Hosking claimed using this blog only made Amanda worse.

And for this torrent of abuse, what does Hosking get? Nothing, just a slap on the wrist. So one of the most powerful male voices for the Right can denigrate a young woman on the state broadcaster for having the courage to stand up to the Prime Minister touching her at her place of work, can be found in breach of the BSA and nothing happens to him. He doesn’t have to apologise on screen, he doesn’t have to say he was wrong and TVNZ get off completely free.

His Masters Voice

Last month Mike Hosking responded to claims he was biased with a column so vain he threatened redefining the dictionary meaning of the word.

The issue isn’t that TVNZ want to have a foaming right wing neoliberal to front their current affairs show, it’s that as the state broadcaster they have to provide balance. Where is the left wing equivalent to Hosking on TVNZ? No such voice exists and it in fact ends up with just guests who Hosking agrees with. Watch how Jane Kelsey demolishes Hosking in less than  10 minutes, that wouldn’t happen if he was regularly challenged by guests with opinions different than his.

As the state broadcaster, TVNZ has an obligation to provide balance, there exists none.