Geoff Neal against The Spinoff
Case Number: 3727
Council Meeting: 28 April 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: The Spinoff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Columnists Opinion
Comment and Fact
Errors
Overview
1. On 28 January 2025, The Spinoff published an article titled "What You Missed from Day One of the Treaty Principles Bill Select Committee Hearings." Geoff Neal alleges that the article breaches Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinions and Letters and (12) Corrections.
The Article
2. The article covers the first day of submissions to the Parliamentary Select Committee on the Treaty Principles Bill. It includes direct quotes from each submitter and provides analysis of their comments, as well as those of Select Committee members.
3. Over the course of the day, a total of twenty-two submissions were heard—nine in support of the Bill and thirteen opposing. The article presents each submission in the order it was delivered, beginning at 8:30 a.m. with the Bill’s originator, ACT Party leader David Seymour and concluding the report at 5.30 when the hearings were closed to the public for private hearings to be made.
4. Mr Neal’s submission was reported in a paragraph headed 10am:’This whole process would be laughable’, a quote taken from the speaker following Mr Neal.
The Complaint
5. Mr Neal complains that the comments written about him and his submission were “nothing short of a political smear effort/character assassination”, where his reputation and work were discredited. He alleges inaccuracies in the way that his submission was reported and is dissatisfied with the corrections made.
6. He says that there are comments in the article that are unnecessary personal attacks that are unfair and nasty, breaching Principle (1). The comments are:
a) “he (Mr Neal) spoke with intonations of a self-help podcaster”
b) “He (Mr Neal) dived into the topic of media bias and social media algorithms, which garnered an awkward smirk from Meager, and pitied
laughs from the press gallery.”
7. Mr Neal states it was inaccurate to claim that he did not make any substantive legal points, saying that he made several arguments on the most critical aspects of the proposed legislation and made substantive points to advance the democratic discussion.
8. He said that it was inaccurate to say that “he focused on polling” and was misleading to say that he was “pre-emptively arguing that polls which found a different outcome were flawed.” Mr Neal says that polling was only one part of his submission and that he had closely examined all the available polls to concluding that the TVNZ and Stuff polls were flawed.
9. Mr Neal said it was an inaccuracy to focus on the contested smirk of the Chair while omitting the Chair’s expression of appreciation to him at the conclusion of his presentation.
10. He objects to the report saying that he claims, “that only 9% of New Zealanders were Māori by blood”, saying that his work estimates that 9% of the country is made up of Māori ancestry which is a different measure than “Māori by blood.”
11. Mr Neal says that the gossip-like style of attack on him in this article, at best, should have been labelled as opinion, when it was not.
12. While acknowledging that corrections and an apology were made, Mr Neal says that the correction was not prompt and the apology was poor without any right of reply. He complains that the corrections made were lessor errors and that most of the errors in the article were not corrected.
13. Mr Neal complains that The Spinoff has used significant tax-payer funds “to attack those it deems political adversaries” such as himself.
The Response
14. The Spinoff says that they engaged immediately and at length with Mr Neal following his initial communications and amended several things at his request. They say that in this long article each of the commentaries was a heavily condensed version of what was said and observed. They stand by the accuracy of their reporting and the way in which they responded to Mr Neal at his original complaint though refusing his offer to rewrite the passage about his own submission as he had requested.
15. The Spinoff defends their description of Mr Neal speaking “with the intonations of a self-help podcaster” saying that his presentation style was notably different to the others who presented in a more legalistic fashion and that this is an example of colour reporting. That Mr Neal was offended does not make the statement inaccurate.
16. They say that by his own admission Mr Neal’s submission focused on the politics of the issue and therefore the statement that “he didn’t make any substantive legal points” is not inaccurate. Aligned with this The Spinoff says that while polling was not all he spoke about it was the central focus of his submission and therefore it was accurate to say, “He focused on polling.”
17. The Spinoff say that it is accurate to report that Mr Neal pre-emptively argued “that the polls which found a different outcome were flawed.” He referenced polls that found majority support for the Bill and others support opposing outcomes which he said used flawed methodologies.
18. They say that the comment “Which garnered an awkward smirk from Meager” was another example of colour reporting and an important story-telling tool to show the physical reactions of relevant people. They make a similar response to the comment “Pitied laughs from the gallery” saying that this was notable and interesting to the reader who could draw their own conclusions from the statement.
19. In response to Mr Neal’s claim of inaccuracy in the statement that he claims, “only 9% of New Zealanders were Māori by blood”, The Spinoff refer to Mr Neal’s comments in his complaint that “We’ve done some work that estimates that 9% of the country is made up of Māori ancestry which he supported with a graph labelled “Ethnicity by Blood Lines Estimate.”
20. The Spinoff say while Mr Neal may not have liked how he came across in the article that does not make the statements inaccurate, nor does it fall into the realm of opinion.
21. The Spinoff says that they moved quickly to make two corrections in response to Mr Neal’s complaint. They made one correction on the day of receiving the complaint, further changes were made and a personal apology added to the top of the article on February 3.
The Discussion
22. The focus of this complaint is on one paragraph, in a long article, describing Mr Neal’s presentation to the Select Committee.
Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
23. On viewing the accumulation of comments Mr Neal perceives as personal attacks, it is understandable that he feels offended. The first of those three comments, referring to Mr Neal’s manner of presentation, is described by The Spinoff as adding colour and context, particularly given his notably different style. The other two comments are reports on the responses of others in the room to Mr Neal’s presentation. The various comments which, to an extent, ridicule Mr Neal, are clearly seen by him as being unfair and unwarranted, and we have sympathy for his position. They contained an element of opinion. However, as we note below, this is not unexpected in a work of this style.
24. The Council finds that taken one by one each of these comments can be seen as descriptive and they have not been shown to be untrue. Accumulated in one paragraph they do pack a stronger punch. However, the Council sees that this adds interest for the readers, is not inaccurate and, by a narrow margin, falls short of being unfair.
25. Mr Neal notes in his complaint that he presented on the wording of the proposed legislation, the referendum mechanism and advancing the democratic discussion. It is an acceptable interpretation to report that he did not make any substantive legal points, which in this context could be assumed to be about the more technical aspects of the legislation and its legal impact, as had been addressed by the speakers prior to Mr Neal.
26. The Council is satisfied with the comment that Mr Neal’s submission was focused on polling, understanding that this was not the only area of focus, but a key feature of his presentation and a unique point of difference to the other submissions reported on that day. We also consider it fair to report that Mr Neal found that the two polls showing a majority of the support opposing the Bill were flawed, not putting the same weighting on the word pre-emptive as Mr Neal.
27. Mr Neal says he did not claim “that only 9% of New Zealanders were Māori by blood.” This issue is blurred by Mr Neal’s own definitions on what determines a Māori. It is commonly accepted throughout government and wider society that self-identification is the accepted measure of identity, which includes the notions of ‘Māori blood’ and Māori ancestry. It is reasonable to assume that Mr Neal believes that only 9% of New Zealanders are Māori and accurate to report it.
Principle (4) Comment and Fact & Principle (5) Comments, Blogs, Opinions and Letters
28. The comments on Mr Neal are clearly a summary of events as part of large article and cannot take in every nuance of his presentation. Readers will understand that the article picked notable fragments of a 10-minute presentation. Having said that, the framing of this piece, while not worthy of an uphold, raises questions that Mr Neal has every right to address. We think The Spinoff needs to give some thought to how it maintains a transparent and fair line between fact and comment and how it might more clearly label articles that veer away from traditional news reporting. In a piece like this where only brief summaries are given and pointed analysis included, care needs to be taken to be fair to all parties, even those the journalists or publications do not agree with.
Principle (12) Corrections
29. Four hours after receiving Mr Neal’s initial complaint on 29 January, The Spinoff agreed to amend the sentence “he didn’t even make any substantive points” to “he didn’t make any substantive legal points”, saying that the initial comment “leaned closer to judgment than observation.” They made a further correction, removing the description of Mr Neal as a conservative. This correction and an apology to Mr Neal were noted at the top of the article on 3 February, 5 days after the complaint was made. With acceptance that the negotiations between Mr Neal and The Spinoff led to some delay in the second correction and the printing of the apology, the Council finds that this does meet the standard required for corrections.
30. The Council notes Mr Neal’s allegations that The Spinoff uses substantial taxpayer funding to target individuals it considers political opponents, such as himself. He further implies that The Spinoff received government funding to produce this story, when it has not. We do not accept the implied allegation of a conflict of interest, in support of which Mr Neal offers no evidence.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld on Principles (1), (4), (5) and (12) by unanimous decision
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon,
Katrina Bennett, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau