JOSHUA RILEY AGAINST STUFF

The Discussion

30. The principles cited in this complaint are Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; Principle (4) Comment and Fact; Principle (6) Headlines and Captions; Principle (9) Subterfuge; and Principle (12) Corrections.
    
    
31. In terms of Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, the test is whether the Stuff article demonstrated and contained the necessary facts and comments to support its first sentence that Sovereign’s eight candidates are ‘’espousing conspiracy theories and Covid-19 disinformation’’. This test also includes whether the article backs up its statement that Sovereign appears to be influenced and shares much of the language used by a ‘’sovereign citizens’’ movement from the United States, and whether Stuff went far enough in achieving accuracy, fairness and balance in its interactions with Mr Riley.
    
    
32. The council believes the article has not provided enough evidence that all eight candidates ‘’espouse conspiracy theories’’. For example, on climate change conspiracy theory, it only mentions Rob Eady as referring to ‘’climate hysteria’’ and opposing ‘’the fraudulent climate change pseudo-science’’.
    
    
33. Sovereign, as a group, has expressed anti-UN views when it comes to Agenda 2030 and the eight candidates, by standing on the Sovereign ticket in the elections, could be seen to endorse or hold those views. However, the council believes the article did not go far enough in providing enough detail about the group’s stance on the UN agenda and how it related to New Zealand policies and therefore supporting the statement that all candidates ‘’espouse conspiracy theories’’.  This is a serious allegation, and there should be solid back-up for it.
    
    
34. Stuff has also not provided enough supporting material to show that all eight candidates are espousing Covid-19 disinformation. The article stated: ‘’Their views on vaccines overlaps with ‘wellness’ and natural health movements…’’ But apart from describing Eady as holding ‘’anti-vax’’ views, the article only mentions three candidates – one who denounced ‘’the Covid-19 mRNA experiment’’ and another who talked of ‘’junk science’’ used ‘’to strip away our rights’’. A third is included as having lost her job after refusing to get vaccinated – but choosing not to get vaccinated does not equate to espousing disinformation. The article implies the group members all hold the same views on vaccines but does not lay out the evidence to prove that. Stuff, in its response, said statements – including the denouncement of ‘’the  Covid-19 mRNA experiment’’ and the assertion that ‘’junk science’’ was used to strip away rights – were deleted from Sovereign’s website but the fact that these comments had been on the Sovereign website was not mentioned in the article.
    
    
35. Mr Riley complains that Stuff provided no evidence Sovereign was associated with the US sovereign-citizens movement. The council agrees. The Stuff article has not adequately supported its statement that the New Zealand group ‘’appears influenced and shares much of the language used by a sovereign-citizens movement from the United States’’.
    
    
36. Therefore, there has been a breach of Principle (1).
    
    
37. Mr Riley has also complained that Stuff included ‘’almost none of my responses’’ to its questions. The council disagrees. Stuff is under no obligation to publish all of his answers. Stuff provided what the council believes is a fair summary of his responses in the article. There is one exception, however, in that the article did not contain a response about why Sovereign was standing a candidate in a Māori ward. The council believes it would have been fairer to have included this for balance.
    
    
38. Mr Judd’s comments were clearly in the context of Sovereign and its candidates and provided a wider context on conspiracy theories. Mr Riley complains he should have had an opportunity to respond to these comments before publication. The council believes that while that would have been ideal it does not agree that Mr Judd’s comments meet the necessary threshold to require a right of reply.
    
    
39. The council finds that Stuff could have done more to ascertain the specifics of Mr Riley’s business registration. However, Mr Riley did not clarify this in his emailed answers to the interview questions, and Stuff, in its response, pointed to an earlier online media article Mr Riley participated in where he is clearly described as a local businessman. On balance, the council does not uphold Mr Riley’s complaint on this point. 
    
    
40. Mr Riley believes Principle (12) Corrections was breached in terms of how Stuff dealt with this part of the complaint. The council disagrees and finds Stuff dealt with this part of the complaint appropriately by updating and annotating the article with a clarification regarding his business being registered in Texas.
    
    
41. In terms of Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, and as previously outlined in this decision, there are insufficient facts in the article to adequately back up the headline, The Covid-19 conspiracy theorists targeting Northland’s local elections.
    
    
42. There is no breach of Principle (4) Comment and Fact which states a clear distinction should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion and that an article that is essentially comment or opinion should be clearly presented as such. Material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate.
    
    
43. There is no evidence of Principle (9) Subterfuge being breached.
    
    
44. It is important that a news article and its headline contain the necessary facts, comments, references and other information to properly support its key statements and achieve fairness particularly when serious allegations are made that will immediately attract adverse attention.  This article failed to do so in some instances and none has been forthcoming in the reply, as outlined.  It is especially important care is taken to accurately and fairly represent the views and positions of individuals and parties during an election campaign so the public can base their voting decisions on reliable information.
    
    
45. Christine Godinet made a previous complaint in relation to this article and the council ruled at the time there were no grounds to proceed in reviewing that complaint.  Ms Godinet complained that the story misrepresented the facts and answers given by the founder of the Sovereign group, lied about the group’s intentions and included photos that wrongly linked them to the disinformation in the story. The council notes that it considers each complaint on its own merits. In the case of Riley v Stuff, Mr Riley is a party to this complaint, provided detailed information that was not available at the time of the Godinet decision and the substance of his complaint was materially different to Ms Godinet's.
    
    
46. Despite its findings of a breach, the Media council records that investigative journalism about local elections is an essential part of the democratic process and is to be encouraged.

Decision: The complaint is upheld on Principles (1) and (6).

Council members considering the complaint were the Hon. Raynor Asher (chair); Rosemary Barraclough; Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Hank Schouten, Ben Frances, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom and Richard Pamatatau.