RUSSELL GARBUTT AGAINST RNZ

RNZ published a Stuff article on 13 April 2024, headlined Senior Labour MP ordered to take down ‘gross’ social media post.

The story reported that Labour leader Chris Hipkins had ordered senior MP Peeni Henare to take down an Instagram post showing cartoon images drawn by artist Michel Mulipola of Act leader David Seymour and Transport Minister Simeon Brown. The cartoon image of David Seymour showed him with excrement coming out of his eyes. The other labelled “Simian Brown” showed the minister’s face on the rear of a baboon.

The cartoons were republished in the RNZ story which carried a warning saying, “This story contains images some might find offensive.”

Russell Garbutt said he was deeply offended. RNZ had been grossly irresponsible to republish the cartoons and he wanted an apology.

RNZ said in its response that there was warning at the top of the story readers would have had to scroll past before seeing the cartoons. Furthermore, such an order from Mr Hipkins amounted to a "curtailment of free speech which is a very important issue in a free and democratic society and the reader was well served to be informed as to the exact reason...(for).... issuing such an order".

The Media Council notes the cartoons were key to the story and newsworthy as Mr Henare had been ordered to take them down by his party leader. They were certainly of some public interest as they enabled readers to make their own assessment of the quality of judgement exercised by Mr Henare and his leader.

Politicians are often the subject of cartoons, some of which people might find offensive, but there were no compelling reasons to protect readers from these images.  Highly insulting images showing politicians in cartoons have been drawn since the eighteenth century.

While RNZ put a warning at the top of the story, it is notable that Stuff did not when it published the same story on its website. The use of warnings and the publication of material that might offend some people is a matter of editorial discretion where editors have to make their own decisions about what their readers might expect or tolerate. It is up to readers to skim cartoons they dislike or cease to patronise a publication.

There were no grounds to proceed.