STEPHEN WATSON, JAMES GIVNAN, BRUCE ROY, ANDREW MURPHY, CHRISTINE NORRIS, RACHEL COX, MARIA ROBINSON, MARK BROWNING, ANTHONY HAN

The Discussion

33. In terms of Principle (1) Stuff is right to point out it is usually applied to news stories. We do not require balance in opinion pieces, for example. A poem is clearly not a news article but rather an expression of opinion. The feature article however is subject to this principle.  
34. Mr Murphy complains the article is little more than an ad for Ms Avia’s upcoming show while Mr Frewen describes it as an “uncritical profile”. Ms Avia is undeniably a celebrated writer and her success here and around the world, not to mention her receipt of government funding and her upcoming show, means coverage of her work is undoubtedly in the public interest. The tale of her upbringing, audiences’ difficulty with her work, her creative goals and processes make the article much more than an ad. Indeed, by reporting on Ms Avia, Stuff has exposed more people to her work and funding, which has generated debate and allowed people to decide for themselves whether or not they find her poetry brave, offensive or anything else.
35. Mr Frewen makes a reasonable point that the piece is uncritical and given Stuff says it anticipated a backlash against the piece and wanted to provide context, a more critical appraisal of the art or the views being expressed could have been useful and provided balance. But that is Stuff’s decision to make; the issues of colonisation raised by Ms Avia certainly fit into the category of a long-running issue whereby balance can be provided over time. It does not come closing to warranting his complaint being upheld.
36. In terms of accuracy, the details of Ms Avia’s life and career have not been called into question, while there’s also no suggestion than Stuff has been unfair to her in this article.
37. It’s worth noting too that the context provided in the article helps the audience understand questions that arise from Ms Avia’s poem and the explanation of her background and motivation means the poem is less confronting and more understandable than if it had been published alone. The article’s headline and standfirst, plus the warning on the video, give fair warning of what’s to come.
38. The poem itself is covered by several principles. Regarding Principle (3) its purpose is to protect children being reported on in the media not to protect children consuming media. Newspapers and websites routinely contain material unfit for younger readers, such as war and court reporting, and in this regard this poem is no different. Reader discretion is always advised and in this case Stuff went to great lengths to warn readers and viewers of all ages that it included explicit language and some of them would find the poem confronting and even offensive. The audience had every opportunity to turn away.
39. Under Principle (4) facts relied on in works of opinion are required to be accurate. This line blurs somewhat when it comes to art and works of the imagination. But the names of James Cook, his ships, and the place where he was killed are all accurate. The rest is opinion.
40. The bulk of these complaints will be considered under Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity.
41. The Council understands that the poem has deeply upset the complainants. They have right to express their disgust and disagreement, take a different view of colonisation, write letters to the editor, not to read Stuff and consume other media. But they do not have the right to not be offended.
42. Indeed, this poem is clearly intended to offend and to angrily challenge people’s views on colonisation, as explained in the feature. We note the Media Council does not have principles on taste and decency; that is the purview of the editor and if readers don’t like a publication’s taste they can write to the editor or get their news elsewhere. Equally, Stuff’s editorial policy around offensive language is its own business and the decision to abandon its own policies in the video is between it and its online audience.
43. Several of the complainants argue the poem is racist. Racism is typically defined as discrimination by a powerful institution, group or person against a group or person based on their race or ethnicity. In colloquial terms it means “punching down”. So while less powerful groups or people can be discriminatory (and therefore subject to Media Council principles) they can seldom be racist. However we do not need to decide on that issue in this debate because the complaints are not against a column or article, but against a poem.
44. While several of the complainants viewed the poem as racial hatred masquerading as art, the poem is undoubtedly a work of art and deserves to be judged as such. Contrary to one complaint, it is not a manifesto or a plea for real-life violence on a par with the Christchurch mosque killings, but clearly a work of imagination. As another complainant describes it, the poem is an example of “explicit violent racial revenge fantasies”. As Stuff notes, Ms Avia in the article calls for a conversation around these issues; she has said nothing in real life to incite racial violence and there is nothing to indicate that the poem has provoked any violence in the two and a half years since it was first published
45. Complaints against a column expressing the writer’s desire to kill another would undoubtedly be upheld. Indeed, it would almost certainly never be published. However art is held to different standards. It always has been and rightly so. Poetry, for example, does not have to be accurate in the sense of Principle (1) it is often required not to be.
46. Most of the complainants are concerned at the murderous violence described in the poem, but James Cook in this poem is not a person living in modern-day Christchurch and the violence is not real. Cook in the poem is a personification of all Pakeha male colonists over the past 250 years, or indeed of colonisation as a process that from the viewpoint of many indigenous peoples, often brought with it theft and violence, amongst other, arguably more favourable things. Personification is a common artistic device used across cultures and centuries, most often seen in newspapers when employed by cartoonists. By casting this ‘Cook’ as a modern day criminal on the streets of Christchurch, Ms Avia seems to be arguing not that James Cook himself was a rapist or murderer, but that the violence of the colonisation that followed Cook (often perpetrated by “white men like you”) still has repercussions today. Where many of the complainants see the poem as inciting violence, another reading of it suggests the poem is describing a legacy of violence and anger that the poet blames on colonisation.
47. The comparison with cartoons is a useful one. We note previous Council decisions (e.g. Case 2787) acknowledging “cartoons “are given a wide license to offend” and offer confronting and affronting views that are “often strong and pungent”. In 2017 the Council ruled “Cartoons in the media represent freedom of speech at its most extreme interpretation. By their very nature, they are confronting, challenging and sometimes offensive”.
48. Poems can be seen in a similar light. Indeed, to uphold complaints against art because it caused offence when shown to the public would have meant censoring work such as Manet’s Le Dejeuner sur l’Herbe, Picasso’s Guernica or Tracy Emin’s My Bed. 
49. Views on colonisation have been published in New Zealand media for more than a century, sometimes angrily and in terms offensive to others, often by Pakeha men. Given the importance of free speech to an open democracy, Stuff is just as entitled to publish Ms Avia’s views. Hearing the view of a Pasifika woman on the subject, however upsetting and whether one agrees with her or not, provides some balance to a long-running debate.
50. Even if a Pasifika woman personifies colonisation in violent terms, there is nothing in our principles that require media to veer away from debating that violence. In truth, good journalism requires the media to publish examples of violence and wrestle with debate about violence on a daily basis.
51. Some of the complainants might accept these arguments around art and free speech, agreeing that Stuff can publish confronting or offensive art, but not art that goes so far as to fantasise about murder. And in this case, murder based on race. They feel that crosses the line between confronting and racism or even hate speech. They feel it encourages violence and undermines the sort of social cohesion seen in the wake of the mosque shootings.
52. But media organisations publish all sorts of view they don’t agree with, and rightly so. Publication of the poem does not equate with endorsement, as some complainants suggest. It is for Stuff to decide whether publication of this poem is divisive and, if so, whether or not it is in the public interest.
53. The Council could only uphold the complaints if it felt the poem was gratuitous or a serious breach of professional standards.
54. On the rare occasions the Council has upheld complaints against columns and even cartoons there have been gratuitous or further circumstances that we do not see here. The issue of race is core to Ms Avia’s strong view on colonisation and is the very point of the poem, so it is not gratuitous (as is indeed gender). As Principle (7) records, race is a legitimate topic for debate. The poem arguably uses dark humour, but it is not laughing at the powerless or another’s misery. Neither, given the personification of Cook, is it describing a real life situation. It is punching up at a more powerful race and gender, not down.
55. For the reasons given above around free speech, the role of art and the nature of this poem, its publication, while upsetting for some, is not a breach of professional standards.

Decision: The complaints under Principles (1), (3), (4) and (7) are not upheld.

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.