Barrie Davis: Stuff and the Media Council, an Open Letter

Dear Melissa Lee MP, 

Congratulations on your appointment as the Minister of Broadcasting and Media. Will you please consider the following issue regarding reporting by Stuff.

I expect that you are aware of the Maranga Mai Report (also Summary) published by the Human Rights Commission at the beginning of 2023. That Report says, “The principal recommendation of Maranga Mai! tasks the government with committing to constitutional transformation and establishing co-governance … Central to this reform would be the government condemning and rejecting the constitutional application of the Doctrine of Discovery to Aotearoa…”

However, you may not be aware that academic historian Professor Paul Moon provided the HRC with the attached “Review of Claims Relating to the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ in the Human Rights Maranga Mai Report, 2022” which refutes the HRC recommendation as follows:

Many of the main historical claims and assertions made in Maranga Mai in connection with the Doctrine of Discovery variously show signs of errors in fact, misrepresentation, errors of omission, errors in historiography, ideological interpretation, presentism, the rendition of subjective interpretations and opinions as objective material, patterns of bias, and a lack of awareness of the relevant primary sources and bodies of literature that ought to inform discussion on the topic.

I suspect you haven’t heard of the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ either, because nor had I until recently. It turns out that Professor Moon had also published two scholarly articles (2023 and 2022) which claim that the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ did not play a role in Britain’s intervention in New Zealand.

I became aware of the issue from a 2 April Stuff article, “Rejection of Catholic conquest and 'white supremacy' law not enough: advocate” by Tom Hunt. That piece quotes three radical Maoris who claim that an obscure papal bull is the basis of the so-called ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ which it is claimed is somehow embedded in New Zealand’s legislation. That seemed highly unlikely to me as the Pope has never had jurisdiction in New Zealand. So I wrote a Letter to the Editor, and when that wasn’t published, a complaint to the editor of The Dominion Post and subsequently to the NZ Media Council. The NZMC ruled that my complaint was not upheld.

I repeatedly said that there is an opposing view to that published by Stuff and to provide balance, Stuff should also publish the argument given by Professor Moon. It is an important point because Maranga Mai links the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ to co-governance which was an election issue. I also repeatedly said that for readers to make an informed vote it was necessary for Stuff to publish the opposing view and it would also have been useful if Stuff had facilitated a debate prior to the election. Stuff did not do so and instead went quite on Treaty issues in the run-up to the election. But before the final results were available and coalition negotiations began in earnest, Stuff published a flurry of articles saying that a Treaty referendum is a ‘hot potato’, a ‘poisoned chalice’ and a bad idea.

I had complained that Stuff was biased because Stuff did not also publish the opposing views of Professor Moon. Stuff and the NZMC responded that Moon was a lone voice, but I identified others who agreed with him. They implied that colonial policy was influenced by Catholic missionaries, but it was determined by the British Colonial Office which was dominated from 1836 to 1847 by the humanitarian lawyer Sir James Stephen. Moreover they said, “The Media Council acknowledges that there are differing views on the Doctrine of Discovery” and “there may be room for debate as to the Doctrine’s connection to Aotearoa New Zealand.” If so, then that should have happened prior to the election with sufficient time to allow for public debate.

I also complained that the Stuff report was mistaken and that the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ containing the papal bull is not present in New Zealand legislation. Having read Professor Moon’s three pieces, the more I read about it and the more I think about it, the more I am convinced the Stuff report is not true (see my Essay here). The Stuff article offers an absurd proposition that needs a lot of supporting argument that neither Stuff, nor the NZMC, nor the three Maoris supplied. While mine is only one view, it is at least plausible. Stuff should have presented the alternative argument so that voters could decide for themselves rather than have Stuff select a position for them.

I offer the above as an example because it is one that I have considered (here) and have found deficient. There are other related issues – including the Maori genocide of the Morioris, the history of teaching English in Maori schools, the migration of Maoris into the European cities, the development of European science, and race differences in intelligence – that also need to be publically aired and debated. We need to trust ourselves as rational agents who will come to a reasonable and informed agreement prior to the next election rather than leave it to the media to polarise the nation, chose a side and make our decision for us.

Stuff made their position clear when they published “Stuff introduces new charter following apology to Maori,” 30 November 2020, in which Stuff owner Sinead Boucher boasted, “If you think the job of the news media, in our company and others, is to hold the powerful to account, well, we are the powerful.” I think that is a wrong approach to determine an election.

“Stuff Editorial Code of Practice and Ethics,” 28 September 2020 says,

Stuff may occasionally choose to advocate for social or legislative change, or raise funds for a cause, when such campaigns support freedom of speech or human rights, are in the best interests of our audience, or contribute to making Aotearoa a better place.

But how do we know that the social or legislative change that Stuff advocate is in the best interests of their audience or that it contributes to making Aotearoa a better place? Stuff claims that a successful example was the 2019 Stuff campaign to make NZ history compulsory in schools. But how do we know that will not be used to teach children about “the massacre of Māori at Parihaka” and not the genocide of Moriori on the Chathams, or how Maori children had their language strapped out of them but not that it was Maori leaders who insisted on them being taught only English, or how Maori life expectancy is significantly less than Europeans but not that it is more than twice what it was in 1840, or that the 1493 Inter Caetera papal bull must be purged from New Zealand’s legislation when it was never there in the first place? Are Stuff advocating and promulgating propaganda?

These issues are debateable and Stuff does not have a source of absolute knowledge on which to base their advocacy. The purpose of a democracy is to decide these issues by election and a healthy election requires voters who are informed by and have contributed to public debate on the election issues. Stuffs role is to facilitate that debate by publishing and mediating it, not to determine its conclusion by publishing a partisan account. In so doing, Stuff is undermining our democracy.

I therefore ask that you do what you can to ensure that in future Stuff abides by the “Stuff Editorial Code of Practice and Ethics,” regarding Balance and Bias, and the Media Council upholds its “Statement of Principles” of Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. I expect your regulation would be similar to the condition appended to the Public Interest Journalism Fund except it is with respect of their own standards rather than political objectives.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Barrie Davis

Dr Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.