Key Takeaways:
- TVNZ is defending its story about Julian Batchelor’s anti-co-governance pamphlet, which was distributed before the 2023 general election.
- Batchelor is suing TVNZ for defamation, claiming the story damaged his reputation and caused him personal and professional harm.
- The case is being funded by businessman Jim Grenon, a shareholder and director of NZME, who approached Batchelor after seeing the TVNZ story.
- TVNZ’s defence is that its reporter spoke to Batchelor on the phone, but his response was "long and rambling" and difficult to edit into a usable soundbite.
- Expert witness Peter Williams, a former TVNZ host, testified that the story was a "hit piece" without adequate balance, but later agreed that his criticism of TVNZ’s intent had fallen away.
Introduction to the Case
The case of Julian Batchelor vs. TVNZ has been making headlines in New Zealand, with Batchelor suing the media outlet for defamation over a story about his anti-co-governance pamphlet. The pamphlet, which was distributed before the 2023 general election, made several unfounded claims, including that a group of Māori elites were conspiring to take over the country and that co-governance was the "installation of apartheid" in New Zealand. TVNZ’s story quoted Dr. Sanjana Hattotuwa, a research director for The Disinformation Project, who described Batchelor’s platforms and pamphlet as "extremely worrying" and "dangerous speech" that incites hate and instigates harm offline.
The Court Hearing
The court hearing has seen several key witnesses take the stand, including Peter Williams, a former TVNZ host who appeared as an expert witness on journalistic practice. Williams testified that the TVNZ story was a "hit piece" without adequate balance, but later agreed that his criticism of TVNZ’s intent had fallen away. Williams also stated that he had cut and pasted the TVNZ online article into a file and found it was 600 words precisely, with Hattotuwa’s words and position totalling more than 200 words, while a paragraph summarising Batchelor’s response was only 10 words. The court also heard that Batchelor’s case is being funded by businessman Jim Grenon, a shareholder and director of NZME, who approached Batchelor after seeing the TVNZ story.
Batchelor’s Testimony
Batchelor took the stand on Monday and told the court that the TVNZ story had led to personal and professional harm. He stated that he was not a racist, but believed Māori had fundamental character flaws and that a race of fair-skinned, ginger-haired people had settled in New Zealand before Māori. Batchelor was asked who had funded his pamphlet, but refused to answer, citing confidentiality. The court heard that about 350,000 Stop Co-Governance pamphlets were delivered around New Zealand in 2023, and that Batchelor had been given the opportunity to seek permission from the funders to reveal their names, but continued to cite confidentiality.
TVNZ’s Defence
TVNZ is running a responsible communication defence, while Hattotuwa is running a truth and honest opinion defence. The court heard that TVNZ’s reporter spoke to Batchelor on the phone, but his response was "long and rambling" and difficult to edit into a usable soundbite. The audio recording of the call no longer exists, but Williams stated that it was possible to edit a phone-call response into a succinct "grab" using technology and software. TVNZ believes it summarised Batchelor’s position fairly, and Williams agreed that time was not a factor in the editing process.
Reality Check Radio
The court also heard about Williams’ association with Reality Check Radio, an alternative conservative platform. Williams stated that he had worked for the platform for a brief period, but had no contractual relationship with them and was not part of their show. He said that they were using his face in a way that was not completely truthful and that he was embarrassed by the billboards featuring his image. Williams stated that he was not afraid to be associated with the organisation, but was annoyed by their use of his image.
Conclusion
The case of Julian Batchelor vs. TVNZ is a complex and contentious one, with both sides presenting strong arguments. The court will continue to hear evidence and testimony before making a decision. The outcome of the case will have significant implications for freedom of speech and the media’s role in reporting on controversial issues. As the case continues, it is clear that the issue of who funded Batchelor’s pamphlet is crucial, and the court’s decision on this matter will be closely watched.