Posts
On
4 May I listened to an interview on RNZ with Christchurch-based yoga
teacher, Donna Farhi in which she was allowed to use the “Me Too”
trope to campaign against the Iyengar yoga movement in New Zealand by
using a 30 - year old case from San Francisco to target Iyengar
teachers in this country where there has not, to my knowledge ever
been a single case of abuse.
It
is now 24 June.
It
has taken them 7 weeks to respond to a simple complaint and their
disingenuous (I would say Orwellian) response indicates to me they
have taken time to get legal advice from a very shonky lawyer.
The
language speaks to me of legalese, rather than bureaucrat-ese.
The reponse is no longer for me about the case in question by goes right to the heart of the “free speech” question.
Disingenuous response to a
complaint from RNZ says a
lot about freedom of speech
and media double standards
Listen to Kim Hill's interview with Ms. Farhi HERE
This is my letter of complaint from 4 May, 2017
I
wish to complain strongly about the interview of yoga teacher, Donna
Farhi by Kim Hill.
First
some background. I have, in the past, been a practitioner
of yoga (specifically Iyengar yoga) as well as a teacher and left the
Iyengar scene for my own personal reasons and have not taught for
nearly 20 years. I am aware of the general. Issues Ms.Farhi
raised in the inteview. I have also known Ms Farhi personally and
can attest that she has been saying the same things for about 20
years.
The
interview, in my view, was defamatory (“archaic pedagogy”)
and attacked a whole group of people in THIS country who have NEVER,
to my knowledge ever been implicated in any of the abuse
she is referring to. They, however, will face the brunt of this
attack.
The
issues of abuse, of course, are very real but go right across the
yoga community and indeed the whole “New Age” movement and
need to be addressed although the cases are historical and
relate to another time, to an entire generation of baby boomers whose
moral standards in the 1970’s and 1980’s can only be
referred to as “lax”.
As
an American, Ms Farhi should have addressed these issues in an
American context, rather than on New Zealand media.
I
also found that it was an attack on others while at the
same time being shamelessly self-regarding and self-promoting.
It smacked of collusion in an attack on “the opposition”.
Ms. Farhi is, let’s face it, not a disinterested party.
My
main concern is not the viewpoints being presented (everyone is
entitled to their view) but with the decision of Kim Hill’s
producers and Radio New Zealand to collude with
this.
The
broadcasting standards say quite clearly:
"When
controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news,
current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters
should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to
present significant points of view either in the same programme or
in other programmes within the period of current interest."
and
"Broadcasters
should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs
and factual programming:
-
is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
-
does not mislead.
Given
that the claims made were of a defamatory nature the VERY LEAST Radio
New Zealand should have done is to have given representatives of
the NZ Iyengar Yoga Association the right to response. The
very airing of highly biased and defamatory comments on
public radio without the right of response is WRONG.
I
shall therefore be making a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards
Authority.
Yours
sincerely,
Robin
Westenra
Here is their response, dated 24 June, 2019.
Dear
Robin
I
write in response to your formal complaint with respect to an
interview on Saturday Morning, on May 4, with Donna Farhi. Your
complaint suggests that this item was in breach of the accuracy and
accuracy standard, so the following provides a full analysis against
those standards, and a decision about your complaint is reached.
We
appreciate you had concerns about the programme, but that does not
necessarily mean they were in breach of the formal standards.
Accuracy
The
accuracy standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to
ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate
in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead.
Guidelines
suggest that it is not intended to prevent the publication of
material that is clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or
opinion, rather than statements of fact. RNZ notes that Ms Farhi’s
comments were exactly that, i.e. an expression of her comment,
analysis or opinion therefore this aspect of your complaint was not
upheld. RNZ observes that while you consider some of her statements
as defamatory, the formal standards regime cannot resolve matters of
defamation. For the record, RNZ does not believe that anyone was
defamed in this interview.
If
her statements could be construed as statements of fact, even
inaccurate facts, that did not affect the thrust of this part of the
item which was an expression of opinion with largely regard to
investigations into Manouso Manos, an Iyengar yoga teacher in San
Francisco who has been de- certified. Your complaint does not detail
which facts, if any, were inaccurate. For all these reasons, this
aspect of your complaint was not upheld.
Balance
With
respect to balance, the key requirement is that when a controversial
issue of public importance is discussed, the audience is aware of the
significant points of view with regard to the topic. It is doubtful
that the issue at hand, while newsworthy, falls in to the same
category as truly controversial topics such as euthanasia or climate
change. A key consideration of the Broadcasting Standards Authority
(BSA) when considering balance complaints is to determine whether the
topic has excited a public debate. There is no evidence that the
topic of abuse in yoga has reached that level of activity in New
Zealand so on these grounds alone your complaint could be taken no
further and was not upheld.
Other criteria must also be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The balance standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. Saturday Morning is a magazine style programme rather than one of hard news and current affairs so there is some doubt as to whether the standard applies to this particular interview.
Other criteria must also be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The balance standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. Saturday Morning is a magazine style programme rather than one of hard news and current affairs so there is some doubt as to whether the standard applies to this particular interview.
The subject matter must be an issue “of public importance”, it must be “controversial”, and it must be “discussed”. Previously, the BSA has ruled that an interview can examine a single perspective of a topic if that is how the item is introduced. On this occasion that is what happened and a “discussion” did not occur as there were no other parties to the interview besides Ms Farhi and the interviewer. Other views were not sought or expressed.
Summary
There
is the point too that to censure Ms Farhi would be a breach of the
fundamental rights enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990, section 14, which states:
“14.
Freedom of expression---Everyone has the right to freedom of
expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information and opinions of any kind in any form.”
It
has been held that an “uphold” of a formal complaints decision is
in and of itself an impingement of the free speech of broadcasters,
publishers and those participating in those broadcasts, commonly
referred to as a “chilling effect”. In the instance of these
complaints, RNZ notes that the thrust of the item was about the
developments around Manouso Manos and Ms Farhi’s personal
experiences.
RNZ
acknowledges that while there would be a harm to society in breaching
the standards you nominated, there can also be a greater harm, in the
long term, of unnecessarily restricting individual’s freedom of
speech. On this occasion, what was expressed was a reasonably high
value of free speech, i.e. speech being criticism of other’s
behaviour that had been found wanting by his peers. Stifling such
speech would lead to a greater harm to society than allowing
individuals that right to communicate to the wider public.
Previous
decisions by the BSA would suggest that a very high threshold needs
to be met before a breach of the standards occurs. That, coupled with
the analysis above, indicates that a breach of the standard did not
occur on this occasion.
In
summary then, no aspect of your complaint was upheld. In line with
the requirements of the Broadcasting Act, this letter advises you of
the reason why your formal complaint was not upheld and of your
right, if you wish, to refer this decision for review to the
Broadcasting Standards Authority, PO Box 9213, Wellington. A referral
must occur within 20 working days.
Again,
we appreciate you had concerns about the item and we thank you for
your interest in RNZ and giving us the opportunity to respond to you.
Yours
sincerely
This is not my politics and I agree with FAR from all that is being said but it is highly relevant to life in New Zealand today
