Press Council rule in favour of newspaper's 1080 poison editorial

The following report is from the Peninsula Press, and developed after a complaint was made to the Press Council following a front page editorial on the use of 1080 poison ...  

Following a complaint to the NZ Press Council that this newspapers’ August 18th front page article ‘Where  are all the birds?’ had incited fear in the 1080 debate,  the council adjudicated in favour of the paper, stating:  “ ... newspapers are entitled to encourage debate on issues of interest and importance to their own community – indeed they have a responsibility to undertake that role.”

 The complaint was made by Thomas Everth, Coromandel. We publish the adjudication in full:

 ADJUDICATION BY THE NEW ZEALAND PRESS COUNCIL ON THE COMPLAINT OF THOMAS EVERTH AGAINST PENINSULA PRESS

Thomas Everth complained about an editorial published in the Peninsula Press (a Coromandel community newspaper) on August 18, 2011.

He cited those principles of the Press Council that refer to accuracy, fairness and balance and to maintaining a distinction between the reporting of facts and the passing of opinion.

His complaint is not upheld.

Background:

Headlined “Where are all the birds?” the piece took a highly critical stance against the use of 1080 poison in NZ forests.

In particular, it stressed the dangers of “sublethal contamination” where even if wildlife is not killed outright, the low-level contaminants may create longer term, harmful effects on animal and insect development and reproduction.

It dominated the front page and continued to feature strongly on page three.

The “editorial article” was published under a by line giving the editor’s name.

A footnote stated that it had been written as a “front page editorial” in an attempt “to get to the known ‘facts’ about the controversial pesticide programme” and said that the newspaper welcomed further debate.

The Complaint:

Mr Everth initially complained to the editor (and author of the piece) by telephone and then via a series of e-mails. He accused the editor of “inciting fear and fanning the flames of an already heated 1080 debate”.

In particular, he took issue with the notion that 1080 interfered with and disrupted the endocrine system of wildlife and instead stressed the need for predator control (via 1080) in NZ forests.

He sent the newspaper a scientific research paper which rebutted the allegations that 1080 was an endocrine disrupter.

He suggested that the newspaper owed readers an apology for the “lies and the exaggeration and the baseless scare-mongering”.

When the editor offered Mr Everth the opportunity to write an article opposing and counter-balancing the arguments raised in the editorial, he declined.

As any apology and/or retraction was not forthcoming, he made a formal complaint to the Press Council.

Here, he stressed that the piece was irresponsible, especially given the possibility of violence by anti-1080 activists in the local community

The complainant reiterated his various claims that the newspaper had published “outright lies and made up conjecture” and that the editor’s prevailing argument was a reversal of “the facts”.

The Newspaper’s Response

The editor readily accepted that 1080 poisoning was a contentious issue but he had tried to foster healthy discussion, and when Mr Everth complained, he had offered him considerable space for a counter argument, a 1,000 word reply.

He suggested that the complainant’s vigorous reaction to the editorial exemplified the intense feeling (on both sides) inherent in the 1080 debate.

He denied that the editorial was written to support the pig-hunting lobby which was opposed to the use of 1080 poison.

He added that his original offer to Mr Everth, of space in the newspaper to air his “facts”, remained open.

Discussion and Decision:

In summary, the complainant argues that the editorial was not based on sound science and thus misled its readers, and further, that its publication was irresponsible, given the entrenched positions held in the local community.

The Press Council acknowledges the research forwarded by Mr Everth but the Council cannot adjudicate on the accuracy of competing claims surrounding the use of 1080 poison. Each “side” attacks the science and research cited by the opposition.

In 2009, the Council noted “Readers wanting to investigate the veracity of the claims and counter-claims about 1080 would be wise to read widely on the issue rather than rely on the content of one article”.

As far as the second part of his argument is concerned, the Press Council takes a different view and stresses that newspapers are entitled to encourage debate on issues of interest and importance to their own community – indeed they have a responsibility to undertake that role.

The Council is of the view that more could have been done to stress that this front page piece was in fact an editorial and thus opinion right from the outset,   though it noted it was termed “editorial” both within the text and at the end.

However, the editor’s claim that he was trying to stimulate discussion about an important local issue was supported by a footnote which clearly signalled that further comment would be welcomed.

Another signpost that the debate would continue was given – readers were told that a Ministry of Agriculture response to the editorial would be published later. That response duly appeared, in the newspaper’s Comment and Opinion page, the following week.

The complainant was given the chance to compose a response countering the editor’s opinions, and at some length, but he declined.

Finally, the Press Council has often upheld the right of an editor to adopt a strong stance and advocate a particular position; in short, to advance their own point of view.

Inevitably, some will disagree with that stance, even be offended by the opinions expressed or by how they were expressed, but that is an inherent aspect of freedom of speech.

Of course, there would be grounds for complaint if the editorial contained grievous errors of fact, or deliberately misled or misinformed readers. But, as noted above, the Council is simply unable to determine the “facts” in this ongoing debate, and it can see no evidence at all of any deliberate or wilful attempt to mislead or misinform.

The complaint is not upheld:

Press Council members considering this complaint were Barry Paterson, Pip Bruce Ferguson, Kate Coughlan, Chris Darlow, Sandy Gill, Keith Lees, Clive Lind, John Roughan, Lynn Scott and Stephen Stewart.

Congratulations Simon! - Local body elections

Congratulations Simon!

Firstly - Thanks to all those 4739 people (final count) that voted for me!
Secondly - A big thanks to those that helped with my campaign. It was incredible to see the support that came from all around the peninsula.
After final counting, I missed out by 378 votes! Not too bad.
It is true - I am dedicated to working for our environment, and I would have been dedicated to serving the people of the Thames-Coromandel Peninsula. However, Simon has won this election, and he is the best man for the job - that's the way the majority has voted.

We have a few more projects that we are committed to completing - and yes, they are all for the betterment of our environment, and New Zealand. I will then most likely head to Australia - to the delight of those perpetrating the ecocide taking place in this country, no doubt - and hide under a sun-scorched rock for a while.

We don't make lots of money from our documentary work, and no, we don't enjoy the condemnation that comes with presenting the truth.

However, we are in a position that means that we are able to present the facts about the atrocity that takes place in our wilderness areas, every week.

I hope that one day, those of you with blinkers on will finally open your eyes and realise what is really taking place in our forests.

Thanks again to those that supported this campaign.

Final results....

Constituency – Thames Coromandel (1 seat)

Candidate Name
FRIAR, Simon 5117

GRAF, Clyde 4739
SIELING, Dirk 3229

THE COROMANDEL FIGHTS PENINSULA POISONS (TCFPP)

The following post, about to appear in the Hauraki Herald, is from battlers based in the Coromandel, and in response to DoC's poisoning campaign at Kennedy Bay...

THE COROMANDEL FIGHTS PENINSULA POISONS (TCFPP)

We are a group of local residents who passionately believe in controlling pests without poisoning the entire wildlife system at the same time.
On August 6 2010 a full-page advertorial appeared in this paper written by the new DOC manager for our area, Melissa King-Howell, "to inform the general public about the possum control planned for Kennedy Bay."
By August 6 this operation had only a week left to run and this is the first thing most people had heard of it.

WHY DO IT?
Some trees in the bush block are "suffering from excessive possum browse" says M King-Howell. And yet the possum count is only 5.8%. Thus the excessive browse must be either an invention or caused by some other creature. Too many kaka perhaps. Either way, reducing that figure of 5.8% to 3.8 or 2.1 is not likely to make much difference. Fact is, that figure was already reduced as most of the possums had moved to an untreated neighbouring block of pines which was in flower at the time of poisoning.
Why choose bait-stations which carve tracks through the bush at 200m grids creating more damage than an army of possums in a life-time?
M King-Howell adds that the by-kill of rats with 1080 has produced increases of tui and bellbird after one breeding season in other Peninsula pest control operations.
This too turns out to be untrue as Iris Jacobs' peninsula research reveals.
Iris' report is a little shaky on the facts but two unquestionable points emerge:
1. Tui, and pigeon did not increase their numbers during the first breeding season after rat-poisoning and
2. Before the second breeding season the rat population was larger than it had been before the poisoning began.
This increase of rats after poisoning is reckoned to be between 2.5 and 6 times the original population according to all the research that has been carried out on rat abundance. (See Sweetapple, P., et al 2006)
M King-Howell has used only four sentences of anecdotal whimsy to sell the need for this Kennedy Bay project. The rest of her page is devoted to "selling" the poison 1080.

1080 CONTINUES TO KILL DOGS:
"Without protection, predators will kill nine out of ten kiwi chicks" says M King-Howell. The only known predator to kill 9 out of 10 kiwi is dogs. Does this mean that the Kennedy Bay 1080 is aimed directly at dogs?

1080 GETS INTO WATER:
M King-Howell quotes Suren 2006 as an authority on 1080 breakdown in water. Had she read his actual report she would have found that Suren 2006 had done no research whatsoever into the breakdown of 1080 poison. All the "independent water tests" she talks about were taken by the Health Board. The Health Board is part of every aerial 1080 team and in no sense can be labeled "Independent".
"Water testing done after 1080 operation is carried out to confirm that toxin is no longer present. This is to ensure that intakes of water used for drinking are not reopened during the short time when 1080 will be present after an operation. Testing is thus for clearance, rather than to detect the presence of 1080." (Hood 2007)
Mr Suren 2006, on the other hand, went looking for poison and every water sample he took within a four hours of a 1080 drop was found to contain 1080. Where it goes to no one knows.
M King-Howell has taken one line from Suren's executive summary, but she has ignored the damning evidence contained in the heart of his report.
"As all spin doctors know it is a standard trick to write an Executive Summary to emphasise the points you want journalists to pick up, and leave the detail buried in the report itself where hopefully it will remain undiscovered." (Wishart 2008)

1080 CARCINOGENIC:
"1080 is not carcinogenic" says M King-Howell, as if this is an advantage. How do we know if 1080 is carcinogentic or not? If you get 1080 poisoning cancer has no time to develop; you are dead in a few days.

1080 LIKE DDT:
The sales propaganda for 1080 has been identical to NZ's other toxins such as DDT, dioxins and Brodifacoum. All these toxins have enjoyed continued use in NZ long after their use in the wild has been banned elsewhere.

WORKERS' HEALTH:
Even though research published in DOC's submission to ERMA revealed that 25% of all 1080 workers were carrying 1080 in their systems, M King-Howell states that "Their health is monitored and no issues with 1080 have been found". No worries for Melissa perhaps but if 25% of my workers were carrying detectable traces of 1080 it would be an issue for me.

ALTERNATIVES:
$4-5 million per annum is spent on scientific research into 1080 and other toxins. Traps, encapsulated cyanide and the bio-dynamic methods of pest control have all been developed with private money. They are cheap, totally species-specific, do not cause secondary poisoning, do not get in the waterways, and leave no hidden residues.
Why have the government research teams for so long had nothing to do with the development of these very genuine alternatives?
The only "alternative" toxin to emerge from decades of research and tens of millions of dollars, is called PAPP, which Mr Eason tells us is perfect in every way. Only thing is PAPP is harmless to possums!

POLICE:
An army of DOC staff arrived in Kennedy Bay in the early hours of the morning to fill 1200 bait-stations with 1080 and get the job done in 24 hours. They were accompanied by another army of police dressed in anti-terrorist gear and carrying guns and expecting to fill their paddy wagons. They closed off the poison area with numerous road blocks. They stopped the few locals going to work and interrogated them as if they were terrorists. 32 policeman-days lost that the police were not chasing real crime.

COST:
There has been much unnecessary spending on this operation which has left the community seething and divided.
Kennedy Bay is the first example of how DOC's poisoning regime will be carried out under Melissa King-Howell: No consultation or any information prior to poisoning. Secret poisoning if possible. If word leaks out beforehand, as it did in Kennedy Bay, and there follows the slightest murmur of disapproval, Melissa will wheel in the SWAT squad and quiet that disapproval with anti-terrorist measures.

There are several websites available that contain balanced information about the use of 1080 in New Zealand.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0484.htm

The Stop 1080 facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/pages/STOP-1080/175357873459?ref=ts

The Graf Boys
http://www.thegrafboys.blogspot.com/ http://www.thegrafboys.org