Peter Williams
Writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines although verbalising thoughts on www.reality check.radio three days a week.
If you have been following the New Zealand media in recent days, you may have noticed my name surface in coverage of a defamation trial currently before the Auckland District Court. Last week I appeared as a witness in the case brought by Northlander Julian Batchelor, publisher of the 2023 booklet Stop Co-Governance, against disinformation researcher Dr Sanjaya Hattotuwa and TVNZ.
Batchelor alleges he was defamed in a TVNZ broadcast and accompanying online story in which Dr Hattotuwa offered commentary on Batchelor’s writings. Dr Hattotuwa is the first defendant and TVNZ the second. I was asked by the principal shareholder of NZME, Jim Grenon, to appear as an “expert witness” on issues of news gathering, editorial balance, and fairness in broadcast journalism. Mr Grenon is funding Batchelor’s case.
My evidence was straightforward. In my professional opinion, Dr Hattotuwa’s voice was dominant in the story, while Batchelor’s response was relegated to a perfunctory summary at the end. The written version of the article was roughly 600 words. Dr Hattotuwa’s comments accounted for 205 of those words. Batchelor’s response amounted to a single 10-word sentence. That, I argued, raised legitimate questions about balance and proportionality in a story that purported to examine contested claims.
Ninety minutes in the witness box under cross-examination by TVNZ’s counsel, Daniel Nilsson, was an education. Nilsson is sharp, precise, and relentless – qualities I suspect are highly prized in a courtroom, even if they would make for uncomfortable television interviews. I was questioned closely about my written brief of evidence, particularly sections addressing declining public trust in mainstream media.
I had argued that on certain issues – notably climate science and race relations – journalists increasingly present a narrow range of perspectives, often framing dissenting voices as marginal or unworthy of serious consideration. When pressed for examples, I cited two recent cases.
The first was the near-total absence of mainstream media coverage of the recent visit by renowned physicist and climate alarmism sceptic Will Happer. Happer, a distinguished academic with a long career in physics, was interviewed on Newstalk ZB’s The Country. Beyond that, his visit was effectively ignored. Whatever one thinks of his views, the decision by mainstream outlets not to engage with them at all is itself revealing.
The second example was the unfolding Willie Jackson affair at the Manukau Urban Māori Authority – an issue generating considerable discussion online, yet attracting virtually no attention from major news organisations. To my mind, these silences are not incidental. They contribute directly to public perceptions that the media decides, in advance, which topics and viewpoints are acceptable.
Only one mainstream journalist, Shayne Currie from the New Zealand Herald, was present on the press bench during my evidence, although Joel McManus from the Spinoff also covered the trial. Currie did not include my comments on media trust or selective coverage in his reporting. That is, of course, his prerogative. Editors choose what they regard as newsworthy. But I remain of the view that my remarks about declining trust in the media were more pertinent than questions about my association with Reality Check Radio or its billboards.
Still, I was not the reporter. I was the witness.
I am under no illusion that I covered myself in glory in the witness box. This was my first experience giving evidence in a civil trial and it showed. My only previous court appearance was 26 years ago as a defendant – guilty, remorseful, and accepting the consequences of a drink-driving charge. That, frankly, was easier. Lawyers such as Nilsson and Dr Hattotuwa’s counsel, Davey Salmon KC, are adept at seizing on any imprecision or stray phrase and turning it into a point of pressure.
My greatest regret came after I had finished giving evidence. My appearance had been delayed, it overran, and I missed my scheduled flight home. While frantically trying to rebook via the Air New Zealand app, Phil O’Sullivan, now head of TVNZ News, popped his head into the room, wished me a Merry Christmas, and moved on.
Distracted, stressed, and careless, I called out to him and made a few comments about the case and my involvement. I may well have referred to Julian Batchelor as “a nutter”, having watched his performance in court the previous day.
Under questioning, Batchelor had defended claims that Māori culture was “lacking in character”, suggested there was pre-Māori habitation of New Zealand, and alleged that “600 farmers in Otago” were armed and ready to act because of Māori privilege. He also refused to disclose who funded his pamphlet, prompting suggestions he may have been in contempt of court. From the public gallery, it did not strike me as a strong showing.
I assumed my exchange with O’Sullivan was private: a conversation between former colleagues. I should have explicitly said it was off the record. I did not. That was my mistake. Mea culpa.
O’Sullivan must have tipped off Davey Salmon about my comments and, under questioning, repeated them in court. They are remarks which will be of no help to the plaintiff’s case.
I retire, somewhat bruised, from the ranks of defamation trial witnesses. The experience reinforced for me just how much power large media organisations wield – and how carefully that power must be exercised if public trust is to be maintained.
It also gave me one more reason to remain sceptical of TVNZ News.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
