These are documents, he says, that will reveal what the broadcaster did and how it reacted when he alerted it to inaccuracies in the story.
But RNZ’s lawyer, Robert Stewart, KC, labelled the discovery application a “fishing expedition”.
Wishart was exasperated that the RNZ reports – on both its website and Morning Report – stated the run of hot weather was probably unprecedented, when records from the 1930s had indicated a heatwave of greater duration and intensity.
The Media Council upheld Wishart’s complaint about the website story, based on the original headline, “Hamilton’s run of hot days shattered previous record”.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), on the other hand, “found the statements complained about were analysis, comment or opinion to which the [accuracy] standard does not apply and, in any event, did not result in the broadcast being misleading.”
Hot in the city – Hamilton was at the centre of two media watchdog decisions.
In court last Monday, Justice van Bohemen raised questions about the way Wishart had framed his overall appeal, pointing out that the BSA had ruled the RNZ article was an opinion piece and that the accuracy principle did not apply in the first place.
Wishart said the essence of his appeal was that the BSA “took the wrong pathway” – “it’s gone down the opinion line when it was an accuracy issue”.
“The essence of the RNZ Morning Report story… is that there was a 10-day stretch at 28.6 degrees in February 2025, and that this was likely the hottest on record.
“The facts clearly show that the marginal temperature heatwaves of the climate change era … are nowhere near as big as the monster heatwave of 1934-35, which was entirely natural.
“When your story is saying that the 2025 event is likely the hottest on record …” said Wishart.
Justice van Bohemen reiterated the word “likely”, to which Wishart said that it wasn’t.
Justice van Bohemen: “It didn’t say it’s absolutely the hottest on record. It said it’s likely the hottest on record.”
He said the climate scientist quoted by RNZ, Luke Harrington, had referred to records he had access to at the time and did not say “definitively” that this was the hottest year on record.
When Wishart said that the essence of news was to “convey facts and context”, the judge responded, “Don’t give me a lecture about the news. You’ve come here to make a legal case … and the finding was this was an opinion piece, to which the accuracy standard didn’t apply.”
Justice Gerard van Bohemen. Photo / Jason Dorday
Wishart told the judge the BSA was wrong to rule the story was an opinion piece.
“I make the point that the original story might not be an accuracy slam dunk in itself, because of the way that the thinking was couched.
“So I said, instead, the breach arose when having had the serious factual error upon which Luke Harrington’s opinion was based brought to its attention, RNZ failed to meaningfully correct the utterly false impressions created by its story and materiality emphasis.
“In an honest and objective newsroom, the emergence of material, new facts would generate a follow-up story, give equal emphasis because of the important context.
“This wasn’t done.”
Justice van Bohemen told Wishart that these were his assertions that this was an appropriate course to take.
“You’ve put in a whole lot of pejorative language in that ‘utterly false impression’ created by its story. That’s not accepted by Radio New Zealand. That’s the reason that it says this material is not relevant because the story itself was still generally correct.”
He suggested Wishart might have to reframe his appeal, but later proceeded on an oral amendment.
“We’ve probably flogged this horse enough … you’re basically saying to me, read my appeal as effectively a challenge to the finding as to the accuracy standard. Your appeal intends to challenge that finding of the court, and in that context, the documents you seek are relevant.”
RNZ lawyer’s response
Stewart, representing RNZ, was invited by the judge to make his submission on the discovery application.
RNZ has said that its story was materially correct.
Stewart said if the court accepted an altered basis of Wishart’s appeal, and ultimately that RNZ had been inaccurate, RNZ would have to accept that it had not made any correction to the broadcast story.
Stewart pointed out that Wishart’s correspondence with RNZ had also copied in Luke Harrington, and the scientist had responded.
The scientist had advised that while there might have been a record-breaking event earlier, it did not change the broader messaging, said Stewart, quoting directly the scientist’s response: “Even if this run of extreme days was the second- or third-ranked on record, climate change makes such events both more intense and more likely.”
“That is the climate scientist’s view of the world,” said Stewart.
He said Wishart was on a “fishing expedition”, to “try and get into the investigation and statements made which he can then use to belittle those persons or challenge the credibility of them to make statements about climate change in general”.
“And I think we saw a little bit of that in your honour’s exchange with Mr Wishart this morning about him wanting to get into this investigation that was made to see who’d done what and what they had asserted about him or what they had asserted about the statements he was making.
“I can understand why Mr Wishart might want to see that, but none of it is relevant to the matters on appeal.”
The Media Council upheld Ian Wishart’s complaint over the RNZ article’s headline…
… whereas the BSA did not have any issues with the Morning Report story.
Wishart said RNZ’s argument appeared to be that it got the story wrong, but that people did not need to know, “nothing to see here, move on”.
The judge replied that was “rubbish”.
“This case isn’t just about the way you see things. It’s about what is the role of the court in relation to this limited application for discovery. I’ll let the other judge deal with whatever the appeal is, on the substance … But it doesn’t help to cast the sort of miasma of suspicion – that there’s something out there that has to be looked into, because someone has behaved badly.”
Wishart said it was “purely about the sunshine on the system and processes”.
The judge is set to deliver his decision on the matter of discovery in the new year.
Editor-at-large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand’s most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME including managing editor, NZ Herald editor and Herald on Sunday editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.