Christopher Schwartz against Stuff

Stuff published a story on November 22, 2024, headlined Car dealer allegedly sending ‘bloody weird’ images of human faeces and a naked man.

It reported the case of Christopher Schwartz whose car dealership had gone into receivership. Various allegations were made about unpleasant behaviour and Mr Schwartz’s response to the allegations was reported.

He complained the story placed his ex-wife and children at risk. A copy of a complaint made to the police alleging threatening behaviour against the family was provided as evidence of that. 

Stuff said its reporting was in the public interest and Mr Schwartz was given an opportunity to comment. Stuff added that it did not identify the family. 

The Media Council noted Mr Schwartz and his wife were both bankrupted and she appeared to be associated with his business. Mr Schwartz was given the chance to comment, and he was quoted in the story.  His explanation that the images were sent by an ex-employee without authority lacks specificity and seems unlikely.

There was nothing to show the story was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced.

Mr Schwartz complained that Stuff breached Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (3) Children and Young Persons, (4) Comment and Fact (6) Headlines and Captions (7) Discrimination and Diversity (8) Confidentiality (9) Conflicts of Interest (11) Photographs and Captions and (12) Corrections.  

The report was of public interest given the public nature of a street fronting car-yard, and Mr Schwarz in his complaint does not suggest that Mrs Schwartz was not involved in the business.  A sufficient case was not made to support the complaint.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.