Dharmesh Parikh against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3598
Council Meeting: 2 December 2024
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Apology and Correction Sought
Overview
1. Radio New Zealand published an article on October 3, 2024, headlined I don’t like beauty pageants, so why did I enter one? This was based on an interview with a contestant in the Miss IndiaNZ 2024. Contest organiser Dharmesh Parikh complained that the story contained a factual inaccuracy, other information that was misleading and comments that unfairly damaged the pageant’s brand. He claimed breaches of Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (4) Comment and Fact; and (12) Corrections. The complaint was not upheld.
The Article
2. The article is an account of the experience of a contestant in the Miss IndiaNZ 2024 pageant. It leads off with a line saying she was not a fan of beauty pageants. However, it describes how she nevertheless entered as she saw it was an opportunity to platform some important issues in the Gujarat Indian community – including sexism and colourism – and to show her talents as an artist.
3. She spoke of her concerns about the lightening of contestants’ skin tones on the pageant poster and about a question she was asked by a judge. She also made favourable comments about the pageant, notably about how all the other girls were kind and supportive and that putting herself out there was a positive experience.
4. The article included the organiser’s response to points of concern raised by the contestant.
The Complaint
5. Dharmesh Parikh raised three points.
a. He said the article inaccurately stated that the promotional poster was released a few weeks out from the pageant, when it was released more than a month before the event. Prior to this a draft of the poster was sent to contestants for approval. RNZ’s casual description of the timeline misrepresented the facts and harmed the pageant’s credibility.
b. Responding to the suggestion that the promotional poster was lightened inappropriately, he said no contestants raised concerns about that at the time and “RNZ has failed to acknowledge our long-standing record of transparency in this area.” This was misleading and damaging to the brand.
c. The article mixed the contestant’s personal experiences with the pageant, implying that the pageant promoted or was connected to the issues the contestant mentioned - sexism and colourism. The pageant celebrated diversity and past winners and runners-up represented a range of skin tones. By presenting her experiences as part of the pageant narrative, the article unfairly generalised and damaged the pageant’s reputation. He asked RNZ to remove this part of the article or remove the story entirely to prevent further misunderstanding.
The Response
6. RNZ said the poster was released on August 11 and the pageant was on September 15. This was one month and four days. It was not inaccurate or misleading to refer to it as a few weeks and it would not have affected the readers’ understanding of what was being said in the article. As to the statement that contestants were sent a draft of the poster for approval, RNZ said they had very little time to do that. The draft was sent to them at 8pm on August 10 and it was released at 10am the next day.
7. On the lightening of skin tones on the poster RNZ said the article reported the contestant’s comment on the matter and her view was balanced in the next sentence with Miss IndiaNZ’s response:
“A spokesperson for the event confirmed to RNZ that the pictures had not been intentionally lightened for any reason other than to ensure consistent lighting and presentation.”
8. RNZ added that the contestant advised that others felt uneasy about the editing and presentation choices around the poster but felt uncomfortable speaking up about it for fear of causing a fuss or potentially disrupting their chances of success.
9. RNZ said the contestant’s experiences as an Indian woman born and brought up in New Zealand contextualised why she entered the pageant in the first place. It noted that Miss IndiaNZ was about celebrating the unique identify of Kiwi Indian culture and everything that came with it, and as the contestant pointed out, that included conversations around diversity and colourism, which was a prevalent issue in many Indian communities.
10. RNZ saw no need to alter or withdraw the article.
Further comment
10. Mr Parikh took the opportunity to comment further that:
“It appears that RNZ selectively highlighted a single social media post to create controversy, overlooking the thousands of positive and inspiring stories associated with Miss IndiaNZ. This selective approach seems designed to uncover fault lines in the community rather than celebrating the many remarkable outcomes of this event.
“We believe the reporter's opening statement—claiming the story was balanced and fair—is unjustified, as RNZ reached this conclusion without giving us the opportunity to provide our full response.
“The article also omitted critical context. Numerous posters were released after 10th August, which were widely shared by contestants on their social media platforms. At no point did we receive any requests to modify or darken the photos.
“With over 22 years of experience in organizing events and film production, we found this article to be one of the weakest in terms of factual accuracy. It appears to deliberately frame the Miss IndiaNZ brand in a disjointed narrative.”
The Discussion
11. The Media Council notes the article needs to be seen in the context of the very long running debate and controversy about pageants where young women are publicly judged on their physical attractiveness, elegance, charm, personality and character.
12. It also notes that no events - even the most popular celebrations, contests or pageants - are immune from criticism in societies where people are free to express their opinions.
13. This article was essentially one woman’s reflections on her experience as a contestant in the Miss IndiaNZ pageant, which she saw as an opportunity to platform issues in her community including sexism and colourism.
14. She expressed her disappointment that skin tones were lightened in poster photos to the degree that it took her a minute to spot her photo. She also thought a judge’s question referring to her being one of the shortest contestants was hurtful.
15. The article reported her comparing her pageant experience with some of the outdated ways of thinking within her own community and that entering the contest was stressful. But it also reported her positive comment about how all the other girls were kind and supportive and that putting herself out there was a positive experience.
16. The Media Council believed the article was of public interest as well as being an interesting and fair reflection of a contestant’s experience in the contest. Although she acknowledged going into it with reservations and concerns, some of which she thought were confirmed, she also had positive things to say about it and these were reported in the article.
17. While the article was not to the organiser’s liking, the contestant was entitled to express her views and RNZ was entitled to report them. The article was not unfair as the organiser was given the opportunity to respond to points raised.
18. The Council did not believe it was wrong or misleading to say the poster came out a few weeks before the contest when it was in fact one month and four days. Nothing turns on it. It did not amount to misrepresentation or reflect on the credibility of the pageant.
19. The Council also did not believe there was any substance to the complaint about how the lightening of skin tones in the poster was reported. The organiser’s explanation for this was included in the story. The Council noted the point made by RNZ that contestants had little time to consider objecting to how they were shown in the poster and that they may have kept their views to themselves rather than jeopardise their prospects in the pageant.
20. The contestant had strong views on issues of sexism and colourism in her community. She spoke from personal experience and was within her rights to raise them in the context of a pageant promoted as “a platform for young Kiwi-Indians to shine and embrace their culture, and …a testament to the incredible talent and spirit within the community.”
21. The Council did not believe the story was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced. Principles (4) Comment and Fact or (12) Corrections were also not breached. The complaint was not upheld.