GREG SMITH AGAINST STUFF
Case Number: 3554
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Discrimination and Diversity
Conflicts of Interest
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories: Bias
- Stuff published an article on 6 September 2024, headlined Women’s Refuge cash spent on beauty treatments, dental work, travel. It reported that three staff at Whare Manaaki Porirua Women’s Refuge were suspended during an investigation of alleged unauthorised spending from a ‘wellbeing fund’.
- It reported the team leader, the family harm coordinator and women’s coordinator claimed they were authorised to use the ‘wellbeing fund’ for personal expenses, but that the refuge trustees were unaware of the fund and had not approved the spending.
- A photo of the team leader was used with the story but there were no photographs of the other two staff named in the article.
- Greg Smith believed photographs of all three staff should have been used saying “the public had a right to all the information, otherwise bias may be assumed”. He believed a photograph of one of the women “who I strongly postulate would be brown, or at the least, wearing a tiki” was not used because Stuff was not allowed to denigrate Māori. He believed this was a requirement of the Public Interest Journalism Fund.
- In its brief response to Mr Smith, Stuff said its illustration of the story was appropriate and not biased.
- The Media Council notes that the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) did not impose conditions on media organisations as claimed by this complainant.
- The PIJF was established to help sustain news media during the Covid-19 crisis and funding allocations ended in 2023. There were some conditions including a requirement to meet media standards as set out by the Broadcasting Act or the NZ Media Council. Media receiving funding were also expected to “use best endeavours to ensure all content reflects and develops New Zealand identity and culture.”
- There was no indication that any Public Interest Journalism Funds were spent on this story and there is no evidence that Stuff’s handling of this story or that the omission of a photograph was required as the complainant suggested.
- The Media Council notes it is common for publications to run photographs of people who are named in stories. They usually do so where they can and when a photo is available but there is no obligation to do so.
- In this case Stuff used a photograph of the team leader, the most senior of the three named in the story, and this was a newspaper file photograph which had been taken some years earlier. The Media Council does not know whether Stuff even had images of the other two women.
- There is no evidence that Stuff’s handling of this story was biased, influenced by the Public Interest Journalism Fund or breached any NZ Media Council principles.
- There are no grounds to proceed.