Greg Urquhart against the Herald on Sunday

The Discussion

12. Newspapers have a long history of using dramatic and enticing headlines to draw readers attention and to encourage them to buy papers and read the stories they advertise.

13. However, as set out in the Herald’s response, there is a requirement for headlines to accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover. It is also the case that the Media Council has previously ruled that headlines must be read in conjunction with the article they cover.

14. The facts of the story are not in contention. A woman was duped into putting money into a bogus crypto currency investment scheme set up by scammers who used an AI generated deep fake video of the Prime Minister to make the scheme look reputable and genuine. The headline may be described by some as click bait – it was certainly a teaser as it left open the question as to how Mr Luxon was involved. But the fact that he was also a victim of the scammers was made clear to anybody who read even the first paragraph.

15. Publication of the story was clearly in the public interest – it was a warning that people need to be wary that deep fake videos of prominent figures are now being used to add an air of respectability to scams.

16. The question the Media Council needed to consider was whether the headline was misleading, or whether it accurately and fairly conveyed the substance or a key element of the story when it said Mr Luxon was tangled in the scam. The Council noted that Prime Minister was also a victim as his good name and standing was used illicitly to promote the bogus investment scheme. It would of course be unfair to imply the Prime Minister was personally involved or aware to the scam. That is the meaning Mr Urquhart believed most readers would take from the headline. But any such implication was immediately dispelled right from the top of the story and as previously stated, headlines must be read in conjunction with the stories they cover.

17. Of course, reference to the Prime Minister made the story more interesting, but that did not make the headline wrong.  It is tempting to consider how else the headline might have been written but that is not the Council role.  It is over to editors to decide what stories they publish and what headlines they use. The principle requirement is that they must be accurate and fair.

18. The Media Council was not convinced there was a breach of Principles (6) Headlines and Captions. As for the complaint under Principle (9), no case was made to show the Herald on Sunday used subterfuge, misrepresentation or dishonest means to obtain information.

Decision: The complaint was not upheld.

Dissent by Raynor Asher and Jo Cribb:

We think that this complaint should be upheld. The headline was in capitals and read “Luxon Tangled in $220K AI Deepfake Scam” with the word “scam” in large bold print. The word “tangled” has as its primary meaning as a verb: “twist together into a confused mass”, and in the context of the headline it indicated some actual involvement in the scam. The headline was inaccurate and did not reflect the substance of the article, which was that a fake video of the Prime Minister’s voice was used to seek funds.

The Prime Minister’s voice had been adapted and used by fraudsters. The headline implies that he had a connection to the fraudulent scammer, or the person scammed. In fact, he had no connection at all, and the headline could therefore be seen as click bait. The inaccuracy in the headline could have been easily avoided if the editors had chosen a different term such as the Prime Minister’s voice was “used”, or other words that made his lack of any connection quite clear. As it was, the connection of the word “scam” and his name and photograph together with the word “tangled” implied some actual involvement. Particular care should be taken in connecting anyone with fraud, even when that person is a prominent politician.