HENNESSEY WILSON AGAINST MASSIVE MAGAZINE
Case Number: 3531
Council Meeting: 21 June 2024
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Massive
Principle: Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories: Disinformation, Misinformation
Overview
- Massey University’s student publication, Massive Magazine published an article on 13 May 2024, headlined Misinformation and flaky promises from Massey studens' association. Students Association General President, Hennessey Wilson complained the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and (12) Corrections. The Media Council decided the complaint falls to be determined under Principle (4) Comment and Fact. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
- The story reported comments made by Hennessey Wilson and other students representatives at a student forum. It said students left the meeting with misinformation about possible cuts to the College of Creative Arts, the planned size of the university’s new Singapore campus and the extent of staff cuts last year at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences.
- The story also reported statements from university administrators rebutting comments made at the forum.
The Complaint
- Hennessey Wilson said he was concerned at the allegation he was spreading misinformation and cited a Google definition of this as “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive”.
- He said the information he provided the forum about staff cuts was formulated with advice from the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) and humanities professors. Information about the university’s aim to have 5000 students on its Singapore campus was based on a Newsroom article and information on the staff cuts was taken from the university’s proposal for change in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences (the College), the TEU and Massey professors.
- The students' association took its lead from the Public Service Association and the TEU when it reported that 37 staff had lost their jobs at the college last year. However, the Massive Magazine article reported the university’s pro vice-chancellor as saying this was incorrect and that the correct figure was about 20 job cuts.
- “When contacted and informed of the way the university calculates job losses, the editor refused to concede that they had made an error in referring to our number as misinformation”, Mr Wilson said.
- Mr Wilson said the students' association stood by its figure of 37 job cuts. There was no intention to deceive students. The key claim about job losses was 100 percent accurate and less misleading than the university’s method of minimising the cuts.
- Mr Wilson said “This information would have been freely available to the publisher if they reached out before publishing the article. However, they took the university’s statistics as fact, called ours misinformation and refuse now to acknowledge any error in the multiple interpretation of their cuts.”
The Response
- Massive’s editor said that after researching this issue – by reading many news articles and receiving information from the university - it was clear that information given to students at the forum was misinformation. She cited the Oxford Dictionary to describe misinformation as false or inaccurate information regardless of intent.
- There was no evidence to support Mr Wilson’s comment that cuts at the College of Creative Arts were happening this year.
- Mr Wilson was wrong to say the university aimed to have 5000 students at its Singapore campus. This was incorrect as the university aimed to have 5000 students globally by 2026.
- As for the complaint about the reporting of staff cuts at the College, the editor said that grouping all staff who had left, including those who left voluntarily, was inaccurate. The university had confirmed 20 roles (19.89 full-time equivalent positions, or FTEs) would go and that another 17 staff had left through voluntary redundancy, resignation or retirement. She also referred to several Stuff articles to support the statement there were about 20, rather than 37, job cuts.
- The editor said she understood the students' association did not intend to deceive students. “However, it is my job to hold the student association to account on behalf of students. In this case false and inaccurate information was shared with students.”
The Discussion
- Before setting out its ruling on this complaint the Media Council would like to express its support for student publications and appreciates they do not have the resources of larger media organisations.
- In this complaint, the Media Council notes that both parties seem to be talking past each over how to describe staff cuts at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences.
- The article reported a student representative as saying 37 college staff members were cut last year. This figure was made up of full-time and part-time staff and 17 who took redundancy, resigned or retired. As those people were no longer employed at the college, it was not wrong to say they had been cut from staff.
- Massive Magazine took the view that it was wrong and believed only 20 jobs were lost. This was based on the university’s statement that 19.89 FTE positions were lost.
- The Council considers that both figures can be used legitimately. A loss of 37 staff can also be described as a reduction in 19.89 FTE roles.
- The other matters mentioned were also arguable. Mr Wilson and the other student representatives were within their rights to comment on university matters as they saw them. Massive Magazine can also not be faulted for looking to balance the article by getting the university’s comment on points made at the forum.
- However, it went further than just reporting the students' association statements and the university’s response to them, which would have left readers to draw their own conclusions. It is a departure from usual news reporting practice for journalists to take sides and express the opinion, as Massive Magazine did here, that students were misinformed by association representatives. It may have been acceptable in a clearly labelled opinion piece, but this article was tagged as news.
- While Principles (1) and (12) were cited in this complaint, the Media Council felt it was better considered under Principle (4) Comment and Fact, which requires a clear distinction to be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion.
- The complaint is upheld under Principle (4).
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Alison Thom, Ben France-Hudson, Clio Francis, Hank Schouten, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin.