Ian Wishart against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3596
Council Meeting: 2 December 2024
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Apology and Correction Sought
Headlines and Captions
Overview
1. Three articles published by Radio New Zealand stated that the October 2024 Dunedin floods had resulted from Dunedin’s wettest day in a century. It was indeed the wettest day in a century at the Musselburgh station, but not necessarily all stations in Dunedin. There have been other stations in Dunedin that have recorded wetter days in the past century. However, insofar as this was an inaccuracy, it was understandable and the consequences were not significant. The corrections of the articles published by RNZ were sufficient and the complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The complaint concerns five items published by RNZ. They are as follows:
a. A live blog of the Dunedin floods published on 4 October 2024. We do not have all the progressive text of the live blog, but Mr Wishart has provided links to an internet archive of the RNZ homepage on 4 October 2024 where the lead article is the live blog. The heading of that live blog was “Live: 'Wettest day in over a century' - Residents wade through rivers on roads.”
b. An article with audio from a RNZ Midday Report item about the Dunedin floods published at 12:43pm on 4 October 2024 headed at the time of publication “Dunedin experiences wettest day in a century”. This article appears not to have been part of Mr Wishart’s original complaint but is referred to by RNZ in its response and appears to be part of the group of articles RNZ published at this time about the Dunedin floods.
c. An article by Melanie Early published at 3:56pm on 4 October 2024 headed “Dunedin flooding: How does it match up with other recent weather events?” This article began with a paragraph which said “Dunedin has recorded its "wettest day in a century" as rain continues to hit the Otago region - but how does the rainfall compare to other recent flooding events?”
d. An article by Lillian Hanley published at 9:03pm on 4 October 2024 entitled “A different way of storming the capital: Submission from the floodwaters”. This was about a person making a submission against the Crown Minerals Bill while he was wading through Dunedin flood waters. The submitter was concerned about the impact of oil and gas exploration and greenhouse gas emissions, and statements from the submitter are quoted implicitly drawing attention to climate change and the need for action.
e. A photo essay published on 12:10pm on 5 October 2024 headed at the time of publication “Otago’s wettest week – in pictures”. Although we have not been given a copy of the original article as published, Mr Wishart asserts and RNZ do not appear to deny it contained the statement: “By 9am Friday, central Dunedin had recorded more than 130mm of rain in the previous 42 hours, twice their average October monthly rainfall. Niwa said it was the most rain one of their Dunedin rain stations had ever recorded.”
The Complaint
3. The sequence of complaints must start with a short email sent by Mr Wishart to RNZ at 8:00am on 4 October 2024 which appears to be a response to a “threat to life” rain warning by MetService. He points out that the 150mm of rain forecast is less than 229mm recorded in 1923 and “a whopping” 279mm recorded in 1929.
4. Then after the 4 October 2024 publications referred to above, which referred to “Dunedin’s wettest day in a century” on 5 October 2024 at 11:28am he wrote a further email drawing RNZ’s attention to the inaccuracy given the historical figures. This was quite a long email where he attacked the accuracy of NIWA information.
5. Mr Wishart then submitted a fuller complaint to RNZ on 7 October 2024 followed by a complaint to the Media Council on 10 November 2024. His full complaint to the Media Council, with appendices, runs to 33 pages. He also provides a 500-word summary of the complaint, relying on breaches of Principles (1), (6) and (12). That summary contains seven specific points which for convenience we set out in an Appendix to this decision.
6. The key complaint appears to be that it was inaccurate for the headlines to assert the floods were Dunedin’s wettest day in a century. The sentence in the photo essay that NIWA said it was the most rain one of their Dunedin rain stations had recorded was inaccurate. It was an error by RNZ to rely on NIWA figures.
7. Mr Wishart asserted that the bigger flood than the 2024 flood had occurred in 1929 “… with 279mm of rain in 24 hours.” He complained that while one suburban NIWA range gauge at Dunedin (Musselburgh) had recorded its heaviest rainfall in a century there had been historic storms with a much higher rainfall. He asserted that RNZ has been guilty of systematic bias and that its climate expert “ …was aware of studies proving NIWA’s unreliable records and previous misinformation”. RNZ overlooked this and continued to rely on faulty data.
8. He also submitted that the article about a man reading his submission from the floodwaters wrongly linked Dunedin’s floods to climate change and breached Media Council standards given that the 2024 event was less intense than historic storms. The media’s reliance on NIWA’s statements as accurate was flawed and RNZ should not have uncritically accepted NIWA’s statements. He asserts that the media “must independently verify claims, especially for authoritative sources like NIWA, to avoid perpetuating misinformation”. He goes on to seek the Media Council’s guidance to ensure RNZ’s reporting practices “meet these standards”.
9. He also complained about later clarifications to the story making it clear that records come from the Musselburgh station were inadequate. The corrections did not provide enough context.
The Response
10. RNZ points out that the stories were published in the middle of a civil defence emergency declared by the Dunedin City Council. RNZ had scrambled a significant team of reporters to ensure that vital messaging was relayed to the Dunedin public. It says “RNZ was entitled to rely on data supplied by an official government agency such as NIWA”.
11. It would appear that after receiving Mr Wishart’s emails of 4 and 5 October 2024, RNZ approached NIWA for comment and clarification. RNZ received a response from NIWA after 3pm on 8 October. This response did not directly refer to Mr Wishart’s figures but did not assert they were incorrect. It read as follows:
There are two stations that we refer to when we talk of Musselburgh in Dunedin. Combined, their records go back to 1918.
In 2015, Musselburgh recorded 113.4 mm. So, the rain we recorded last week (130.8 mm) was heavier than what was recorded in 2015 (113.4 mm) for Musselburgh.
There are other sites in Dunedin outside of Musselburgh that recorded heavier rainfall totals than what was observed in Musselburgh in 2015. For instance, the Botanical Gardens (5-6 km away from Musselburgh and 73 metres higher) and Balaclava (5-6 km away from Musselburgh and 135 metres higher).
In 2015, Musselburgh recorded 113.4 mm, Botanical Gardens recorded 172.5 mm, and Balaclava recorded 177.0 mm (as you can see clearly in our Climate Database as well as the Historic Weather Events Catalogue).
However, we cannot directly compare these stations with Musselburgh since these stations have a higher rainfall climatology (average). Moreover, these stations have both closed, and therefore we cannot observe what fell there in 2024.
12. Having received this response RNZ published clarifications on the morning of 10 October that were also posted to its “Corrections and Clarifications” page on its website. The corrections and clarifications were as follows:
a. It appears no changes were made to the live blog.
b. The article on the RNZ Midday Report which was headed “Dunedin experiences wettest day in a century” was changed to “One of Dunedin's wettest days in a century”.
c. An asterisk was added to opening paragraph of the article by Melanie Early comparing the flooding with other recent weather events so that is read “Dunedin has recorded its "wettest day in a century"* as rain continues to hit the Otago region - but how does the rainfall compare to other recent flooding events?” At the bottom of the article, the following text was added in italics:
*Clarification: *Niwa’s Musselburgh station recorded 130.8mm of rain from 9am Thursday to 9am Friday. It was the wettest day in more than a century recorded at this station, the last time it was at least this wet in Musselburgh was in April 1923.
d. The article by Lillian Hanley about a submission from the Dunedin floodwaters was unchanged.
e. The photo essay with a heading at the time of publication “Otago’s wettest week – in pictures” was changed to read “Otago’s wet week – in pictures”. The opening paragraph was also substantially amended to read:
Twice a season's worth of rain within days caused mayhem in Otago this week, with evacuations, essential services disrupted, and roads damaged and closed.
By 9am Friday, central Dunedin (Musselburgh) had recorded more than 130mm of rain in the previous 42 hours, twice their average October monthly rainfall. Niwa said it was the second-wettest day on record at Musselburgh - and it continued to fall through the day.
A clarification was also added to the top of the article in italics which read:
Clarification: The headline and context paragraph have been changed to clarify advice from Niwa that Dunedin (Musselburgh) had observed its second-wettest day on record with 130.8 mm from 9:00 am Thursday-9:00 am Friday. It has been their wettest day in over a century; the last time it was at least this wet in Musselburgh was in April 1923.
13. RNZ noted that the inaccuracy raised by Mr Wishart had no impact on the public’s response to the civil defence emergency. If it would have affected the public response, the complaint would have been seen in a “different light”, but in the context of what happened “no adverse consequences were experienced by the citizens of Dunedin”.
14. RNZ also stated that NIWA was an official agency and it relied on its published information. When it responded with its statement on 8 October it made the identified changes. In relation to the timeliness of the responses, given the context of the events surrounding the publication and workloads placed on staff, RNZ’s responses were sufficient and within a reasonable timeframe once the NIWA statement had been received.
The Discussion
Could RNZ rely on NIWA information Principles (1), (4), (6)?
15. Mr Wishart devotes much of his longer complaint to attack the accuracy of what NIWA says about climate, and RNZ’s reliance on information from NIWA. Mr Wishart regards NIWA as a climate agency “desperate for news headlines and prepared to spruik misinformation to get them”. RNZ cannot “appeal to NIWA’s authority” because NIWA is no longer credible in the area of climate records and RNZ has been put on notice of this.
16. However, NIWA is a government agency. News organisations must be able to rely on information supplied by such government organisations in the absence of material which shows the NIWA information was wrong. The Media Council, as a body, is quite unable to form its own assessment of the rights and wrongs of information from a government agency. It does not have the resources to make any assessment of scientific issues. Nor can it be reasonably expected that RNZ should devote resources to checking information provided by such a government agency when it is reporting a serious emergency on an hourly basis, where there is a threat to life and the situation is changing rapidly through the day. It was reasonable for RNZ to rely on the NIWA information.
17. As the Photo Essay shows, there had been an extraordinary and dangerous rain event in Dunedin. An emergency had been declared. The RNZ newsroom was likely to have been inundated with information and queries from concerned Dunedin residents who were experiencing severe flooding of homes and cars with a risk of injury or loss of life. Reporters on that day could not be expected to follow up every query or email.
18. The figure of 279mm was quoted by Mr Wishart in his original short email of 4 October 2024. He attached a screenshot of part of the article without explaining where it was from. We do not think that a short email sent on a very busy newsroom day reporting a major emergency where the public had to be kept informed of the gravity of the situation could reasonably be expected to lead to an investigation on that day. Despite the fact that it appears that Mr Wishart had been carrying out his campaign against NIWA for some time prior to 4 October, this did not oblige RNZ to disregard what it was told by a government agency.
Was it inaccurate to say this was Dunedin’s wettest day in a century?
19. Mr Wishart refers to various figures where there appear to have been higher individual recordings from stations in the Dunedin area during the last century. The report would not have been inaccurate if it had made it clear that the Musselburgh station had recorded its highest level of rain in the last century. What Mr Wishart has shown is that there are other stations that during the last century and on seven occasions recorded higher rainfall figures than that recorded at the Musselburgh station during the 2024 floods.
20. The primary focus of Mr Wishart’s complaint was a figure recorded at the Ross Creek reservoir recorded in 1929 within the last century showing 279mm of rain. This was recorded in an Otago Daily Times article, a copy of which has been provided to RNZ and the Media Council. In the context of that station the error could be seen as relatively minor as that figure was recorded 96 years ago. Further the Ross Creek reservoir is in a different area of Dunedin as compared to the Musselburgh station.
21. It can be observed that the figures put forward by Mr Wishart are from different stations and not the Musselburgh station itself. In relation to the Musselburgh station, the only higher rainfall figure recorded by that station for Dunedin had been over a century ago, in 1923. It would seem that the Musselburgh station is one of the last, if not the last station in Dunedin that still provides rainfall figures. The NIWA response quoted above indicates that at least two other stations have closed.
22. It is established therefore that it may have been inaccurate in four articles, including the live blog, to assert that the October flood had been the worst in a century for the greater Dunedin area. There had been seven rainfall events (albeit at different stations) in the Dunedin area where more rain had fallen, in particular 279mm recorded at the Ross Creek reservoir recorded in 1929.
23. However, it is relevant to assess the gravity of this error, particularly when assessing the corrections made, which are discussed later in this decision. The Media Council does not consider the error to be grave or inexcusable. RNZ was relying on a government agency’s statement and although that statement was inaccurate, that inaccuracy caused no harm to the public. Moreover, the general thrust of it was to draw attention to the gravity of the event and given the serious, and at times dangerous nature of the flooding, this was warranted.
24. We also add that we see no evidence of systematic bias by RNZ. This article reported a major emergency, and except in one minor respect was accurate. There was a very serious weather event taking place, and the citizens of Dunedin were at risk.
Were the corrections timely and sufficient under Principle (12)?
25. On 5 October 2024, Mr Wishart, in his initial complaint, provided a fuller copy of the Otago Daily Times article mentioned above and in the Council’s view, this was real notice that the phrase “wettest day in a century” could be wrong. 5 October was a Saturday. The complaint was acted on Monday 7 October by RNZ’s query to NIWA. The response from NIWA was received the next day on 8 October. RNZ appears to have been satisfied that it had been wrong to publish information that the floods were Dunedin’s wettest day in a century. The corrections were made on the morning of 10 October.
26. We have set out above the corrections made. The RNZ Midday Report heading was changed to “One of Dunedin's wettest days in a century”. That correction expressed the position accurately, it was made promptly. Because of the lack of consequences arising from the error and the relatively minor nature of the error, no more was required to defuse the mistake.
27. The second correction was to the Melanie Early article where an asterisk was put by “wettest day in a century” and it was clarified that this was taken using the NIWA Musselburgh station records. It accurately said that it was the wettest day in more than a century recorded at that station. Any error was defused.
28. The Photo Essay was changed to read “Otago’s wet week – in pictures” and an accurate statement was made about the records of the Musselburgh station recording that it was the second wettest day on record. There was also a clarification at the top of the article in italics explaining why it was said that this was the Musselburgh station’s wettest day in over a century and that the last time it was at least that wet was in 1923.
29. In relation to the articles that were not corrected, the Hanley article did not contain the assertion that it was Dunedin’s wettest day in a century. There is no evidence that the assertion in the live blog has been available in recent times.
30. The corrections that were made to the three other articles were adequate. Given the relatively minor nature of the error which we have discussed above, no more was required.
31. The complaint is not upheld in Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (4) Comment and Fact; (6) Headlines and Captions and (12) Corrections