Joanne Holdaway against the Nelson Mail

The Nelson Mail published a story on August 23, 2024, headlined Swimming pool under fire. The headline had initially used the word “disgusting” but that was later amended.

The article was based on a social media post by a woman complaining about the cleanliness and state of the toilets at the Richmond Aquatic Centre. It included photos of cockroaches and the toilets and there was comment from a council officer explaining why cleaning may not have been up to standard and that the facilities were old and due for an upgrade.

Joanne Holdaway complained that the story breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. She said it was unscrutinised opinion, inflammatory and not balanced by interviews with other users or information from Tasman District Council about funding and resources. She also complained the headline was extreme.

The Nelson Mail defended the story saying it was a straightforward report of complaints from a pool user and the Tasman District Council’s response to those complaints. A council officer had addressed all the concerns raised about the aquatic centre.  He acknowledged there had been issues with the standard of cleaning done by lifeguards and that a contractor had been employed to do a deeper quarterly clean. He also outlined plans to replace all the toilets which had “terrible old flushing mechanisms” and that the sauna was at the end of its life.

The Media Council noted that the person who complained about the pool was clearly giving her personal view.  The photos she provided were evidence of poor hygiene. She was entitled to express the view that it was “disgusting”, and the Nelson Mail was entitled to report her comment.

These comments were put to a council officer who indicated her views were valid. The officer responded to all the criticisms made by the pool user, appearing to agree with them and outlining what they were doing to rectify things.

Although the complainant disagrees with what was reported there was no clear grounds for a complaint that the story was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced.

 
Decision:  No grounds to proceed.