JOSE AQUINO AGAINST STUFF

Stuff published an article on August 17, 2024, headlined Are we there yet? Is New Zealand ready for bilingual signs?

The story included comment from a small number of people in Epsom and Mangere who gave their views on bilingual road signs. Most favoured the new signs and just one of the nine people quoted in the story said signs should remain in English only.

Jose Aquino complained that the article was one-sided, biased and just assumed bilingual road signs were desirable. It did not examine the consequences or cost of such signs and only quoted experts who supported them. It simply assumed bilingual road signs were desirable and did not mention research which went against them.

He added that the article mentioned other countries where their second language was more widely spoken than it was in NZ.

Stuff said in its response that the story was the result of a quick survey to find out what everyday people thought of bilingual signs. It did not set out to examine their pros and cons or look at research or views opposed to them.

Stuff added that no figures had been supplied on the cost of new signage, but the article reported the plan was to switch to bilingual signs when the old signs needed replacement.

The Media Council notes this article was based on an informal vox pop survey of the type often used in the media to get some idea of what people think about issues. The comments of support from all but one of the nine people were highly favourable.  There was no evidence that the informal survey was stacked.

Stuff was not obliged to go into the science of bi-lingual road signs.  This was not about the view of an expert or the merits of bilingual   signs, but about whether people and politicians wanted them introduced.

This was clearly not the story Mr Aquino wanted to see but that does not make it wrong. The fact it did not include elements he would have liked to see reported did not establish bias or demonstrate that the story breached either Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; or (4) Comment and Fact.

There were no grounds to proceed.