MICHAEL O’NEIL AGAINST THE POST
Case Number: 3555
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: The Post
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Subterfuge
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
- The Post published a story on the 9th of September 2024 in its print edition headed Bolts removed from bike rack.
- It reported that a Wellington City Council spokesperson said part of a new bike rack had been unbolted “by person’s unknown”. It also reported the opinion of a local cafe owner that it could have been the wind loosening part of the rack, which then toppled over. The story said the rack cost $19,000.
- Michael O’Neil complained under Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (6) Headlines and Captions, (9) Subterfuge and (11) Photographs and Graphics. He says the story, photograph and headline were inaccurate. It wasn’t the bike rack that was affected. It was a decorative barrier between the bike rack and the carriageway that gave way, not part of the bike rack. He said he examined the base of the metal barrier. There were self-tapping screws, not bolts, holding it to its footing and these were torn from the holes by some force. They were not unscrewed. He questioned whether the Wellington City Council staff member had been to the site and said he should have been pressed for more detail. The heading was inaccurate as it referred to bolts and it was very unlikely they were removed, Mr O’Neil said. The photograph was also misleading as it showed the bike rack that was standing and not the barrier that had collapsed. The Post should do a follow-up story about the failure of the fixings, he said.
- The Post replied that the unbolted/unscrewed section was clearly part of the bike rack assembly. The type of fixing used did not materially alter the facts presented in the story. The term “unbolted” was a general term for the section of the rack becoming unfastened. The reporter was acting on the information he had at the time, which was reasonable.
- The NZ Media Council considers that the complaint is best considered under Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and (6) Headlines and Captions. It was not inaccurate to consider the decorative barrier as part of the bike rack. Although the heading said that bolts had been removed, the story reported another alternative view that the wind had blown it over, casting doubt on what had happened. The suggestion wind was involved was included in the first paragraph, and would have left readers in no doubt that no one was completely certain about what had happened. The heading could have better reflected that uncertainty, but with the limited space available, the Council believes it was adequate. Mr O’Neil would have liked to see a follow-up story and further examination of the cause of the problem, but this was within the editorial discretion of The Post to decide if it was sufficiently newsworthy.
- There were no grounds to proceed.