NZ Film Commission against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3700
Council Meeting: 2 December 2024
Decision: Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Headlines and Captions
Discrimination and Diversity
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Overview
1. On 30 July 2024, the NZ Herald published an online article NZ Film Commission spends $16,431 on CEO parties amid budget cuts. The article was included in the print version of the NZ Herald the next day, 31 July.
2. The article detailed the cost of four separate NZ Film Commission (Film Commission) events held in late 2023 to farewell a long-standing senior staff member and to welcome the new CEO.
3. The Film Commission complained the story breached Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (6) Captions and Headlines, and (7) Discrimination and Diversity. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1).
The Article
4. After describing the four ‘parties’, the article continued with a breakdown of the costs for each including the number of staff and guests.
5. The article included background information on the current government restraint on spending, guidelines for government agencies for spending on parties and entertainment, and comments from other government agencies.
The Complaint
6. The Film Commission said the article was misleading, inaccurate, and discriminatory in describing the two pōwhiri for the new CEO as ‘parties’. It said the article used the word ‘parties’ a number of times and the use of the word was pejorative.
7. The Film Commission said it was offensive and culturally inappropriate to use the term ‘parties’ to describe the events. The welcome events for the new CEO were pōwhiri and the implication that “two marae (where Māori values, traditions and social etiquette are given their fullest expression) were the venues for these ‘parties’, was also inaccurate and culturally offensive.” It said pōwhiri “is the traditional Māori ceremony of welcome or ritual of encounter” and provided references to academic writing on pōwhiri.
8. The Film Commission said the two farewell events for the outgoing acting CEO were appropriate given his 33 years of service and his involvement in the development of the screen industry over that time. It said the screen industry requested the events to farewell the acting CEO appropriately and recognise his work over a long period. In that context, the Film Commission said the spending was modest and within policy and should not have been described as ‘parties’ within the common understanding of the word.
9. The Film Commission said the description of the events as parties was then adopted by other media and the word “gained a currency of its own”. It said the “damage caused by the continuing online publications is irreversible” and asked that the articles be taken down.
The Response
10. The NZ Herald said “the thrust of the article was on spending on entertainment by the Film Commission”. It said it stood by the description of the events as parties, referring to “the Oxford English Dictionary’s various and broad meanings” of the word. It said the article identified the welcome parties specifically as pōwhiri in the second paragraph of the story.
11. The NZ Herald said the article “took suitable care to make the distinction between parties and pōwhiri, but the reality is both are social gatherings paid for by the taxpayer-funded entity.” It said accounting-wise, both are classified as entertainment spending. It said the details of the spending were accurately reported from information obtained under the Official Information Act.
12. On 5 November 2024, The NZ Herald amended the headline to NZ Film Commission spends $16,431 on CEO events amid budget cuts and in the introductory paragraph, the word ‘parties’ has been replaced by ‘events’. No further changes were made to the article. The NZ Herald said:
While we are comfortable with the use of the term “parties” (as there were two parties), on reflection we’ve decided that “events” more accurately describes what the sum of $16431 was spent on (being two parties and two pōwhiri) and accordingly, the article will be amended to reflect this.
The Discussion
13. By its own admission, the NZ Herald accepts the Film Commission’s welcome events for the incoming CEO were pōwhiri and should not have been described as parties. Just over three months after the original publication, it amended the headline and opening paragraph to replace “parties” with “events”.
14. However, as the balance of the article continues to be framed around ‘parties’, it is necessary for the Council to decide whether in doing so, the article breached the Council’s Principles.
15. Principle (1) requires the NZ Herald to “be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance” and not to “deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission.”
16. It is clear from the information provided by the Film Commission that the welcome events for the incoming Chief Executive were pōwhiri. However, the farewell events provided for the departing employee were not so described. The Film Commission described these as ‘events’, they were not held on marae, included alcohol, and appear to the Council to be reasonably described as parties.
17. However, it was not accurate or fair to describe the two welcome pōwhiri as parties and the article should have distinguished this in its consideration of the issues. The Council believes framing the issues around ‘parties’ without distinguishing the pōwhiri made the expenditure on the pōwhiri more worthy of criticism.
18. The article included significant background information on the expected restraint in government agencies’ spending, rules around parties and entertainment generally, and details of how the $16,000 was spent. These (including spending on pōwhiri) fall under the “legitimate and important subjects” for media investigation and reporting. The Council finds the article did not breach Principle (7) Diversity and Discrimination, which says:
Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest, and publications may report and express opinions in these areas.
19. The Film Commission also complained about the use of the phrase “tens of thousands of dollars” to characterise the spend of $16,431. However this phrase was not in NZ Herald’s article. The Council does not have jurisdiction to consider complaints about subsequent coverage of issues on broadcast media such as talkback radio.
20. The Council does not find the article breaches Principle (6) Captions and Headlines as the headline (as originally written and amended) reflected the published (and amended) article.
21. The final matter for consideration is whether the NZ Herald’s correction remedied the matter. Principle (12) Corrections says:
A publication’s willingness to correct errors enhances its credibility and, often, defuses complaint. Significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence.
22. The Council expects corrections to be made promptly. The NZ Herald’s amendment (some three months after the story) was late and did not sufficiently correct the issue.
23. The complaint is upheld on Principle (1) for inaccurately and unfairly characterising the two welcome pōwhiri as parties.
24. The complaint is not upheld on Principles (6) or (7) for the reasons set out in paragraphs 20 and 18 respectively.