RT AGAINST THE GISBORNE HERALD
Case Number: 3551
Council Meeting: 9 September 2024
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Gisborne Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Conflicts of Interest
Ruling Categories: Advocacy
Overview
- This complaint relates to an article Don’t allow abuse published in the Gisborne Herald on July 23, 2022. The complainant raises Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact and (10) Conflicts of Interest. The complaint is upheld on the grounds of fairness and balance. It is not upheld on the other grounds.
The Article
- The story reports the experience of a man who was sexually abused from the age of 6 to 26 by a man who lived with his family. It detailed the effects this had had on his life and his belief that his parents were responsible for what happened to him. He said they knew of the abuse and let it happen because they cared more for protecting the family name and mana than they did for him.
- The man said his family had labelled him as mentally unwell so they could blame everything on an inherent wrongness within him, rather than acknowledge the truth and the damage done. As a result, he had been isolated from his community and any chance of true interactions with his whānau around this awful, shared history.
- He also expressed his concern that his family had recently chosen to bring into the community and marae another person with a conviction against children regardless of the trauma caused to him and others in the community and regardless of the risk to children.
The Complaint
- RT complained on behalf of her whānau who had major concerns about the story. She also believed that the editor had a conflict of interest as he was the chairperson of Te Hōkai Male Survivors Tairāwhiti.
- She said when she raised their concerns the editor and the reporter strenuously defended the article, saying this was the victim’s story.
- “But as soon as he implicated our parents’ involvement in his sexual abuse and our association and our community’s contribution to that act, then it became our story too. Did we get an opportunity to respond and to defend ourselves? No, we did not.”
- No one from the paper had the integrity to come and talk to the whānau to get its side of the story.
- A month after the story ran, there was a meeting with the editor in which he was asked for a public apology to affected people and a correction of errors to be published with fair prominence in the paper.
- She said the trauma caused by the abuse of her brother had a profound impact on the family over the last 30 years and this story had tested their vulnerability once again bringing feelings of shame and embarrassment, whakamā, which meant she was afraid to leave her home in case she ran into people who might have read the article.
- Things got worse when there was a break-in, serious vandalism and theft of an important figure from their wharepuni. This was followed in February 2023 by Cyclone Gabrielle which was really devastating for whānau.
- This set of extraordinary events had been psychologically and physically overwhelming.
- “It has taken me two years to revisit this kaupapa, but I need to finish it; my whānau and community need closure.”
- She asked that the editor “be held accountable for the oppressive and unfair way he has treated us.”
The Response
- The editor’s initial response to the complaint was an email including more information from the victim supporting his comment that his parents knew they had bought a known child abuser into the family home and that his father knew he was being abused.
- He also offered the family the opportunity to tell their story of the fallout from a sibling being sexually abused and what they had been through.
- “I could add a note to that if appropriate. What I say would depend on what you say, but I would of course acknowledge the hurt you experienced from the article.”
- In further correspondence the editor said he could apologise for the hurt caused by what was written but he was not going to undermine what the victim had to say.
- “If you are not wanting to write something yourselves or be interviewed for a story on your perspectives, then I could write about this in an editorial that included an apology for the hurt caused.”
- NZME, which took over matters relating to this complaint after it purchased the Gisborne Herald, provided a brief response to the formal complaint. This advised the Media Council “it seems apparent that the requirements of the balance standard were not met on this occasion. It would have been appropriate to seek comment from the family members referred to in the story.”
- It added that the threshold for a breach of Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest had not been reached. Although the editor and the victim were both members of the same organisation, they were not obliged to each other and nor was the paper’s independence compromised.
The Discussion
- Before considering the detail of this complaint the Media Council will explain some related matters. It has decided not to name the complainant and has referred to her only by the initials RT to avoid further embarrassment to her and other members of the whānau.
- The victim named in the article has also not been identified for the same reason. Further to that, the Council notes it has no information to show that a Court has waived the automatic suppression that applies to people who have been abused as minors. It is good practice, in stories such as this one, for publications to tell readers that a waiver was sought and obtained before naming victims.
- Although this complaint relates to a story published two years ago, which is outside the usual time for considering complaints, the Council accepted there were good grounds for doing so in this case.
- Turning to the substance of the case it is clear that the Gisborne Herald breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
- While the editor argued this was the victim’s story, the article was not just about him. The victim made serious allegations about his parents and whānau who were given no chance to respond before the story was published.
- Going to affected parties to give them the opportunity to respond is standard journalistic practice. That should have been done with this story. It was not enough to offer a chance to respond after the story was published. An offer to apologise for the hurt caused also fell short as there was no acknowledgement of the paper’s failures.
- NZME acknowledged that it appeared the requirements of balance were not met. The Media Council found it was both unbalanced and unfair and upheld the complaint that there had been a breach of Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
- The Media Council notes that NZME has not offered to try and make amends with the family who were affected by the mishandling of this story. The Media Council believes NZME should at least contact the complainant to discuss how matters might be remedied. Obviously it would be over to the whānau as to whether it would accept an apology. Whether that should be a private or a public apology, or whether there might be some other way of dealing with the whānau’s outstanding grievance with the Gisborne Herald are matters that need to be discussed.
- The complaint under Principle (4) Comments and Fact is not upheld. It is not applicable to this story which was essentially one man’s account of what happened to him.
- The complaint under Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest is also not upheld. While the victim and the editor were known to each other through their involvement with Te Hōkai - Male Survivors Tairāwhiti, that linkage on its own was not evidence that the editor was conflicted on this subject or that it influenced the way he handled this article. He did not write the story and his decision to run an article about child sex abuse was not in question. Many publications have published stories on the same subject because it is a matter of legitimate public interest and concern.
- The complaint is upheld on Principle (1).
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Ben France-Hudson, Judi Jones, Alison Thom and Richard Pamatatau.
Council member Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from the discussion.