Sunkita Howard & Katherine Kahui against the Westport News
Case Number: 3592
Council Meeting: 2 December 2024
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Westport News
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Children and Young People
Discrimination and Diversity
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Overview
1. Sunkita Howard complains about an article featuring a large photo of a property and details of the neighbour’s complaints about the property and her neighbours living there. The complaint covers Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (3) Children and Young People, and (7) Discrimination.
2. Katherine Kahui also complains, citing Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (3) Children and Young People, (4) Comment and Fact, (5) Headlines and Captions and (7) Discrimination.
The Article
3. On 24 October 2024 the Westport News published an article Kainga Ora home ‘a tip’ that included a photo of the front yard of a property and several vehicles. The article is single source account of a resident from the neighbouring property that outlines her complaints about her neighbours including their loud parties, revving engines, unmown lawns and lack of play area for their children. The neighbour also expressed her frustration with Kainga Ora and Work and Income New Zealand.
4. On 25 October 2025 the Westport News published a follow-up story Kainga Ora to take action. This article includes Kainga Ora’s response to the News’s request for comment. Kainga Ora states that the grounds of the property in question are unacceptable and a complaint has been received. The article then goes on to repeat the neighbour’s claims that the property is ‘a tip’ and outlines some generic statements about how Kainga Ora usually manages and supports tenants.
5. A letter to the editor from Howard entitled Unethical Reporting was published on 30 October that outlines her concerns with the article and that the News is ‘punching down on society’s most vulnerable’.
The Complaint
6. Sunkita Howard complains that the article is a breach of Media Council Principle (1) because the material included is the opinion of the neighbour and not verified. She uses as an example the statement from the neighbour that they are only paying $100 per week with no fact checking attempted by the News.
7. Ms Howard also states that by photographing the front yard of the family’s home including their possessions and quoting the neighbour as it resembling ‘a tip’ – without asking their view – is unfair. From subsequent correspondence, Ms Howard learnt that the reporter sought the family’s view only after the article had been published. That the only voice included is a disgruntled neighbour, Howard argues, means the article is unbalanced.
8. Ms Howard also argues that publishing a photo of the front yard of the property has breached the neighbour’s privacy. Westport is a small town and people who read the article know the family, especially the children. The article includes a statement from the neighbour that the family are ‘not coping’, again singling the family out.
9. The article also quotes the neighbour that there are three young children in the house and that there is no play area for them and that the trampoline is inaccessible. Ms Howard points out that these children are readily identifiable in the small community and their family has been publicly shamed.
10. Ms Howard argues that by invading the family’s privacy and naming and shaming them as Kainga Ora clients, the News has eroded their dignity. She states that there are messy houses in Westport that are privately rented by people but they are not considered newsworthy because they are not in Kainga Ora houses. The result of such articles could make others in social housing fearful that their neighbours’ opinions and the contents of their yards could also be the subject of a “piece of vitriolic reporting”.
11. Ms Kahui, mother of the tenant, contacted the reporter the day after the article was published. She was met with what she describes as “an aggressive and defensive” response from the reporter who hung up on her. Ms Kahui had sought to express her frustration and disappointment with the article and to explain the extenuating circumstances of the tenant.
12. Ms Kahui then followed up with a Media Council complaint. She cites a breach of Principle (1) Accuracy in that several statements made by the neighbour were incorrect: there is only one dog (not ‘dogs’ as published); the house in question has not been recently refurbished, instead only the exterior had been painted; and the $100 rent per week is not correct. The complainant also argues that Principle (1) Balance has been breached as no other views were included such as those of Kainga Ora and the tenant.
13. Principle (2) Privacy is also cited, outlining that the tenant was in a vulnerable situation and even though the tenants’ names and location was not printed, they felt exposed, and it compounded their situation. Principle (3) Children and Young People is also referred to as one of the children is of school age and could identify his house and the text about the article in the paper.
14. Principle (4) Comment and Fact and (5) Headlines and Captions are cited because the heading, while acknowledging the words from the neighbour are in quote marks, it “is a sensational headline and colour photo that a reader could take a lot of the information written as fact”.
15. Finally, Ms Kahui refers to Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity arguing that the article targets a minority group; those who qualify for state housing and are of lower socio-economic status. The state of the property could be linked to the absence of tenants and that the tenants had problems. Neither were considered in the article but instead the quote was included ‘taxpayers paying for these discounted cheap houses for people to live in’.
The Response
16. The Westport News responds to Ms Howard’s complaint over accuracy by saying it put the neighbour’s statements including the rent paid on the property to Kainga Ora. [Kainga Ora did not respond before the article was published (therefore the statements were unverified at the time of publication) and did not comment on specifics.] The News has taken that Kainga Ora did not dispute the detail in the article to mean that the information contained in the article must be correct. Kainga Ora’s comments were included in the follow-up article confirming the property is not up to standard and they are working with the tenant to rectify it.
17. The News also uses as evidence of its accuracy that in their conversation with the tenant in question after the article was printed, the tenant did not dispute the article contents. The News also points out that the article focuses on the views of the neighbour, and they are her opinion. Because her comments remain uncontested, the News implies they are accurate. That the reporter visited the property is given as evidence to corroborate the neighbours’ concerns.
18. The News also states that the article is not unfair because the vehicle’s registration plate is pixelated, and the photo was taken from the shared driveway. It sought balance by trying unsuccessfully to talk to other neighbours.
19. The News states that it did not breach the Privacy Principle because there are 145 Kainga Ora homes in Westport and this one is on a back section and not easily visible from the road so not identifiable.
20. They state that they did not breach any Principles regarding Children and Young People because they did not name the children or give the address of the house, and the article is not discriminatory because it includes the neighbour’s concerns and her views about Kainga Ora’s lack of action.
21. The News concludes that the claim their reporting was “vitriolic” and “cruel” fails to note they also reported the neighbour’s concern for the family and Kainga Ora’s response about the support available for them.
22. The News’s response to the second complaint, Ms Kahui, is similar. The News argues that the article is accurate because the neighbour’s complaints were put to Kainga Ora and not disputed. They dispute Kahui’s claims: refurbishments can include exterior painting, the reporter saw the grounds and they were as the neighbour described them and the tenant when approached after publication did not dispute the claim about the noisy vehicles.
23. The News thinks the article is fair because they attempted to contact the tenants and other neighbours and after publication when the tenant and the complaint contacted the reporter to complain, they declined the opportunity to respond.
24. Balance, the News argues, is obtained because they approached Kainga Ora (who couldn’t comment in the timeframe given) and Kainga Ora has not complained. They also called on the tenants (who were not home).
25. Privacy was not breached because there are many Kainga Ora homes in Westport and this one is on a back section. The News states it deliberately did not publish the address and pixelated registration numbers.
26. They did not publish the children’s ages or where they lived and do not think that a child reading the article overrides the public interest ‘in the unacceptable state of the grounds of a Kainga Ora home subsidised by taxpayers.’ They also state it is not an opinion piece because the journalist wrote up the neighbour’s quotes and the headlines are correct, including the quote from the neighbour.
27. Finally, the News states that it did not target a minority group or lower socio-economic strata. It instead reported on one tenant in a Kainga Ora home.
The Discussion
28. At the time of publication, the News had not talked to the tenants in question, nor other neighbours, nor had received a response from Kainga Ora. The article relies on the opinions of a disgruntled neighbour and the reporter visiting the property.
29. Several of neighbour’s views remained uncorroborated at the time of print: the low $100 per week rent that the ‘taxpayer is subsidising’, loud parties, revving engines, vehicles coming and going, and unkept refurbished interior. That the tenants, other neighbours and Kainga Ora had not verified such details at the time of publication nor subsequently does not make them accurate. Indeed, Ms Kahui directly challenges the validity of these claims from the neighbour. The News should have made more effort to get a response from the occupiers who were so strongly criticised and implicitly shamed, so that their perspective was presented.
30. Publishing these statements without verification is unfair and lacks balance. This is a clear breach of Principle (1). A single source making uncorroborated claims does not meet the high standard expected of publications to be accurate, fair and balanced in their reporting.
31. This photo - by the reporter’s own admission - was taken standing on a private shared driveway at the back of a section. In a small community, the property and therefore the family are easily recognisable. The reference to the three children would make it inevitable that the families would be identified by some readers. Including the photo alongside an article describing the family in such negative light using uncorroborated information without balance can only be seen as an unfair.
32. The Media Council has sympathy for the complainants, but in relation to the inclusion of Principle (2) Privacy, (3) Children and Young People, Principle (4) Comment and Fact and Principle (5) Headlines and Captions and (7) Discrimination, the threshold for further upholds has not been met.
33. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.