TOM PEARCE AGAINST RNZ
Case Number: 3530
Council Meeting: 21 June 2024
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Overview
- Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published on 3 May 2024 an online story about a Wellington florist’s claim of being bullied by Green MP Julie Ann Genter over a controversial cycleway project in Newtown, Wellington. RNZ reported the florist had been a vocal opponent of the removal of car parks outside her shop and said they had been replaced by a cycleway. The complainant says there have never been car parks or a cycleway outside the florist shop in Riddiford Street. The complaint is upheld under Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
The Article
- The article was headlined Florist says Julie Anne Genter exchange was a ‘massive imbalance of power’. It mentioned Green Party disciplinary action launched following a recent ‘outburst’ by Ms Genter against Matt Doocey MP in the House. It then outlined an increasingly difficult interaction which had occurred on a recent occasion between Ms Genter and the florist. One accompanying photo was captioned “There is no parking outside Laura Newcombe’s shop to accommodate the cycleway”. The photo of the florist shop frontage and the adjacent roadway, shows a yellow dotted line in front of the shop but no continuation of the nearby cycleway, although a cycle logo is visible on the asphalt.
The Complaint
- The complainant, Tom Pearce, says RNZ should correct the facts in the story about the florist shop and the roading issues. He provided photographic evidence to show that in recent years there have never been car parks or a cycleway outside the florist shop in Riddiford Street. He says the florist had been vocal about the removal of car parks across the road from, rather than directly outside, her shop. She had been quoted as saying she also wanted a loading zone in front of her shop, on Riddiford Street, where there have been dotted yellow lines for some time, when in fact there was already a nearby loading zone in Adelaide Road at the back of the building. The complainant also subsequently said that the incorrect information in the story, and RNZ’s refusal to correct it, would influence readers’ understanding of the florist’s dispute with Ms Genter, because it lent weight to the florist’s complaints about the roading issues. “As it stands, these details present Ms Newcombe as a sympathetic victim, whose business, income and livelihood has been negatively impacted by the removal of car parks and by extension the actions and advocacy of Ms Genter.” The complaint also noted that if, as said by RNZ, the details were of no moment to the overall thrust of the story then they should have no objection to correcting or removing them.
The Response
- RNZ responded that the essence of the story was the interaction between Julie Anne Genter and the florist and was not about the roading controversy. The comments of the florist about the loading zone were hearsay and were therefore disregarded by RNZ. In its subsequent formal response RNZ disputes that the fact about the cycle lane were inaccurate. “The cycle lane paving finishes in green, but…continues with individual logos painted on the asphalt with a dotted curbside yellow line which runs past the florist shop.” RNZ claims this means the cycle lane runs past the florist shop. RNZ says: “The point is, however, that is of no moment to the overall thrust of the story which is the allegations and acknowledgment of Ms Genter’s behaviour as an MP.” RNZ stood by its story and its initial response and refused to make a correction.
The Discussion
- The Council agrees with RNZ that the point of the article is the behaviour of Ms Genter. But the headline, accompanying photographs and captions and the bulk of the story, strongly feature the florist’s dispute with Ms Genter and the roading issues. These issues give relevant context and local interest and are an essential part of the story. The complaint is covered by Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. Some facts in the story are clearly inaccurate and there is an element of fairness and balance to be considered. The Council also considered whether the issues are inconsequential and whether RNZ acted deliberately in this case.
- The story incorrectly claims that car parks were removed from outside the shop to make way for a cycleway. The complainant demonstrates that the dotted line has been in place for some years, there were no car parks removed from outside the shop and there is no cycleway directly outside the shop. The car parks that were removed were on the opposite side of the road. The Council notes that on the 3rd May the
- NZ Herald published a similar article about Ms Genter and the incident with the florist. The online version shows that the NZ Herald article now has an undated footer as follows “This story has been amended to remove reference to car parks being removed from outside Newcombe’s store.”
- There is also a factual dispute between the complainant and the respondent about whether the cycleway continues outside the florist shop. The photograph RNZ published alongside the article, shows the cycle lane stops short of the florist’s shop. It appears therefore that RNZ is mistaken in its belief that the cycleway continues past the florist shop because of the cycle logo painted on the asphalt. (Wellington City Council information describes the logos as ‘sharrow’ which are road markings to show where it’s safest to ride bikes and to indicate to motorists that cycles are to be expected on that section of roadway). There is possibly genuine misunderstanding by RNZ of the road markings involved. The complex markings and signage could easily be misunderstood on this section of Adelaide Road outside Wellington Hospital, which is busy with cars, buses, ambulances, taxis, cycles, scooters, prams, wheelchairs and pedestrians. But as it stands, RNZ appears to be in error on the existence of a cycleway outside the shop and its own photograph serves to confirm that. The loading zone matter is insufficiently clear or relevant for the Council to take into consideration.
- The RNZ article focusses on Ms Genter’s behaviour and the information about the roadway dispute is context. On balance, the Council judges that the facts about the location of the car parks and cycleway were of sufficient moment to the story to require correcting. The failure of RNZ to check its facts and the refusal to correct, even when some facts were clearly demonstrated to be incorrect, amounts in our view to a breach. While this did not influence its decision, the Council notes that in contrast the NZ Herald did consider it necessary to correct the facts relating to the car parks. The RNZ inaccuracy about the cycleway may have been a genuine mistake. The question of whether this was deliberate or a genuine mistake by RNZ is relevant but in this case the continuing refusal to correct, partly on the grounds that they were of no moment to the overall thrust of the story, was unhelpful to RNZ’s position on the complaint.
- The Council notes some aspects of the incident between the florist and Ms Genter were subsequently filled out later, in wider media reports, giving more balance in the public domain. Although RNZ was not necessarily in possession of these additional matters at the time of the first article, this suggests that a more cooperative approach to the subsequent correction of facts would have been appropriate, to give balance. The Council notes that if the facts about the car parks had been corrected promptly by RNZ following receipt of the complaint, it would not have upheld the complaint.
- Decision: Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance requires that “Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission.” On balance, the Council upholds the complaint and finds there was a breach of Principle (1).
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Alison Thom, Ben France-Hudson, Clio Francis, Hank Schouten, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff and Rosemary Barraclough.
Council member Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.