WESTERN MOTOR AND TRACTOR SERVICES LTD AGAINST STUFF
Case Number: 3565
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Defamation/Damaging To Reputation
Misleading
Overview
- The article in question, after referring to various comparative service station prices for petrol, at the end referred to the price at Western Motor & Tractor Services Ltd (Western Motors) in Otautau, Southland saying it was “an eye watering” $4.50, $2 above the national average. Motorists were effectively advised to get their petrol in Invercargill rather than there.
- The figure quoted for Western Motors was significantly wrong. Its prices were around $2.70. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
- On 30 August 2024 under the heading Fall in Fuel Prices, and the Cheapest Places to Fill Up Stuff published an article stating in the first line that with fuel prices dropping it was a “…good time to shop around and get the best price at the pump”. It was stated that the figures were based on the petrol price monitoring platform, “Gaspy” and its more than 1.5 million “gas spies” and purported to be quoting that platform.
- After listing a number of sites throughout the country at around the $2.21 to $2.75 mark, it ended by saying that Western Motors was selling petrol at $4.50 per litre. It suggested that customers in western Southland should go to Invercargill to buy petrol rather than paying such “eye-watering”, “whopping” price. It pointed out that Western Motors was charging $2.00 more than the national average.
The Complaint
- This is a complaint based on inaccuracy. The original complaint was in a lawyer’s letter to Stuff, followed by a complaint to the Media Council by Western Motors. It was pointed out that Western Motors has never retailed fuel at anything close to $4.50 a litre and that its current pricing was sitting at $2.769 per litre which was comparable to other small centre retail outlets. They have never had a price close to $4.50.
- Western Motors complains that the reporter took no steps independently of the Gaspy website to check the price for fuel at their outlet. A telephone call to the garage would have enabled the correct price to be ascertained. It was of particular concern that Stuff failed to check the alleged price given that it was so extraordinarily high..
- The point is made that the article ran from Friday afternoon and over the weekend and would have been shared on various social media sites. It would have been read by the market that Western Motors served.
- Following the article, the company had experienced quieter than normal weekend trade. Custom had been significantly down on usual Monday business. There was a 15-20% drop in fuel sales. Further, the company was in the process of marketing the business for sale and such negative publicity may impact on the process.
- Western Motors acknowledges that here was a correction, some days later, but many customers would not have seen the correction as the original article does not appear to be easily accessible. The article will continue to reflect the complainant’s credibility within the small community that it operates.
- Western Motors complains that Stuff did not do enough to put its error right. The retraction should have been on the home page with bold lettering. Stuff needed to apologise and put that on its home page. It needed to explain “how lies from reporters can have very damaging effects on people’s lives and businesses.”
The Response
- Stuff acknowledged that the story was inaccurate. It says when this was pointed out to Stuff on the Monday 2 September a correct notation was included in the article. On Tuesday 3 September it “offered a written reply acknowledging the error”, and the article was removed from the website. It has repeatedly acknowledged the error.
- It is said that once a check had been made following the complaint action was taken. “A mistake was acknowledged in the email message sent to [Western Motors], that also expressed regret that the error occurred. Stuff maintains this apology”.
- It relies on Media Council Principle (12) saying that Stuff has demonstrated a willingness to correct errors throughout this complaint process. It asserted in its original response:
“The article made it clear that it was reporting on prices specified by Gaspy. While we could expect our audience to do their own due diligence when fuelling up at their local station, we acknowledge that this information was incorrect and have taken this opportunity to educate our reporter on the importance of act checking and verifying source information.” [Emphasis added]
The Discussion
- Stuff does not challenge the facts alleged by the complainant, including that Western Motors’ retail price for petrol at the time was approximately $2.769, comparable to other small, rural outlets. To its credit it has accepted its error. We do not accept the complainant’s implication that the error involved any deliberate falsehood.
- However it was irresponsible and indeed reckless of Stuff to publish an obviously damaging article about comparative petrol prices based on an entirely unverified source that has since been shown to be completely incorrect. Obviously singling out Western Motors as the most expensive in the country and recommending that customers go to Invercargill instead, was going to cause significant damage to Western Motors. It was irresponsible to publish such a damaging comparative figure without properly checking it. Particularly given that the Western Motors figure was so completely off the scale.
- It was suggested by Stuff in the highlighted quote above that it could be expected that readers would do their own due diligence when reading Stuff’s published figure. This shows a lack of comprehension of the reliance the public should be able to place on information published in the mainstream media. It shows a lack of comprehension of the overwhelming importance of published information being accurate.
- It is no excuse to say that Stuff was quoting Gaspy. Even if readers noted that fact, or knew what Gaspy was, they were entitled to rely on the unqualified figures quoted and could be expected to tailor where they purchased petrol accordingly.
- To an extent Stuff did the right thing when it found out about the error by acknowledging the error in an obvious way in its later publication and ultimately withdrawing the article. However, we accept Western Motors’ point that by then, three days later, many people would have read the article and it would have caused damage to Western Motors’ reputation and resulted in a loss of business. A retraction could not fix such a significant and long-lasting error.
- We have formed a clear view that despite Stuff’s efforts to correct the mistake and taking into account Principle (12) the correction does not assuage this inaccuracy. The failure to check cannot be excused and the real damage caused cannot be fixed.
- Further in this extreme case of damaging error, Stuff should have taken more steps than it did in dealing with its error. A correction and personal expressions of regret and apology were not enough. It would have been proper and responsible for Stuff to make, in addition, a public apology on its news site to Western Motors. It has not done this. We have no power to direct this but suggest that Stuff publish an apology in a prominent position to further lessen the damage that the article would have caused.
- The complaint is upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were the Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Katrina Bennett, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom and Richard Pamatatau.