« BSA cop out? | Main | Stuff gagged – wrongly? »
Interesting Media Council splits
By Steven | September 18, 2026
The Media Council (formerly the Press Council) hears complaints against print or text based media, alleging unethical conduct such as inaccuracy or lack of fairness or balance, or invasion of privacy. The complaints board comprises a combination of journalist and non-journalists picked to represent the public and is usually chaired by a retired judge (currently Raynor Asher KC). The quorum under the new constitution is nine, but usually 11 consider the case.
Interestingly, the majority of members considering any particular case must be from those picked to represent the public.
Decisions are very often unanimous. But I have sometimes wondered whether the journalists may be able to influence decisions by insisting that “that’s the way things are done”, something that the non-journalist members have no experience of. When I’ve raised this possibility, I’ve been told that the journalists are often the ones who are hardest on their colleagues. I’ve never been quite sure.
So I was interested to come across this decision recently. It split the council down the middle. Voting to uphold the complaint: almost all the journalists. Voting not to uphold: almost all the public members. I don’t have a strong view on the outcome, but that’s surely grist for the Media Council’s supporters.
Looking for that decision to provide a link, I also came across this decision. Voting to uphold: almost all the public members. Voting not to uphold: all the journalists, plus the judge and one public member.
It’s a fascinating case. The Waikato Times published a story with the headline Methamphetamine supply charges in wake of fatal crash that claimed life of US tourists ‘denied and remains denied.
Here’s the Council’s summary of the story:
- The article reports on proceedings at Tokoroa District Court in June 2026, where the defendant was charged with drug offences, including supplying methamphetamine and driving with a listed substance in her blood, that arose from her involvement in a fatal crash.
- The “lead charge” – possession of methamphetamine for supply – was “denied and remains denied”.
- The defendant was not present due to a misunderstanding and had presented at another court expecting to appear by audio visual link.
- A one-day Judge-alone trial date was set down for 23 July 2026.
- The article includes background on the two American tourists who died in the crash, tributes from friends, and a photo of them.
- The report says police “cannot rule out further charges” and calls for any witnesses to the crash to contact police.
So… answer this question without reading any further. Was the defendant charged in connection with causing the crash?
Would it make any difference to your understanding to know that the tourists had swerved to the wrong side of the road when the crash happened? And that the defendant was not charged with causing the crash?
The defendant complained to the Media Council. She said the article implies she caused the crash. But it wasn’t her fault. (She eventually pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of drugs but was never charged with causing the crash, and it seems to be accepted that the tourists were on the wrong side of the road).
Five public members of the council felt this was inaccurate by omission. The paper said it doesn’t have to report what people aren’t charged with. I think when they’re creating a false impression (which for me, this story does, even if unwittingly), they should have to report that. But perhaps it wasn’t a breach: the standard requires deliberate inaccuracy. I think this is a major flaw in the Media Council’s standards. Inaccuracies can be deliberate or sloppy; they can be inadvertent. But if they’re significant, they’re still disserving the public and often the person the story is about. The BSA doesn’t require inaccuracies to be deliberate. The Australian Press Council doesn’t either. The Media Council shouldn’t.
In any event, that wasn’t the reasoning of those members. It was more sophisticated than that. They said, when the complainant wrote to the paper and told it that she hadn’t been charged with causing the crash and would be arguing that the tourists were on the wrong side of the road, the paper didn’t add a clarification to the story. At that point, it became inaccurate by omission.
That seems dead right to me.
And I’m wondering why that gut instinct wasn’t shared by all the others, including all the journalists. In part, it’s because the information was provided in a later story. But that was published six weeks later, and I think the media are often too quick to assume that people who catch one story will catch later ones on the same topic.
The majority also say it was the defendant’s own actions that put her in the news, the paper didn’t say she caused the crash, and there was little it could do to get it right. To which the answers are: yes and no; the paper did imply it and should be responsible for that; and it could have either reported that she hadn’t been charged with the crash or added a clarification to that effect later.
Anyway, this decision also gives support to those who say the non-journalists won’t be unfairly swayed by the journalists.
Topics: General | Comments Off on Interesting Media Council splits