Allan Towers against the Otago Daily Times

The Otago Daily Times published an article on February 11, 2026, titled Paintballed neighbour’s ‘spying’ cameras.

The story reported a court case in which Allan Towers was sentenced after admitting a charge of intentionally damaging his neighbour’s security cameras by shooting them with a paintball gun. It reported his explanation that the cameras on a shared driveway were spying on him and that there had been other matters of dispute with neighbours.

It also included reference to a matter 10 years earlier when he was the subject of a complaint to the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, where Mr Towers had surrendered his licence.

Emma Towers, whose husband was named in the story, complained the Otago Daily Times had a potential conflict of interest as his neighbour was employed by Allied Press, the paper’s parent company.

“I am concerned this may have influenced the prominence and framing of this minor story, e.g. front page, full photo, suggesting possible editorial bias. This was a minor case on a neighbour disagreement that would not normally reach the front page, but by this action, it has amplified the personal impact and public shaming regarding Mr Towers. I would like this clarified.”

She also asked how it was fair that the neighbour was not named in the article.

“The omission raises concerns about selective reporting and the influence of personal or professional relationships in editorial decisions. This situation warrants the Media Council’s attention to ensure they adhere to the principles of fairness, impartiality and transparency.

“This was a mutual neighbour dispute, not a victim/offender situation, so her name should have been there for the public. The article states it was ‘somewhat of a two-way street.’  However, it is clear upon reading this article, that 90 percent was written to defame Mr Towers, therefore making it an unbalanced article, failing to provide Mr Towers’ perspective properly.”

“This unfairness when reading the article leads readers to assume the unnamed party is an innocent player in this. That certainly was not the case. Furthermore, extra negative background was published about Mr Towers regarding the REAA, that feels like defamatory.”

She believed it was a breach of Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.

In response the Otago Daily Times said decisions on what was included in a story were directed and decided by a reporter's chief reporter and editor.

“It is standard practice to include details of a person's relevant history in a story about them, to provide context and background. The information about the real estate matter was widely publicly available, so much so it would have been unusual not to include it, in case there was a suggestion we were trying to hide or ignore the fact Mr Towers had a history of not dissimilar behaviour. Reporting factual information about people, particularly disciplinary hearings such as those that proceed through court or a tribunal, is not defaming them.”

The Media Council noted this was essentially a court story that was of interest to the public.

It was based on information provided in open court which considered the facts of the case and Mr Towers’ defence. This was set out by his lawyer, who told the Judge that discord with neighbours had been somewhat “a two-way street” but Mr Towers now wanted everyone in the neighbourhood to live in harmony. 

There was no evidence that the reporting was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced. Nor was there anything to show that the coverage was biased or influenced by a neighbour who worked for another company owned by Allied Press. There was no evidence of bias by the ODT, and the report was expressed in neutral language.

There was also no reason why she needed to be named as neither she, nor any of the other neighbours, were facing criminal charges and may not have even been named in court.  A person who is convicted in Court or named in a Tribunal finding or action is in a different situation in relation to privacy than members of the public who are not the subject of the findings or action.

The decision to run the story and photograph of Mr Towers on the front page was a matter of editorial discretion. It is for editors to decide how stories are handled as they consider what news is likely to be of most interest to their readers. The Media Council has no mandate to second guess those decisions.

The brief reference to Mr Towers’ earlier history was in the public domain and it was of interest.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.