Ernestina Bonsu-Maro against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3762
Council Meeting: 21 July 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Headlines and Captions
Subterfuge
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Headlines and Captions
Deception
Photographs
Privacy
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Ernestina Bonsu-Maro complains about an article Ernestina Bonsu Maro’s talent agency failed to pay model, then fired her and claimed she was never employed published by the NZ Herald on 21 April 2025. The complaint raises Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (6) Headlines and Captions, (9) Subterfuge and (11) Photographs and Graphics. The complaint is not upheld.
2. This decision considers the complaint made against the principal article published by the NZ Herald, although the complaint also refers to versions reproduced by other publications related to, or with syndication agreements with the NZ Herald. A further version appears to have been published by a media organisation who is not affiliated with the NZ Herald, or a member of the New Zealand Media Council. That version is outside our scope, and we do not consider it here.
The Article
3. The focus of the article is on an Employment Relations Authority (ERA) decision made against Ms Bonsu-Maro, which found that she had not paid a model (Caitlyn Smythe) who worked for her, fired her and then denied she was an employee at all. This resulted in orders to pay Ms Smythe $25,000 in lost wages and compensation.
4. In turn, Ms Smythe suggests in the article that there is a “major disconnect between Ms Bonsu-Maro’s rhetoric about empowering Pasifika youth versus her practice”.
5. The article contains background information on the dispute and highlights Ms Bonsu-Maro statements to the ERA, which included that she did not run a modelling agency, but merely provided a free “community platform” to connect individuals interested in modelling to those that might require models and that she admitted she had received payment for modelling work that was done, but had not passed that money on to the models.
6. It ends by mentioning several aspects of the ERA decision including: that Ms Bonsu-Maro had left the ERA hearing in the middle of being questioned and that the ERA had described Ms Smythe, in contrast, as “calm and credible”. It notes that Ms Bonsu-Maro had declined to comment for the article.
7. The article is illustrated with a photo of Ms Smythe (sourced from the Miss Earth pageant) and another photo that features Ms Bonsu-Maro and her mother (which was supplied by them for an earlier story).
The Complaint
8. Ms Bonsu-Maro complains that the article is misleading and biased. She states that the headline suggests that her talent agency failed to compensate the model, subsequently leading to her termination. She further states that the journalist intentionally used information gathered from Ms Smythe to portray her unfavourably. She suggests it was incorrect to depict Ms Smythe as a victim when, in Ms Bonsu-Maro’s opinion, Ms Smythe has “inflicted considerable emotional turmoil” on her family.
9. She also states that the article led to “exploitation of my mother and myself across social media platforms” in ways that have been “profoundly offensive”. She states that there was no attempt by the NZ Herald (and other news outlets that further published the story) to seek consent to use their images and it was inappropriate to use an image of her mother, who had no involvement in this case. This has caused them both a lot of stress, in addition to stress they were already suffering as a result of a house fire. It was also a violation of her mother’s privacy.
10. She also states that the article was acquired through subterfuge, demonstrating dishonesty and misrepresentation.
The Response
11. The NZ Herald notes that it responded to Ms Bonsu-Maro’s initial complaint on the day that it was made stating that it stood by the story but would remove the image of her mother as a gesture of good faith.
12. Overall, the NZ Herald considers that the story is a fair and accurate reflection of the publicly released ERA decision. It suggests that Ms Bonsu-Maro considers the story is unfair because she does not accept the ERA findings, however, that does not mean that the article is wrong. The media is entitled to report on ERA findings. Ms Smythe was entitled to share her thoughts with the NZ Herald and Ms Bonsu-Maro was given an opportunity to comment, which she did not take up.
13. It considers that the headline was supported by the ERA decision and was an accurate description of its key findings and the article as a whole.
14. It rejects the claim that it was deceitful in its handling of the story or its dealings with Ms Bonsu-Maro. The ERA decision was publicly available, Ms Smythe provided a comment through her lawyer and the NZ Herald was upfront with Ms Bonsu-Maro about what it was doing when it called her for comment. The NZ Herald notes that, instead of giving a comment, Ms Bonsu-Maro claimed that there were suppression orders surrounding the case and decision. As a result, the NZ Herald took further steps to check this. The ERA confirmed there was no suppression.
15. It notes that the article does not claim that Ms Smythe was a victim, although given the ERA decision readers might reach that inference. It is not privy to any other background information about the relationship between Ms Smyth and Ms Bonsu-Maro as she chose not to be interviewed.
16. Balance was achieved by referring to Ms Bonsu-Maro’s (ultimately unsuccessful) arguments before the ERA.
17. Regarding the use of photographs, the NZ Herald notes that Ms Bonsu-Maro’s mother was mentioned in the story because she was referred to twice in the ERA decision (as a person who gave evidence and as one of the reasons why Ms Bonsu-Maro suddenly left the ERA hearing). The photos used were already in the NZ Herald system as they had been provided for a story about the establishment of the talent agency. They were not provided at that time on the basis of being for single use only. There was no suggestion in the photo caption, or article, that Ms Bonsu Maro’s mother had done anything wrong, nor was there any reason to think that using the photo would cause her distress. The story does not refer to any private matters.
The Discussion
18. This complaint raises Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (6) Headlines and Captions, (9) Subterfuge and (11) Photographs and Graphics.
19. This appears to be a straightforward report on the outcome of a tribunal decision. We can see no evidence of subterfuge on the part of the NZ Herald. Indeed, Ms Bonsu-Maro was invited to comment, but chose not to. To the extent Ms Bonsu-Maro’s final comment suggests it was inappropriate for the reporter to attempt to contact her using a variety of means, we consider this to be standard journalistic practice and not evidence of dishonesty.
20. Principle (6) states that headlines should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover. We consider that the headline used “Ernestina Bonsu Maro’s talent agency failed to pay model, then fired her and claimed she was never employed” meets this standard. This is an accurate summary of both what the article states and also the findings of the ERA decision itself.
21. Principle (11) requires that care is taken in choosing photographs and Principle (2) that while everyone is normally entitled to privacy this right should not interfere with the publication of significant matters of public record or public interest. It also states that “Those suffering from trauma or grief call for special consideration.”
22. There is no doubt that reporting on the outcome of a case taken to the ERA is a matter of both public record and public interest. Parties to tribunal or court cases, where there are no suppression orders, can expect that those matters may be reported on. Providing care is taken, media are entitled to illustrate those stories using photographs. In this case we consider that the NZ Herald was entitled to use an image it had on file. There is no suggestion that the photo was initially provided by Ms Bonsu-Maro on a ‘one use only basis’. Indeed, it appears to have been provided to assist with promotion of the talent agency. The image was already in the public domain. In addition, publicity can cut both ways and media are entitled to use provided images to illustrate negative publicity as well as positive.
23. It is clear that Ms Bonsu-Maro’s mother had some involvement in the case before the ERA, albeit that she appears to have played a minor role in the case. We do not think it was inappropriate for the NZ Herald to include a photo of her in the article, particularly given the photo on file demonstrated her association with the talent agency.
24. There is some suggestion in the complaint that Ms Bonsu-Maro’s mother may have been suffering from additional stress (unrelated to the case) as a result of a house fire. It does not appear that NZ Herald was aware of this at the time of reporting (in part this may be because Ms Bonsu-Maro declined to comment). However, as distressing as that event may have been for Ms Bonsu-Maro and her family, it was not directly related to this article and we do not think that this impacts on the ability for the NZ Herald to use the photo it had on file in relation to the employment case, or engages the requirement to exercise special consideration in relation to those suffering from trauma or grief.
25. Overall, we consider that this was a fair, accurate and balanced article on a matter of public interest.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were: Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Katrina Bennett, Guy MacGibbon, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson.
Katrina Bennett and Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.