Gaelle Ribot against The Press
Case Number: 3876
Council Meeting: 20 July 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: The Press
Principle:
Privacy
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Discrimination and Diversity
Confidentiality
Subterfuge
Ruling Categories:
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Confidentiality
Discrimination
Headlines and Captions
Deception
Privacy
Overview
1. The Press published an article on April 4, 2026, titled Marketing the elite: Inside the billion-dollar battle for the brightest young minds. Gaelle Ribot complains that the article breaches Principles (2) Privacy, (3) Children and Young People, (4) Comment and Fact, (6) Headlines and Captions, (7) Discrimination and Diversity, (8) Confidentiality, and (9) Subterfuge. The complaint is not upheld on all Principles.
The Article
2. The article is about Crimson Global Academy (CGA), a private online school for students aiming to attend elite universities in the US or UK. The article outlines the academy’s background, which is part of Crimson Education, and among other details reported the estimated costs for admissions to CGA and the associated NumberWorks tutoring business.
3. The article reports how Ms Ribot’s daughter(s) is studying at CGA remotely from home, and why she has chosen to enrol her daughter(s) in the online academy. This is followed by comments from the academy’s founder, Jamie Beaton, and the Chief Executive of Crimson Academies, Pene Barton, who are now also sponsoring an online charter school. The article also includes comments from another parent who had enrolled their triplets at the charter school, and a former student who had utilised Crimson Education’s services. Lastly, the article includes comments from detractors of Crimson Education’s offerings, including the Post Primary Teachers Association president and the principal of Rangiora High School.
The Complaint
4. Ms Ribot complains that the article breached several Media Council Principles, on the basis that her family’s privacy was disrespected with private financial choices exposed without consent, that the reporter used subterfuge to obtain information from the family, and that her daughters were now exposed to risk of bullying and discrimination.
5. Combining the complaints on Principle (2) Privacy, and Principle (8) Confidentiality, Ms Ribot specifically refers to “our private financial choices exposed when [the reporter] did not have our consent.” The complainant states that she sent a message to the reporter “specifically stating that I did not want prices mentioned because I specifically did not want to be judged or classified.” Other information provided to the reporter by the family such as how they study and their extracurricular activities are not considered in the scope of this complaint.
6. Combining the complaints on Principle (4) Comment and Fact, and Principle (9) Subterfuge, the complainant claims that the reporter had a pre-conceived idea of using the family to “counter balance her socialist point of view on education” and that “this was her opinion from the get go, not a fact.” The complainant claims that the reporter needed a “rich” family to balance against those opposed to private online education, and that she sought to make the family look “elitist”. The complainant alleges that the reporter had pretended that the article was purely about education, choice of topics, and extra-curriculars, stating:
"She used subterfuge to gain access to our home, our privacy, our children, and expose our private life in a very discriminatory way, when the end goal was to portray us as a privileged family to put against her socialist post of view. He we known this agenda she had for her article, we would have never ever opened our door and shared our genuine hospitably [sic] to her and the photographer."
7. Lastly, combining the complaints on Principle (3) Children and Young People, Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, and Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, the complainant states that “my daughters are now exposed and at risk of bullying and discrimination because of [the reporter’s] article.” This claim relates to the headline and caption being unfair and discriminatory, and that the article portrayed opinions that were not accurate with the reality of her family’s life. The complainant states that “we are allowed to make different choices for our children without being exposed so directly to [the reporter’s] and the public’s judgement.”
The Response
8. Kamala Hayman, Editor of The Press, rejected all allegations. Ms Hayman explained that the specific fees paid by the complainant’s family were not stated, and the only figures given were CGA course fees publicly available from their website. She notes that “multiple fee options are available, as are discounts, so readers will not know exactly what the Ribot family pays.” She also stated that the article did not inaccurately characterise the family’s situation.
9. The Editor states that the article is “largely positive about Crimson Global Academy”, that it implies students there are “the brightest young minds”, and that CGA provides a good alternative to traditional education. The respondent also notes that there are detractors of private online educators, and to not include these perspectives would represent a lack of balance and be a breach of Media Council Principle (1).
10. The Editor notes that while the complainant believes her daughters are “at risk of bullying”, she did not say that they are actively being bullied. There was no discrimination against the family. Some families go to great lengths to save money for a private education when they are not rich, and even if the article did imply the family was rich, this is not considered a form of discrimination.
11. The Editor also states that the reporter “expressed no opinions in the article and her views cannot be deduced from what has been published… her views remain both irrelevant and unknown.” The Editor denies the reporter misrepresented herself or used subterfuge. While she acknowledges that it is disappointing that the complainant felt misled, she claims that the reporter did not have an agenda and “embarked on a genuine mission to understand the appeal of these new schools after hearing of the growing interest in them from families who have not found traditional schooling appropriate for their children.”
The Discussion
12. Rather than deal with each of the Principles separately, this section groups the Principles together, as categorised in the Complaint section, around three key issues.
Principle (2) Privacy, Principle (8) Confidentiality
13. This section primarily refers to the private financial choices of the complainant’s family. The complaint states that confidentiality/privacy has been “completely disrespected as I clearly said to [the reporter] that I did not want our finances mentioned neither I wanted the school fees to be near our names.”
14. However, the article does not specifically identify the amount of money paid by this family for their education. In the first section of the article, which covers the family and their comments, the costs are not mentioned. It is only in the second section, in-between comments from Crimson Education founder Jamie Beaton, where the fees for NumberWorks, CGA, and “a typical university admissions counselling programme” are mentioned.
15. The Press states that it retrieved the information about school fees for CGA from the company’s website. The Media Council has confirmed that the information about annual enrolment fees is publicly available on the CGA/Crimson Education website. Therefore, the journalist did not breach any request for confidentiality around the family’s finances.
16. While it may be inferred that the family is wealthy given that they are able to pay CGA school fees for their daughter(s), this in itself does not constitute a breach of privacy. An association with a school alone is not sufficient to reveal specific financial details about a family. A student may be attending with a scholarship or sponsorship, or the family may be paying an otherwise negotiated rate. Based on these factors, the Council has not upheld the complaint under Principle (2).
17. It is not clear if the reporter had agreed to the family’s request to not publish information about school fees, - a request for information to be off-the-record has to be agreed to by both parties. In response to the complaint, The Press simply stated that the information about school fees is not confidential as it has been published publicly by the school. It is unfortunate that the complainant feels that their rights to confidentiality have been breached and the Media Council has some sympathy for this position. However, without evidence to indicate that the reporter had accepted an obligation of confidentiality, or that the source and the reporter have agreed on what is “off-the-record”, there is insufficient support for the complaint. Therefore, the Council has not upheld the complaint under Principle (8).
Principle (4) Comment and Fact, Principle (9) Subterfuge
18. The complainant states that the reporter “used subterfuge to gain access to our home, our privacy, our children, and expose our private life in a very discriminatory way, when the end goal was to portray us as a privileged family to put against her socialist point of view.” Subterfuge refers to the reporter allegedly misrepresenting themselves or collecting information through dishonest means.
19. It is the complainant’s position that the reporter had a preconceived notion of how to represent the family negatively before she conducted the interview. To the contrary, the article itself presents the family in a positive light, as high-achievers and hard workers who have chosen an educational pathway outside of the state system. The interpretation presented by the complainant requires the entire article to be read negatively towards CGA and its students, but a neutral or positive reading is also possible.
20. While the article summary sets up the tension between the two sides in the article, the presentation of the information about the family is positive and the information does not appear to have been used against them. Approximately 75% of the article presents CGA, Crimson Education, Aotearoa Infinite Academy, and their students positively and explains what services are being provided. The last 25% of the article presents some views from the state education sector. The contrary perspectives towards the end of the article are directed at the business model of the school, not the students and families. Any criticism in the story is balancing opinion provided by experts in education, is separated from the family by hundreds of words, and is aimed at Crimson’s commercial activities. It is in the interests of journalistic integrity to provide a balancing set of perspectives from those who are opposed to private online education. None of this reads as the opinion of the reporter.
21. It appears that there may be some difference in opinion between the complainant and the reporter on the discussed purpose and scope of the article. The Press insists that the reporter did not use any subterfuge to gain access to the story, and there is no evidence available to the Media Council to suggest otherwise. An interview was sought, and the subjects agreed to it. The family knew that they were being interviewed by a reporter. However, it is clear the complainant feels misled and believes the portrayal of her family is unfair.
22. From the evidence provided, the Media Council does not know how the reporter presented the story to the family, or what was promised. All we can say is that the onus remains on reporters to be transparent and very clear in their dealings with sources who are not experienced in dealing with the media so that these regrettable misunderstandings are avoided whenever possible. Reporters are operating from a position of power relative to the general public and must act responsibly and be transparent.
23. The article does not appear to be comment or opinion from the reporter and therefore does not need to be presented as such. The Council has not upheld the complaint under Principle (4).
24. While it is regrettable that the complainant has felt misled after seeing the outcome of the interview in the published article, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the reporter obtained the information from the family through deceptive means. On that basis, the Council has not upheld the complaint under Principle (9).
Principle (3) Children and Young People, Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity
25. The complainant states that “my daughters are now exposed and at risk of bullying and discrimination because of [the reporter’s] article.” Publishers must demonstrate care in respecting and upholding the rights of children and young people.
26. The article presents the young people in a positive light, as high-achievers who work hard and are benefitting from a private online education. A parent had given permission for the young people to be interviewed, and there is no claim that the quotes or information presented about the young people are factually wrong or embarrassing. Young people have a right to freedom from harm but equally have a right to freedom of expression.
27. While there is always a risk of negative attention arising from any media exposure, the young people voluntarily participated in the interview with parental supervision, and there are no specific breaches of rights of the child or young person. Specific evidence of harm to the young people involved in this story has not been provided. Therefore, the Council has not upheld the complaint under Principle (3).
28. The complaint alleges that the headline and caption are “unfair” and “totally discriminatory, utterly breaching our right to privacy”. Rather than the captions of the photographs (which factually state the names of the people in the photographs and that they are studying), it is the brief promotional summary that is subject to the complaint.
Families are paying tens of thousands of dollars for online schooling and elite university coaching built on the promise of global success. But critics say the model is more about marketing ambition than improving education — and risks widening the gap between those who can pay and those who can’t. Cate Macintosh reports.
29. The headline is fair. “Billion-dollar battle” refers to the reported valuation of Crimson Education, the privately-held parent company of the CGA. “Brightest young minds” refers to the high-achieving students who attend these schools and portrays them in a positive light. “Marketing the elite” refers to the comments by Bruce Kearney towards the end of the article, and it is no secret that CGA is seeking the best and brightest students to attend the school.
30. The summary is factual and descriptive of the article content. The article describes how some families are paying significant fees (as publicly published by the school) to help their children learn and achieve. The summary also describes the opposing perspectives, directed at the model rather than the families and their choices.
31. The headline and summary accurately and fairly convey the substance of the article, and therefore the Council has not upheld the complaint under Principle (6).
32. The complainant states that “we are allowed to make different choices for our children without being exposed so directly to [the reporter’s] and the public’s judgement,” and that her family and children are potentially exposed to future discrimination.
33. This Media Council Principle specifies gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability as protected categories, and that publications should not place “gratuitous emphasis” on these categories. These categories largely align with the protected characteristics / prohibited grounds given in the Human Rights Act 1993. Educational choices and wealth are not protected categories under this Principle. There is nothing in the article that discriminates against or impugns the family’s choices. Therefore, the Council has not upheld the complaint under Principle (7).
Decision: The complaints under all Principles are not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Alison Thom, Jo Cribb, Susan Freeman-Greene, Andrew Chen, Deborah Morris, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff.
Bernadette Courtney declared a conflict of interest and did not vote