Graeme Budler against Stuff

The Discussion

33. It is noteworthy that the numerous emails between the school and Stuff have been mostly polite and considered. Both parties have stressed the importance of journalism than shines a light on issues of concern; the complaint has arisen because the parties disagree on whether the process followed and articles are fair.

34. From the start, we would acknowledge that schools are an important part of life in any community and take on the care of children, so their actions are always a matter of significant public interest. A school of this size that is in receipt of $14.6m of taxpayer funds is of particular note.

35. Under Principle (1), the complaint revolves around fairness and balance. But it involves various specific concerns.

36. The use of the words “mass allegation investigation” is unusual but not inaccurate. It is used by authorities, including police, to describe claims of offending involving three or more children. Useful journalism typically strives to remove jargon and to be as precise as possible, so it is an odd choice. The phrase could be read by average citizens to involve many more than the four children involved in this case. But it’s not unfair to use a technically correct term and Stuff rightly added the precise number when the school raised that point.

37. Stuff added quotes to the headline to remove the suggestion the claims of homophobia, racism, and porn were established fact (though more on that later), under Principle (6) and removed the word “homophobia” from a line where Mr Budler was quoted saying he was not aware of the concerns raised by these students. It seems he did not know of the specific concerns but was naturally aware of wider concerns with beliefs that, for example, see homosexuality as a sin. It’s best practice to be as transparent as possible with any edits, especially when they stem from a complaint by the object of the story. So, it’s good to see Stuff acknowledged the early headline change (though not the other edit), even if it was five days late. The Media Council has been strict on requiring media outlets to correct transparently, and Stuff should note that, but in this case, we consider the delay in adding the note to the story to be minor issue below the threshold required to uphold a complaint.

38. On both these issues we note Stuff eventually did the right thing, but we also note that even on minor issues, it shouldn’t require repeated efforts by a complainant to get to the desirable result.

39. Further, Mr Budler thinks Stuff has been unfair in not explaining how it verified the identities of the people who came to them with complaints. In fact, Stuff on April 15 gave a full and clear explanation about how it checked emails, school photos, and alumni groups to establish the concerned students had been or still are at the school. Stuff has been admirably transparent in explaining its process to the complainant and is correct in saying it had a duty to protect its sources especially where they fear a backlash from the school community.

40. Regarding balance, the Media Council does not think Stuff is guilty of “cherry-picking”. While it cannot publish all the details from the thorough emails sent by the school, in the April 11 story Mr Budler responds to the complaints over five paragraphs and more are spent explaining the school’s philosophy and complaints process. But most of the balance is achieved in the April 22 article, once KingsWay has sent long and detailed replies to the reporter’s questions. The school asks Stuff to include some of the positive voices and details of the school’s achievements and commitment to wellbeing, and it does, at some length. Stuff says that out of fairness it gives Mr Budler more than 1000 words. The complainant says Stuff omitted to include data on student care and achievement. No news organisation could make space for all the information provided, but Stuff did use a representative sample and did not omit it from its reporting.

41. As Stuff says in its response, balance in news does not mean if X people say something is bad, a media organisation is required to report Y people saying something is good. The public expectation is that it’s normal for all students to feel safe and nurtured at school, something KingsWay itself aims for. So, balance is not achieved by placing “positive voices” alongside a school’s critics. Balanced news comes from giving voice to people who raise serious concerns and then giving a fair right of reply to those specific concerns.

42. Mr Budler had multiple chances to put his side of the story and did so politely but vigorously. Stuff made extensive use of the arguments he provided, as they should. Readers could be in no doubt about KingsWay’s views on the issues and Stuff’s reporting. Though the complainant might not like the quotes and angles chosen, readers were given a significant amount of information from the school’s perspective and would have been quite able to come to their own conclusions about the allegations. While Mr Budler disputes the tenor and some details of the allegations, no evidence of factual errors has been provided and there’s no doubt he was given – and exercised – his right of reply. The Media Council notes he declined the invitation to be interviewed and the chance to say more on the record.

43. Mr Budler said the use of the words “though did not say what had prompted it” gave a “nefarious” tone to the school’s use of an independent agency to conduct a review into student wellbeing. The Media Council agrees that line casts shade on the review without any evidence and leaves the reader with the sense it knows more than it does. It was unnecessary, but it technically correct and we do not consider it unfair under Principle (1).

44. The complainant raises concerns around the way Stuff handled the story of “Anna”. This is considered under Principle (8), as well as Principle (1), as the former principle requires publications to take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves their sources and the information they provide are reliable.

45.  In this case, Mr Budler was approached for comment about “Anna” at 3.52pm, the day before Good Friday. He had asked Stuff earlier in the day to respect his observation of a religious holiday and save further requests until after the holiday. He replied at 4.25pm saying he did not have time to look into the case before the Easter break. He supplied a generic statement but asked Stuff to hold off publishing until the school could investigate on Tuesday. Stuff replied at 5.15pm saying “it is not corroboration of the facts that is required, we have those confirmed”. Mr Budler says the school has proof “Anna’s” claims are inaccurate and because Stuff published Tuesday morning, it did not have the chance to reply. The implication of Mr Budler’s complaint is that Stuff’s lack of interest in corroborating facts from the school lacked balance and it should have taken the reasonable steps of waiting until the school had a chance to investigate the claims on Tuesday.

46. Without seeing the school’s claimed proof, neither Stuff nor the Media Council can know if waiting would have changed the article. If the school, as it says, does not want to get into a he said/she said debate with “Anna” and her family, it would not have been able to provide the evidence even if Stuff had waited. Having said that, Stuff had a full story of other complaints and KingsWay’s responses to them. There was nothing stopping Stuff holding the “Anna” part of the story until the school had time to look into the claims and reply specifically to her concerns, which were significant. This was not a natural disaster, for example, where waiting is not an option. Stuff had sources, but no proof of “Anna’s” story and could have taken more care. A third story could have been run later, and it might not have been in the position where it is facing an accusation of potentially inaccurate reporting.

47. Ultimately though, urgency and debatable manners are not grounds for a complaint to be upheld under either principle. Stuff had two sources in agreement, significant amounts of material from the school stressing the caring and supportive nature of the school that balanced “Anna’s” alleged experience, and did give Mr Budler more than three days to respond. It had taken reasonable steps and given Mr Budler the chance to provide balance.

48. In this matter we’re faced with conflicting rights. The school has the right to observe a religious holiday and not enter a ‘he said/she said’ debate with “Anna”. The current and former students, including “Anna”, have the right to voice their concerns about KingsWay. Stuff has the right to publish their claims in a timely manner, especially if they are corroborated by multiple sources. Despite Mr Budler’s request, it cannot be expected to remove “Anna’s” claims and silence her without proof of error.

49. Mr Budler’s suspicion that Stuff is showing bias against Christian organisations brings us to Principle (7) and raises the question whether Stuff would have, say, waited more respectfully over Eid al-Adha for a Muslim organisation to reply or over Passover for a Jewish organisation. Only Stuff can answer that, but its reference to Easter as a “long weekend” misses Mr Budler’s point that it is a sacred holiday for his community. On the other side of the coin, this also raises the question of how long Stuff would have needed to wait to show sufficient respect; through the three religious days of Easter or the four-day public holiday period? Stuff is correct that the 3.5 days it gave Mr Budler to respond is a generous amount of time for a daily news organisation. Considering this through the lens of our principles, religion is a legitimate subject of news reporting when it is in the public interest and is done without gratuitous emphasis. In this case the students’ complaints are undoubtedly in the public interest and the religious issues involved are central to their concerns, not gratuitous.

50. With the “Anna” story overall, Stuff has the editorial discretion to decide what it thinks is appropriate and fair and its decisions, while debatable, are not in breach of our principles.

51. The headline uses eye-grabbing language and without quote marks could have been in breach, but the quote marks were added several hours after publication. Even with the quote marks, the headline is problematic. Quote marks imply that the specific words have been used, and Stuff has put itself at risk under Principle (6) by putting words that were never specifically said in quote marks. Having said that, while some of the precise words were not used by the students, the experiences they describe fit within broad, acceptable definitions of those words, so, although some members expressed disquiet about the loose use of quote marks, we do not uphold the complaint under Principle (6).

52. We have discussed the corrections under Principle (1) and while we repeat the point that Stuff should not have hesitated to note any changes to the story prompted by a complaint, they are minor changes that do not warrant an uphold.

53. The Media Council notes Mr Budler made other requests of Stuff, including placing a particular quote high up in the story and generally re-writing it to be fairer. But an independent press decides, within the bounds of our principles, which quotes and information to use and is not dictated to by any of its sources.

Decision:  Reviewing the reportage of this story through the lens of this complaint raises are few issues for Stuff to consider including the troubling headline, the late correction note, and the “did not say what had prompted it” addition. However, the concerns are at the lower end of the spectrum. The complainant’s core concerns do not reveal any breach of Media Council principles, so the complaints under Principles (1), (6), (7), (8), and (12) are not upheld.

Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Scott Inglis, Tim Watkin