Ian Wishart and Catriona Atkinson against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3742
Council Meeting: 3 June 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Corrections
Ruling Categories: Headlines and Captions
Overview
1. Catriona Atkinson and Ian Wishart complained about an RNZ story published on 13 February 2025 headed Hamilton’s run of hot days shattered previous record, saying that it breached Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (6) Headlines and Captions and (12) Corrections. The complaint is not upheld under Principles (1), (4) and (12). It is upheld under Principle (6) Headlines and Captions.
The Article
2. The story quoted climate scientist Luke Harrington saying the city’s recent run of hot days “likely beats anything the city has experienced since temperature records began”. He said the records he had available went back to the early 1990s “but I think if you went further back in time they would still remain the worst on record”. It was the hottest 10 or 11 day stretch in the records he had available. He said this kind of event would become more common because greenhouse gases were heating the planet. The article included information on how to cope with heat stress, when MetService issued heat warnings, and how Hamilton City Council was preparing for climate change.
3. Following the complaints, the heading was changed to Hamilton’s run of hot days breaks previous record. The story was updated twice. After Mr Wishart’s initial complaint, information about peat fires and extreme heat conditions in 1935 was added, on 20 February. After further correspondence, the following sentence was added in May. “While not directly comparable to the more recent records from meteorologists, the paper also reported temperatures from a Hamilton optometrist’s office of 10 days over 32C, during December 1934 and January 1935, and carried letters from readers about the uncomfortable temperatures.”
The Complaint
4. Catriona Atkinson and Ian Wishart both complained separately about the same article. Their complaints concern the same issues and will be considered together. Mr Wishart complained under Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (6) Headlines and Captions and (12) Corrections. Ms Atkinson complained under Principles (1) and (6).
5. In his initial correspondence with RNZ, Mr Wishart challenged the statement that the February 2025 temperatures were likely to be record-breaking. He provided Waikato Times figures from mid-December 1934 to 28 February 1935. There were three periods where the temperatures did not fall below 80F (27C) – one of 26 days, one of 10 days and one of 26 days. The average maximum temperature in the 2025 heatwave was 28.46C and in the 1934-5 heatwave it was higher, at 30.28C.
6. Asked to comment on the complaint, Dr Harrington said comparing temperatures only made sense in the context of consistent data from the same weather station. Significantly different temperatures could be recorded in different locations due to microclimates or urban heat island effects. However, Dr Harrington agreed that the 2025 heatwave was not a record-shattering event and suggested “shattered” in the headline could be changed to “breaks”. He said debate about whether the 2025 run of extremely hot days was only the second or third highest on record did not change the broader messaging that climate change made such events more intense and more likely.
7. At this point, on 14 February, the reporter asked for the headline wording to be changed from “shattered” to “breaks”.
8. Mr Wishart continued to contest Dr Harrington’s views on the comparability of the figures. The 1935 event was probably “magnitudes hotter and longer than 2025”. RNZ should have investigated Dr Harrington’s claims and should correct the story, Mr Wishart said.
9. When bringing his complaint to the Media Council, Mr Wishart said that the article did not have evidence to back up Dr Harrington’s assertion that the 2025 heatwave was probably the hottest on record. It failed to investigate previous heatwaves, notably 10 days in February 1935 with significantly higher average temperatures than those reported for 2025.
10. Mr Wishart said RNZ had failed to correct or meaningfully clarify the story. “The omission of such relevant historical context gives the misleading impression that recent temperatures are unprecedented, which can influence public understanding of climate change and policy responses.” Mr Wishart said the complaint was not about climate change denial, but the integrity of journalism.
11. In his final comment, Mr Wishart said RNZ should be censured for doing shoddy fact-checking and not correcting until the story had “well and truly gone stale”.
12. Ms Atkinson’s complaint was along similar lines to Mr Wishart’s. She said: “Historic newspaper records reveal Hamilton endured an almost unbroken streak of 63 days above 27C in the summer of 1934/35, and although there were numerous ten day stretches above 30C, the hottest formal ten day stretch averaged 32.66C – more than 4C higher.”
13. In her formal complaint to the Media Council, Ms Atkinson said the addition of the sentence "The Waikato Times reported Hamilton experienced extreme heat conditions and ongoing peat fires as far back as 1935, causing smoke and fog lasting for weeks" still left readers misinformed. It made no reference to how hot it was in 1935 compared with 2025. Failure to tell readers about “63-day, 32.66C average at its highest 10-day mark” heatwave because RNZ knew it would undermine the story’s messaging around the increasing intensity and duration of weather events under climate change was a dereliction of journalistic duty, she said.
14. Ms Atkinson also objected to the headline, saying it was misinformation as it lacked context. “Everything could be pitched as having broken a record if your record is a selective sample.”
The Response
15. RNZ’s initial response to both complainants was that the story did not breach any standards. Two changes had been made to the story – the word “shattered” was changed to “breaks” in the headline and information was added about the 1934-5 heatwave. “We note that in response to your previous complaints about weather data, the Media Council has found such corrective action to be timely and sufficient, given the relatively minor nature of the error.”
16. In its formal response, RNZ said temperature measurements from the 1934-5 period did not equate to standards applied by contemporary meteorologists, and the readings were taken at different locations to modern records. This could make a considerable difference. For example, a recent study showed concreted areas of the Auckland CBD were up to 3C hotter than surrounding streets.
17. However once RNZ further checked the newspapers of the 1930s they were happy to add information about that period. “This did not mean, however, based on solid expert advice, that readers could be told definitively that it had been a hotter period than the recent one.”
18. RNZ noted that the story left open the possibility of very hot times previously by the use of the world “likely”.
19. The story was not about the history of heatwaves in Hamilton. Its point was to provide context about current weather conditions, what they would mean in the future and health measures.
20. RNZ commented on Mr Wishart’s concern about the “broader messaging”. In his BSA complaint about the broadcast version of the story he elaborated, saying the earlier event meant “real doubts emerge about the credibility of claims from climate scientists”.
21. RNZ argued the broader messaging was not confusing. “Climate change is the verified increase in average global temperatures across each 12-month period, which in turn leads to the increasing frequency of significant climatic events; it is not whether any one of those events breaks a particular historic record. It is because Hamilton has now experienced such heatwaves in 1998, 2018, 2019 and now 2025 that Hamilton City Council’s climate change manager can state that ‘heat is relatively new for us.’”
22. Dr Harrington provided a number of caveats around his knowledge of specific records, but his core message that these kinds of weather events would become more common was not up for debate.
The Discussion
23. Both complainants say the article breached RNZ’s own code of practice as well as the Media Council principles. The Media Council notes at the outset that it only considers complaints on the basis of the Media Council Principles.
24. The main thrust of the complaint is best considered under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (4) Comment and Fact. Dealing first with Principle (4), Dr Harrington’s comments about what he thought was likely to be the hottest 10 days on record were clearly presented as his opinion, so there was no breach of Principle (4). The use of the words “likely” and “probably” indicated a level of uncertainty. Dr Harrington was open about the fact that he only had access to records going back to the early 1990s.
25. Mr Wishart and Ms Atkinson challenge Dr Harrington’s statement about the likely record-breaking status of the heatwave, pointing to temperatures published in the Waikato Times in the 1930s that were higher. They believe RNZ should have “corrected” the story on that basis.
26. However, RNZ and Dr Harrington dispute the reliability of the early figures, and say they are not directly comparable. Mr Wishart and Ms Atkinson clearly believe the 1930s records are reliable, Dr Harrington does not. The Council is not expert in assessing the reliability of historical weather records and whether they can be usefully compared but finds that RNZ was within its rights to publish the claim about the 2025 Hamilton heatwave as the opinion of a climate scientist.
27. When the newspaper reports of the 1930s heatwave were drawn to the attention of the reporter, did RNZ have a responsibility to alter or correct its story? RNZ made two additions to the story, one referencing hot conditions reported by the Waikato Times in the 1930s but not containing any detail, and the second in May, which reported the figures in more detail with the rider that the figures were not comparable to modern meteorological records. The Council notes that while a further story about the 1930s heatwave might have been interesting, RNZ has the discretion to decide what it covers. Given the disputed significance of the 1930s figures, the Council believes the additions made by RNZ were adequate, although it would have been better if the information included in the second correction had been added earlier. By May the story had well and truly dropped from public view, as Mr Wishart pointed out. However, on balance, and particularly because of the disputed nature of the reliability and significance of the historical figures, the complaint under Principle (1) is not upheld.
28. Regarding the complaint under Principle (6) Headlines and Captions: the headline using the word “shattered” was an exaggeration and not backed up by the evidence. RNZ responded quickly, checking with Dr Harrington, and the reporter requested the headline change the day after the story was published. However, even after that change was made the Council believes the headline did not indicate the degree of uncertainty expressed by the climate scientist or that the claim was his opinion. The heading Hamilton’s run of hot days breaks previous record was stated as fact. The caption below the headline, which read “Hamilton has had almost two weeks of the hottest weather on record,” was also stated as fact without any degree of uncertainty or attribution. For that reason, the complaint under Principle (6) is upheld.
Decision: The complaint is 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 declared a conflict of interest and did not vote