Jerrie-Lee Ngareta Hill against Stuff

The Post published an article August 21, 2025, titled Camera controversy threatens to ‘implode’ beauty pageant scene.

The article led with a paragraph stating, “New Zealand’s beauty pageant scene is “imploding” amid “endless backstabbing” and a series of allegations that have seen police get involved, including complaints over a camera in a changing area.”

The story reported comment from the Miss New Zealand pageant organiser saying the camera was not working and blaming a jealous model networker for stirring trouble.

It said anger about the incident coalesced on the NZ Model Network Facebook page, whose operator alleged that some young women had been subjected to inappropriate behaviour, and that bitter fallout had split the pageant scene, with at least two individuals lodging police complaints.

Jerrie-Lee Ngareta Hill complained there were breaches of Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, (4) Comment and Fact, (7) Discrimination and Diversity, (8) Confidentiality, and (10) Conflicts of Interest.

She said:

1. The article relied on gossip and unreliable sources.

2. Claims regarding active cameras at the Miss New Zealand pageant were factually incorrect and illogical.

3. Previous communications regarding conflict of interest and bias were ignored.

4. Stuff News and Media Council of New Zealand rules were breached, particularly regarding source confidentiality and handling of private information.

5. The article has caused reputational harm, mental distress, and loss of clients and money to named and affected parties.

6. My statements were misrepresented, and my request for anonymity and confidentiality was disregarded.

7. Private communications were forwarded to the journalist without consent, breaching privacy obligations.

8. Actions described constitute breaches of the Privacy Act 2020 and Defamation Act 1992.

Dealing first with the last point, the Media Council is not the appropriate forum for arguing a breach of the Privacy Act or litigating defamation claims.

The Media Council notes this complaint is based on a series of unsupported assertions.

The article reported the views of numerous people including the pageant director and the complainant who was quoted as saying the furore was the work of a disgruntled beauty queen and that the complaints were malicious.

The story did not assert the dressing room camera was recording as the complainant claims. It merely reported concern that a camera was there as well as assurances by the director that the camera was not on at the time.

Ms Hill wrote to Stuff before the article was published claiming the reporter had a conflict of interest as a “credible source” had told her that the reporter’s partner (or wife) was friends with a former contestant and another person who was discrediting and defaming people. Stuff replied that it was had confidence in its reporter’s abilities and his independence and was not reporting on behalf of anyone.

The Media Council has no evidence that the reporter had a conflict of interest. The complaint is based on little more than speculation, conjecture and some social media photos and posts that do not prove relationships or links between the reporter and other people who supposedly had an interest in the story.

It is not at all clear how the story originated but the Council notes that journalistic investigations are commonly prompted by news tips from reporters’ friends, contacts or whistle-blowers. That does not mean, ipso facto, that stories are written on behalf of those sources or that the reporters have a conflict of interest.

The Council has also seen no evidence to support claims that the article was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced, that the complainant’s comments were misreported, that there had been breaches of privacy or confidentiality, or that the reporting breached any of the other Principles cited in this complaint.

The Media Council notes the article reports on a disagreement involving a beauty pageant business which operates in the public domain and relies on the goodwill and trust of sponsor and contestants. Social media posts provide ample evidence of concerns and conflict among people who know about the pageant and reporting this was a matter of public interest.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.