Jonathan Mayo against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3765
Council Meeting: 13 October 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Radio New Zealand published an article on its website on July 16, 2025, headlined: Lifting advertising restrictions will enable medical conferences in NZ – David Seymour
2. Jonathan Mayo complained the story breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance as it was a report of a ministerial statement which failed to include dissenting comment or analysis.
The Article
3. The story reported Associate Health Minister David Seymour saying that medical conferences could now happen in New Zealand because the Government was lifting advertising restrictions on medicines. These restrictions did not allow for the advertising of medicines at conferences in this country.
4. The article was based on a press statement from Mr Seymour who was reported as saying advertising restrictions were brought in because of fears pharmaceutical companies could try to skirt approvals processes, but his Regulations Ministry found that approach was out of step with other countries.
5. He said advertising medicines at a conference was one of the main reasons to hold one. The article added that two of Australasia's largest medical conferences would come to New Zealand next year, and the Government was talking up estimates they could add $5 million to the local economy.
The Complaint
6. Mr Mayo complained the article was one-sided, failed to include any dissenting views, counterarguments, or independent expert analysis to validate the minister’s claims.
7. There was no substantiating evidence of comment from event organisers to support Mr Seymour’s assertion that the removal of advertising restrictions directly caused the return of major medial conferences.
8. No sourcing was provided to back up claimed economic impact estimates assessments.
9. The lack of critical scrutiny permitted the Minister’s anecdotal framing to stand unchallenged.
10. “It reads like a government press release—lacking journalistic interrogation and critical context. Had it been submitted by a student journalist, it would almost certainly have failed a basic ethics assessment.”
11. “Even foundational reporting standards—such as the inclusion of a right of reply within the opening paragraphs—are ignored. RNZ’s assertion that it provides “significant coverage of health issues” does nothing to excuse the absence of balance and due diligence in this specific piece. Coverage breadth cannot be used to justify abandoning editorial responsibility in an individual case, especially one involving potentially impactful public policy.”
12. “This article represents a serious lapse in professional reporting and public accountability, particularly for a national broadcaster. I respectfully urge the Council to investigate this breach, and to remind RNZ of its obligations under your principles.”
The Response
13. Radio New Zealand said it acknowledged Mr Mayo’s concerns, but this did not necessarily mean it was in breach of any Media Council's principles.
14. “This is the first report of a decision made by the Associate Health Minister. As such it is not surprising that it focuses on the Minister’s statement.”
15. “The Media Council says, on its principle of Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, that: ‘exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report’.”
16. Since Mr Mayo lodged his complaint RNZ had continued to explore the issue, in particular with a Morning Report segment and online article on August 7. It had also done two other stories on regulation changes affecting the health industry.
17. It added that it had not been uncritical of other Government proposals and there had been two articles earlier in the year in which doctors were reported to be critical of the Regulatory Standards Bill’s potential impact on health.
18. The article that Mr Mayo complained of was a breaking news story to provide audiences with an understanding of the Minister’s intentions. “By their nature, such initial stories may appear ‘unbalanced’ but only because they are the ‘first cut of history’.”
Further comment
19. Mr Mayo said RNZ’s justification that breaking news may appear unbalanced did not absolve it of editorial responsibility.
20. “The article presented the Minister’s claims without scrutiny, omitted dissenting voices, and lacked any independent expert community. This is not a matter of timing or format; it is a lapse in journalistic rigour.”
21. “Subsequent coverage does not retroactively correct the imbalance of the original piece. Each article must stand on its own merit, especially when it concerns public health policy. RNZ’s broader reporting portfolio cannot be used to excuse the shortcomings of this specific story.”
22. “A responsible news organisation would assess the announcement and, rather than blindly reprinting everything the Ministers says, seek to place the article in context, test its assertions with comment from health experts and then write a story that provides context and evaluation…editorial accountability applies to all formats and stages of reporting.”
The Discussion
23. The Media Council understood the concerns raised by Mr Mayo. The article appeared to be based entirely on a press release from the Minister’s office and there was no indication that any effort was made at that time to check it out or seek comment from elsewhere.
24. However, the Council notes a follow-up story was run on August 7. This article headlined: Advertising unapproved medicines not legal, despite government claim reported an intellectual property lawyer warning conference sponsors that the law had not yet changed and any medicines they wanted to advertise had to be approved.
25. It also reported Medicines New Zealand’s chief executive saying New Zealand had been missing out on conferences worth up to $90 million a year because it was impossible to run trade shows alongside them. There was also comment from Auckland University’s associate professor of psychological medicine David Menkes, who said it was "misleading" to suggest doctors did not already have access to the latest information about new treatments and that further loosening of the rules could compound the risk of over-prescribing.
26. This second article clearly remedied problems with the first article identified by Mr Mayo.
27. Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, states: Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.
28. In considering this complaint the Media Council wondered whether RNZ should have done the checking and balancing before it ran the first article, which looked like a one-source story.
29. RNZ’s argument – that this was a breaking news story and that such initial stories may appear unbalanced but only because they are the “first cut of history” – was not convincing. The Minister’s press release was not an urgently pressing or dramatic “breaking news” story that it had to be published immediately and without question or comment from others. Journalists get news releases from politicians every day and it is standard practice to weigh up the claims made, ask for more information and seek comment from elsewhere. These are basic requirements for ensuring accuracy, fairness and balance before stories are published.
30. Of course, balance can be provided over time, and the Council accepts that all views on long running issues do not have to be canvassed each time a subject is reported on. That is as it should be on significant issues of public debate – for example the coverage of wars and matters of moral or social controversy. But this was not a matter of much controversy, and it is hard to see how the balance over time defence can be applied here to justify its handling of this ministerial statement.
31. The Council noted that the follow-up article provided balance, but it was a long time after the Minister’s statement was given such a free and unchecked run.
32. The Council accepts that the public have a right to know what is going on in Parliament and know what Ministers are doing or saying. Of course, the media can report ministerial announcements, but the question is whether it is always necessary to provide balancing comment or another voice. This statement was not criticising another party who would be expected to have a right of reply. But the public expect and need some assurance that ministerial statements have come under some scrutiny before they are published.
33. Council members commented that this was not an example of great journalism, and there was considerable debate about the failure to seek balance. However, it was plainly a report of a statement of the Minister, and not critical of any person, and given the balance that was provided eventually the case for an uphold on Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance was not made out.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah
Morris, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau
Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote