Kelly Bold against the Cambridge News and Waikato Business News
Case Number: 3770
Council Meeting: 8 September 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication:
Cambridge News
Waikato Business News
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On May 29, 2025, the Cambridge News published an article headlined, “The killing of an industry”. On June 4, 2025, its related publication, the Waikato Business News, published an article titled, “The cost of canning greyhound racing”. Kelly Bold complains both articles breach Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance, and Principle (4) Comment and fact. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1).
The Article
2. The May 29 Cambridge News article, titled, “The killing of an industry”, focused on greyhound trainer Corey Steele's involvement in the sport, his views of the industry and his reaction to the Government banning it.
3. It included four background sentences. One stated the last official racing event could be July 2026, or sooner. Another stated the government-appointed Ministerial Advisory Committee concluded rehoming the total dog population by that date was not possible.
4. Two other sentences quoted Racing Minister Winston Peters saying that protecting the racing dogs was behind the decision and that “despite significant progress made by the greyhound racing industry in recent years, the percentage of dogs being injured remains persistently high and the time has come to make a call in the best interest of the animals”.
5. The remainder of the story quoted Mr Steele and detailed how greyhound racing was part of his life and had been in his family for several generations.
6. The welfare and health of the dogs were important to him, and he outlined steps taken to ensure their safety and wellbeing. He described greyhound racing as “the most transparent sport that involves animals in the world”.
7. Trainers answered to the Government, owners, Greyhound Racing New Zealand, Racing Integrity Board and MPI.
8. The announcement was a shock. The industry had “exceeded all expectations”. It included the quote: “It’s a very easy thing for people to have an opinion without knowing the facts.”
9. He also claimed that Mr Peters "never spoke to us from the day he got in as racing minister to the day of the announcement''. “We did not have one bit of correspondence with Winston himself.”
10. Mr Steele further outlined the investment of time and money his family had put into the sport, including spending nearly $100,000 on kennels.
11. The second article, in the Waikato Business News on June 4, headlined, “The cost of canning greyhound racing” stated the ban had sparked a backlash in the Waikato, raising concerns over lost livelihoods, dog welfare, and rushed decision-making.
12. There was no warning or consultation - just a deadline. The decision blindsided the industry.
13. The move would cost Waikato $13 million and leave more than 2900 dogs needing homes. Greyhound racing contributed about $133 million annually to New Zealand’s economy.
14. It quoted Winston Peters as saying the ban allowed time to rehome dogs.
15. Greyhound Racing New Zealand already spent more than $8.5 million a year on rehoming; the rehoming task was daunting.
16. It quoted Cambridge-based greyhound advocate and former Waikato Greyhound Racing president Jenny Bartlett talking about the challenges of rehoming dogs and questioning how the industry was going to achieve this, saying the figure of 2900 dogs was conservative.
17. “You tell me how we’re going to do it. I’d like to ask Winston that myself.” The industry, she said, was “blindsided”.
18. She said the Government’s Ministerial Advisory Committee had acknowledged rehoming could take up to 30 months after the ban.
19. Greyhound Racing NZ chief executive Edward Rennell was quoted as saying the Cabinet paper on the ban was rushed and inadequate, the Government took the decision too lightly and quickly, and it was "an injustice to breeders, owners, trainers, and everyone involved”.
20. Greyhounding Racing had filed for a judicial review, which he said aimed to expose a “cavalier attitude to policymaking”.
21. Ms Bartlett estimated Cambridge Raceway could lose $100,000 annually in rent. Local businesses, such as vets, feed suppliers, cafes and TAB staff, were also expected to suffer.
22. The article quoted Corey Steele, making similar comments to the ones he made in the May 29 article.
23. The article finished by summarising the impact on the industry, stating it was staring down a crisis, and it was the collapse of a community, culture, and way of life. Trainers, breeders, and support workers who had dedicated decades to caring for greyhounds faced uncertainty. The dogs they had raised, raced, and loved were caught in the middle of a political decision.
The Complaint
24. On June 16, Kelly Bold, writing on behalf of The Greyhound Protection League of New Zealand, complained to publisher Good Local Media about the June 4 article in the Waikato Business News, titled “The Cost of Canning Greyhound Racing”.
25. This complaint referenced an earlier complaint she made about another Cambridge News greyhound ban story, also published on May 29. This was headlined, “Where will they go?” It quoted local trainer Jenny Bartlett discussing the challenges of rehoming the dogs because of the impending ban.
26. Ms Bold had strong concerns about the June 4 Waikato Business News article because it was unbalanced and failed to present a “comprehensive view’’.
27. The article only presented viewpoints from people in the industry. It failed to include critical views including from the likes of animal welfare organisations such as SAFE and the SPCA, and vets and animal welfare professionals who could talk about injuries, euthanasia and long-term care of the dogs.
28. No attempt was made to fact-check the claims made by industry representatives, resulting in a “skewed and incomplete narrative”.
29. The article failed to mention the fact the industry had been on notice of potential closure by the government since September 2022 and failed to mention the publicly stated reasons for the ban. These included the industry's ongoing failure to address serious animal welfare issues, such as high injury rates, euthanasia, and a lack of transparency and data.
30. Ms Bold urged the editor to publish a follow-up article that provided a balanced and accurate view of the industry, including leading with the perspectives from animal welfare organisations, anti-racing advocates, and government representatives.
31. Ms Bold lodged a second complaint the following day about the Cambridge News article, “The killing of an industry”, published on May 29.
32. “This piece … continues your worrying pattern of one-sided reporting on greyhound racing” and brought the total to “three clearly unbalanced, pro-industry articles published in under two weeks across your mastheads. This is not responsible journalism: it’s a campaign.”
33. In the May 29 story, “The killing of an industry”, no space was given to any independent experts, veterinarians, animal welfare organisations, or anti-racing advocates. “You allow the assertions of the greyhound racing industry to go un-checked. These perspectives are essential to fair coverage of such a complex, high-profile issue.”
34. The article failed to meet basic journalistic standards of fairness, balance, and accuracy.
35. In her formal complaint to the Media Council about the Waikato Business News article, Ms Bold said it was a repackaged version of the two earlier articles published by Cambridge News on May 29.
36. These three stories reflected a clear and repeated failure of editorial responsibility. “This is not journalism. It is a pro-racing PR campaign on behalf of a dying industry, disguised as reporting.”
37. The article allowed the industry to claim it was “blindsided” by the Government when two ministers had made it clear it was on notice unless improvements were made.
38. Regarding the Cambridge News article, “The killing of an industry”, Ms Bold complained to the council that the article gave 55 words out of 744 (7%) to discuss the many complex and long-standing issues with greyhound racing that had led to the ban being announced. No mention was made of three independent reviews that informed the Government’s decision.
The Response
39. The editor, in his response to Ms Bold’s June 16 complaint about the Waikato Business News article, said it was a community newspaper that reported on issues that impacted its community or were visible in its community.
40. The latest story provided perspectives from within the industry. The publisher had previously published an article about a greyhound sport protest that included views of those opposed to greyhound racing. The editor was comfortable readers were “not compromised.”
41. In his formal response to the Media Council, covering both articles, the editor said: “I would ask the Media Council how a balanced an accurate view of the industry can lead with the perspectives of people who oppose it”.
42. The publications covered the perspective of an industry which had considerable economic strength in its coverage area in response to a ban announced in 2024 at government level. That ban was well publicised at the time.
43. The rights or wrongs of it, or the reasons for it, were not the subject of its story (ies).
44. Lobby groups were within their rights to encourage media to write stories which suit their agenda. The complainant did not at any time seek to put her views to the publisher via a letter to the editor.
45. In further comments, the editor suggested the Media Council’s decision to consider the complaints “opens the door to similar complaints from all anti-vaxxers, anti-fluoride and anti-1080 groups about any stories on that subject [sic] which do not convey their views. This would also extend of course to any government advertising about the measles jab and stories about Covid …”
Final comments from complainant
46. Ms Bold, in her final comments to the Media Council, said it was “disingenuous” for the editor to claim that the rights or wrongs of the ban were not the subject of these stories when they give industry participants “free rein” to discuss the ban’s personal impact.
47. None of the Good Local Media publications reported the ban at the time. A letter to the editor was not considered adequate redress. “The Media Council does not require this, and editors are under no obligation to publish such letters if submitted.”
The Discussion
48. These complaints concern articles in two publications owned by publisher Good Local Media. The complainant makes similar points in both and cites the same principles. As part of its discussion, the Council will outline its points for each separately.
Earlier compliant
49. Ms Bold, in her complaint, refers to a third article, also published on May 29, and headlined, “Where will they go?” This article was the subject of an earlier Media Council complaint that she made. That complaint was ruled as having no grounds to proceed. The Council ruled that the comments in the story from local trainer Jenny Bartlett, focussing on the challenges of rehoming the dogs, did not reach the threshold of requiring countering views and, given a balanced article on the sport was published in 2023, it would seem that balance had been achieved over time.
Cambridge News article, “The killing of an industry”, published May 29
50. In the complaint regarding this article, there are two principles cited. The first is Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance, which 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.
51. The article focuses heavily on trainer Corey Steele and contains personal, and emotional quotes and images, and positive statements about the industry. It also contains criticism of the racing minister.
52. The question is: Do the two background sentences from the racing minister provide adequate balance?
53. The greyhound racing ban is an emotive and controversial issue with strong feelings on both sides. It is important that media organisations cover issues such as this in a balanced way and, where necessary, offer rights of reply. They also need to take care they continue to achieve balance over time as their coverage develops.
54. In this case, the two sentences from Mr Peters provide some general balance. It would have been ideal to have included some opposing voices. However, importantly, there is no evidence Mr Steele’s claims of no contact with Mr Peters were not put to him for a right of reply, and that alone amounts to a breach of Principle (1).
55. Principle (4) Comment and fact, says: “A clear distinction should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion. An article that is essentially comment or opinion should be clearly presented as such. Material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate.”
56. The Council does not consider the statement concerning the Ministerial Advisory Committee amounts to commentary or opinion. Rather, it is presented as unattributed fact but there is no evidence it is incorrect. Accordingly, the Council does not consider this principle has been breached.
Waikato Business News article, “The cost of canning greyhound racing”, published June 4
57. There is no evidence the statement regarding the ministerial advisory committee is inaccurate. There is no breach of Principle (1) in terms of accuracy.
58. This article goes further in that it is strongly angled on the economic impact and contains strong comments and claims. There are no opposing voices save for one sentence from the Minister about there being time to re-home the dogs. Other allegations about a rushed and inadequate Cabinet paper and there being a cavalier attitude to the decision making do not appear to have been put to the Government for a response. The article falls well short of what was required to achieve balance. It is also not stated to be an opinion piece. Principle (1) is breached.
59. However, this article comes close to breaching Principle (4) Comment and Fact. The first sentence of the June 4 article, “The cost of canning greyhound racing” is stated as unattributed fact when clearly it is the perspective of those in the industry. The statement in the second paragraph that the industry was blindsided is also a perspective, not a fact, and the third paragraph is also problematic in that it presents as the view of the writer. These passages should have been attributed. However, in this case, the Council considers it does not meet the threshold of breaching Principle (4).
60. Likewise, the complaint that the comments regarding the Ministerial Advisory Committee in this article also breach Principle (4) is not upheld for the same reasons cited earlier in this discussion.
Balance over time
61. Principle (1) makes clear that an exemption to providing balance may apply when there is a series of articles. Balance is permitted over time because not every voice or background fact on a complex issue can be repeated in every story.
62. However, in a detailed article on a long-running issue, balance over time is not an excuse for providing one-sided stories on new perspectives, particularly where they appear to refer to new facts such as no fair chance to respond and a rushed Cabinet paper. Articles about contentious issues should be balanced wherever possible.
63. When assessing balance over time factors such as the number of stories, the time over which they have been published, the strength and nature of the comments, number of sources, and any specific criticisms or accusations are important considerations. In both of these complaints there were detailed new matters presented in strong opposition to the reform. There was a clear need for a right of reply in the first article, and there was an obligation to provide balance by including opposing views in the second article.
Decision
64. Both complaints are upheld under Principle (1) for failing to provide balance. They are not upheld under Principle (4).
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Guy MacGibbon, Marie Shroff, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary
Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Richard Pamatatau, Judi Jones