Michelle Warshawsky against Stuff and The Post
Case Number: 3731
Council Meeting: 28 April 2025
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication:
Stuff
The Post
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Discrimination and Diversity
Subterfuge
Ruling Categories:
Stuff and The Post ran an article on March 14, 2025, headlined Porirua Council meeting erupts as Liz Kelly lashes out.
The article reported on the conduct of Wellington Pouiwi (iwi representative) Liz Kelly who was reported to have been ejected from the meeting after disrupting it and making angry, disrespecting and personal remarks to Porirua Mayor Anita Baker. The article was illustrated with a video clip of the last minute of live stream footage from the meeting which showed Ms Kelly walking out as the meeting was being adjourned. The same clip was also run with several related stories headlined Council iwi rep ejected after disrupting meeting and insulting mayor and Council iwi rep faces conduct investigation.
The Porirua City Council’s chief executive subsequently complained of Ms Kelly’s behaviour to Ngāti Toa and Mayor Anita Baker also complained to Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau.
Michelle Warshawsky, who was at the meeting, complained the video was a gross misrepresentation of what occurred and looked like a deliberate attempt by Stuff to besmirch Ms Kelly’s reputation. She asked Stuff to take the video clip down. The editor said the video had to be seen in the context of the story which reported what occurred at the meeting. She said the journalist spoke to a number of people, including Ms Kelly, and all sides were covered fairly and accurately. The story was not misleading.
In her subsequent complaint to the Media Council Ms Warshawsky said there was clear bias and determined intent to not cover accurately and fairly the facts as they occurred. She also referred to previous stories about Ms Kelly’s controversial remarks at a Wellington City Council meeting in September 2024 and believed this was part of a concerted effort by Stuff/The Post to besmirch Liz Kelly’s character and reputation.
The Media Council does not believe a case has been made to show a breach of Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance (4) Comment and Fact (6) Headlines and Captions (7) Discrimination and Diversity or (9) Subterfuge. The short video clip did not purport to be a standalone account of the meeting. It was little more than an illustration to accompany the more detailed story based on the comments of key figures including the council chief executive as well as Ms Kelly. This article and previous stories mentioned in this complaint show Ms Kelly is a forthright advocate who has been involved in clashes and controversies at local authority meetings. The Council has received no evidence to support a claim that the reporting of those clashes was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced. Most importantly Ms Kelly’s views have been reported in the interests of fairness and balance. The Council notes it is not uncommon for public figures to be involved in controversies over a period of time and media reporting of those controversies is not, on its own, evidence of a smear campaign. As for allegations of defamation, that is a matter for the courts, not the Media Council.
The article reported on the conduct of Wellington Pouiwi (iwi representative) Liz Kelly who was reported to have been ejected from the meeting after disrupting it and making angry, disrespecting and personal remarks to Porirua Mayor Anita Baker. The article was illustrated with a video clip of the last minute of live stream footage from the meeting which showed Ms Kelly walking out as the meeting was being adjourned. The same clip was also run with several related stories headlined Council iwi rep ejected after disrupting meeting and insulting mayor and Council iwi rep faces conduct investigation.
The Porirua City Council’s chief executive subsequently complained of Ms Kelly’s behaviour to Ngāti Toa and Mayor Anita Baker also complained to Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau.
Michelle Warshawsky, who was at the meeting, complained the video was a gross misrepresentation of what occurred and looked like a deliberate attempt by Stuff to besmirch Ms Kelly’s reputation. She asked Stuff to take the video clip down. The editor said the video had to be seen in the context of the story which reported what occurred at the meeting. She said the journalist spoke to a number of people, including Ms Kelly, and all sides were covered fairly and accurately. The story was not misleading.
In her subsequent complaint to the Media Council Ms Warshawsky said there was clear bias and determined intent to not cover accurately and fairly the facts as they occurred. She also referred to previous stories about Ms Kelly’s controversial remarks at a Wellington City Council meeting in September 2024 and believed this was part of a concerted effort by Stuff/The Post to besmirch Liz Kelly’s character and reputation.
The Media Council does not believe a case has been made to show a breach of Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance (4) Comment and Fact (6) Headlines and Captions (7) Discrimination and Diversity or (9) Subterfuge. The short video clip did not purport to be a standalone account of the meeting. It was little more than an illustration to accompany the more detailed story based on the comments of key figures including the council chief executive as well as Ms Kelly. This article and previous stories mentioned in this complaint show Ms Kelly is a forthright advocate who has been involved in clashes and controversies at local authority meetings. The Council has received no evidence to support a claim that the reporting of those clashes was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced. Most importantly Ms Kelly’s views have been reported in the interests of fairness and balance. The Council notes it is not uncommon for public figures to be involved in controversies over a period of time and media reporting of those controversies is not, on its own, evidence of a smear campaign. As for allegations of defamation, that is a matter for the courts, not the Media Council.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.