Parker et al against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3772
Council Meeting: 8 September 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Headlines and Captions
Discrimination and Diversity
Subterfuge
Conflicts of Interest
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. RNZ published an article on its website on 12 June 2025 headed Teenager starves to death alone in emergency accommodation. Seventeen people have complained about the story, and as their complaints are similar, they will be considered together. The complaints cited Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (2) Privacy, Principle (3) Children and Young People, Principle (4) Comment and Fact, Principle (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinions and Letters, Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, Principle (9) Subterfuge, Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest and Principle (12) Corrections. The complaints are upheld under Principle (1). They are not upheld under any of the other Principles cited.
2. At the outset, the Media Council notes the sadness of the situation and extends its condolences to family and friends of the teen.
The Article
3. The story begins by saying the parents of a teenager who starved to death alone in emergency accommodation believed multiple agencies failed in their care. They said the child was able to keep them at a distance on the grounds that they did not accept the teen was transgender, an identity the parents said the teen later abandoned. The parents suggested that while professionals were attentive to their child’s gender identity, they failed to respond to the threat of a long-standing eating disorder.
4. The story continues with an interview with the teen’s mother, who called the child “Vanessa” (a pseudonym). She shows the reporter a photograph of her child as a 13-year-old and contrasts it with a photograph taken of their skeleton-like remains, found in a motel where they died aged 17.
5. It was reported that six agencies who were involved said they were unable to comment because the case was before the coroner.
6. The story backgrounds the life of “Vanessa”, an experience of sexual abuse at the age of five, the onset of anorexia at nearly 12, 10 hospitalisations, diagnosis with autism, difficult behaviours and engagement with pro-anorexia websites. In January 2019, the 13-year-old was put under a Compulsory Treatment Order.
7. The story reported: “At high school, she was also introduced to the concept of gender diversity and at some point, in 2021 became non-binary” and adopted a gender-neutral name and pronouns. This led to arguments at home about gender identity as well as ongoing conflict about eating. The mother is quoted as saying: “The psychiatrist recommended not affirming Vanessa's transgender identity.”
8. The teen, who the story refers to as “Vanessa/V” left home in March 2022. In April the Compulsory Treatment Order was lifted at the request of the Child, Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), who then discharged the teen who they said was not engaging with treatment.
9. The article details the teen’s experience in emergency accommodation. The mother says: "Vanessa, and everyone who was supposed to help her, accepted the belief that we her parents, in not agreeing that she had become a boy, were uncaring bigots who deserved to be cut off."
10. The motel manager where “V” was living describes her relationship with the teen, saying they were “very anorexic” and “sad”, but “absolutely delightful”.
11. The story describes the last time the parents saw the teen alive, and details concerns from the Family Works team leader about their health. Subsequently, the teen told both father and mother by phone that they were "seriously questioning the 'gender identity thing'" and wanted them to know she was indeed their daughter, the parents said.
12. After the teen was discovered dead, the parents went to the motel. "At the scene, the Police corrected us when we used Vanessa's name and insisted on using a male name and pronouns," the mother is quoted as saying.
13. The story said: “Vanessa's parents believe the teenager's death was the result of the removal of the protections of the Compulsory Treatment Order nine months previously.” The mother said it appeared there was "wilful blindness" on the part of those professionals, who were focused on affirming Vanessa's gender identity, but did not pay the same attention to the eating disorder which would kill her.
14. The story includes responses at the end from the organisations involved, who all said they could not comment.
15. The story carried a warning that it covered eating disorders and disturbing content. It referred to RNZ’s Rainbow Communities Reporting and Content Guidelines. “Under RNZ's Rainbow Communities Reporting and Content Guidelines, we use the name and pronouns that people tell us they use. As this story deals with a deceased person, they are not able to communicate their wishes, and RNZ has opted to identify them variously as V and Vanessa, according to the differing perspectives of the people who knew them.”
Changes to the story
16. Following complaints to RNZ and the publication of further information about Alex in other media, particularly an article by David Farrier, which contained posts made by Alex online in a private forum, RNZ made alterations to the names used in the story and added the following statement: “Update: For privacy reasons, the teenager was originally identified in the story with the pseudonyms V and Vanessa. Since publication, they have been publicly identified as Alex and RNZ has updated the story and some language accordingly.”
The Complaint
The Complaints
17. The Media Council has received 17 complaints about the story. Most raised similar objections, so the complaints will be dealt with together. Not every detail of every complaint will be included in this decision, but Council members have carefully read and considered all the complaints.
18. Most complainants objected to the use of the name “Vanessa/V”, a female pseudonym chosen because the parents referred to their child as female. The use of a female pseudonym and pronouns was harmful to Alex’s “dignity, mana, and identity, and deeply disrespectful and transphobic to trans people everywhere”, one complainant said.
19. There was clear evidence that Alex had a stable gender identity. People he confided in called him Alex, he was enrolled in Te Kura under that name and Alex’s online posts published in the David Farrier article suggested he identified as male and exclusively used he/him pronouns, one complainant said. Yet instead of relying on this, RNZ had substituted the view of Alex’s parents, who were not significantly involved in his life for almost a year before he died, and who Alex said had not respected his wishes. One complainant said the Farrier article made it clear that RNZ had been made aware of Alex’s posts that contained evidence of his chosen identity as male. The changes made in terms of the use of his chosen name were inadequate, and the story should be updated to use Alex’s correct names and pronouns.
20. There was a lack of willingness from RNZ to understand the hurt and anger the article had caused. “They can state as much as they'd like that they don't wish to denigrate the experiences of trans people in New Zealand, but trans people have been loudly saying for some time now that posting an article that misgenders a trans teenager through name and pronouns is absolutely that,” one complainant said.
21. Complainants said the article was unbalanced because it relied so heavily on the view of Alex’s parents who did not accept his gender identity and were not significantly involved in his life for almost a year before he died. Relying so heavily on the parents’ and one psychiatrist’s points of view had created a “distorted and one-sided” view.
22. The article’s central theme, based on the parents’ opinions, went unchallenged – that those charged with caring for Alex were overly attentive to the teen’s gender identity and failed to adequately respond to his long-standing eating disorder. “No independent specialist or expert regarding gender identity, anorexia, or how trans or LGBT youth experience and exhibit mental health conditions, was provided the opportunity to comment on these concerning allegations,” said one complainant.
23. The story reported that the teen’s long-term psychiatrist was sceptical Alex was using the transgender identity as a mask for anorexia. However, this statement was second-hand and from a person who was not sympathetic to the child’s gender identity.
24. “It presents misinformation about trans people and what it means to be transgender which – without balance from a qualified expert – may lead readers to conclude that those who identify as transgender may in fact be masking some other form of ‘mental illness’ such as autism, or anorexia.” In fact, research showed that disordered eating for trans people with gender-related motivations was substantially decreased by getting transition-related healthcare, one complainant said.
25. RNZ said in its response that it did not see the value in discussing the case with other medical experts who did not have direct knowledge of the case. One complainant questioned this, saying the reporter should have asked why a young person “who clearly identified as trans” was not provided with gender-affirming care. “Denying or withholding that care puts trans people at risk of harm.”
26. Another complainant stated: “I do not dispute that this tragedy was a massive failure and a case of abhorrent negligence on the part of NZ's social services, but to air claims that its failure was also partly due to the services' affirmation of a teenager's gender identity, based almost purely on the account of the teen's parents… cannot possibly meet the standard of acceptable journalism.”
27. One complainant said other voices were neglected such as teachers, friends, other doctors and the writing left behind by Alex (publicised in the David Farrier story). For example, Alex’s writing would have contradicted the parents who said he was interested in de-transitioning. One of his final messages expressed frustration at his parents’ transphobia, one complainant said.
28. Another complainant suggested a follow-up article quoting other sources would be appropriate. If RNZ could not back up the statements in the original story it should be taken down.
29. The agencies involved did not comment because the case was before the coroner, and some complainants suggested it was irresponsible to run the article before they were able to respond and give a more balanced perspective.
30. Some complainants said the article presented “transphobic myths” without challenge. For example, complainants objected to the story suggesting Alex became trans after hearing about gender transformation at school, or as a result of a romantic break-up. This was misinformation – it suggested young people were being brainwashed into being trans, one complainant said. “In fact, the real reason why we see more trans and non-binary people coming out is because we have become much more accepting of them.”
31. Some sections of the population relied on harmful myths as stereotypes to erode the rights of LGBT people, particularly trans people, one complainant said. One of the most common myths about trans people was that identifying as transgender was a manifestation of another, treatable, condition such as autism or (in this case) anorexia – and that therefore affirming a young person's gender identity is failing to treat these underlying conditions. This was a key way anti-trans lobbyists sought to undermine trans identities, they said. “In the 1970s, people used to say similar things about gay men – the theory being that gay men were not actually gay, they were suffering from the lack of a strong paternal figure in their life etc.”
32. Some complainants said the article was a breach of Principle (2) Privacy. This protection still extended after someone had died, they said. It was a gross breach of privacy to have a female name used. “The article has intimate details about Alex – for example, his romantic life – which the public has insufficient interest in to override the concern of privacy,” another complainant said.
33. Several complainants said the story breached Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity. A disproportionate emphasis was placed on the gender identity of Alex as a causative factor in his death – rather than an element in his life, one complainant said. The article was supposed to be about the failure of state agencies to care for a teen with an eating disorder, but the majority of it was about his trans identity and his parents’ beliefs that allowing him to be trans led to his death.
34. Several complainants suggested Principle (9) Subterfuge or Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest were breached because the story was suggested to RNZ by what the complainants describe as anti-trans activists who had a particular agenda. This was allowing “transphobes” a platform, one complainant said. “It is of grave concern and strikes to the heart of journalistic integrity and independence, if RNZ reporters are presenting flawed stories at the behest of lobby groups,” said one complainant. Anti-trans activists celebrated the publication of this article with a notable absence of sorrow over the death. Other complainants suggested the journalist involved had a history of writing anti-trans stories.
35. Complainants also said the corrections made to the story were inadequate. The mother’s use of the female pronouns was not changed in the edited version of the story, once more information because available from Alex’s online posts about his gender identity. The way he was introduced and referred to in the bulk of the article (with a feminine pseudonym and pronouns) was not modified. Where interviewees were recorded as using another name and female pronouns this should have been swapped out for Alex, perhaps use the well-established square brackets correction convention, ie [Alex], [he], one complainant suggested.
The Response
36. RNZ received a significant number of complaints and sent the same initial response to all complainants, and then a second combined response to the Media Council following the receipt of 17 formal complaints.
37. Regarding Principle (1) RNZ said the story was about the tragic death of a teenager from anorexia. The majority of the article was about the onset of the illness, the efforts of parents and others to help the teenager, and the circumstances that led to their death in a motel.
38. A range of voices, apart from the parents, were given the opportunity to comment. The question of the teenager’s gender was relevant to the care provided, the decisions about that care, including whether the teenager should have been allowed to live alone, and the position of the parents in remaining involved in those decisions.
39. Since publication, it became clear “the teenager identified in the story variously as V and Vanessa also identified as Alex and used different pronouns”. The story was edited, essentially using Vanessa or Alex depending on the understanding of those interviewed.
40. “The story, however, is not fundamentally about gender issues, but about the treatment and care provided to a seriously ill person,” RNZ said.
41. RNZ spent a number of months researching the story and gathering documentation. Readers were able to “access the perspective” of the teen’s psychiatrist and the leader of the Family Works team responsible for the oversight of the teen. All agencies involved were asked to comment and their responses reported.
42. Regarding Principle (2) Privacy, RNZ noted the Principle states in part: “the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.” This was an article of significant public interest. RNZ also noted that the Privacy Act did not apply to deceased people.
43. Regarding Principle (3) Children and Young People, RNZ noted the Principle states: “In cases involving children and young people editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of the child or young person.” The story involving a vulnerable teen dying alone in a motel room under state supervision, clearly met that threshold. RNZ believed it was important that it was brought to the public attention prior to the coroner’s hearing to enable the community to question how anorexia sufferers were being supported.
44. Regarding Principle (4) Comment and Fact which requires that a clear distinction made between factual information and opinion, the article clearly identified when the parents were expressing their views on their child’s treatment and how the question of gender was relevant to their teen’s care.
45. Principle (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinions and Letters was not relevant as it applied to articles written by individuals as an expression of their opinion.
46. Principle (6) Headlines and Captions was not breached as the headline was an accurate description of the article.
47. Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity states: “Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest and publications may report and express opinions in these areas. Publications should not, however, place gratuitous emphasis on any such category in their reporting.” The question of the teen’s gender, and the response of the parents and various agencies was directly relevant. RNZ’s rainbow guidelines stated that RNZ would use the person’s preferred name and pronouns, but as the individual had died, they could not communicate their wishes.
48. Principle (9) Subterfuge was not breached. RNZ said this principle applied only to actions by the newsroom that could be considered subterfuge, such as obtaining information without the reporter being properly identified. “RNZ dealt directly and extensively with the parents and contacted a large number of additional people who were connected with the case. At all times, the reporter correctly identified herself, and the nature of the intended article.”
49. Regarding Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest: “The reporter and senior editorial leaders within RNZ who worked on this story have no personal connections with any organisation that deals with anorexia nervosa, autism, or gender issues.”
50. Regarding Principle (12) Corrections, RNZ said it was aware of the online commentary about the story. Any additional information provided to RNZ needed to meet its editorial standards, and as noted, some changes were made to reflect the teen’s gender preference.
51. In its formal response to the Media Council, RNZ said it would consider two overarching questions: Did RNZ publish an accurate and balanced article in the first place, given that it was largely – but not exclusively – based on the testimony of the parents? Once reliable information was available about the teenager’s preferred name, should RNZ have conducted a complete re-write of the story, or potentially taken it down?
52. RNZ said it was first alerted to the story in September 2024. Some complainants had suggested the original source for the story should have alarmed RNZ and the story should not have been considered at all. RNZ received news tips from many people. Each would have a reason for contacting RNZ. The intent was irrelevant once RNZ began investigating a particular story. Their approach was then governed by RNZ’s Editorial Standards and the Media Council Principles.
53. RNZ received a written statement from the parents and interviewed the mother. The parents were later asked to sign privacy waivers that would enable RNZ to question the relevant agencies. The parents were advised RNZ would need documentation to support their claims.
54. Throughout the first months of 2025, the reporter continued to investigate. This included reviewing details of a contemporary conversation with the family GP – especially CAMHS decision to discharge the teenager – correspondence with agencies; a message sent to the judge at the time the compulsory treatment order was made; and extensive medical records, RNZ said.
55. Access to the medical notes of specialists who were treating the teenager meant RNZ did not see value in discussing the case with other medical experts who did not have the same direct knowledge.
56. Questions were asked of the Ministry of Social Development, Oranga Tamariki, Presbyterian Support, the Education Ministry, New Zealand Police, Health NZ and the Salvation Army. The manager of the motel where the teen had been living answered questions.
57. RNZ says the investigation was robust, and enabled them to have confidence in the fundamental facts of the story, which RNZ set out as: “...that a teenager developed anorexia, the imposition and then lifting of a compulsory treatment order, the change in the teenager’s living arrangements because of a breakdown in the family environment, the involvement of state agencies and NGOs in these arrangements, and the death of the child from starvation in a motel room.”
58. The impending coronial inquest was no excuse for state agencies to avoid providing comment. No agency had challenged the accuracy of the story.
59. Regarding the names used in the story, RNZ was aware that the teen was using the name Alex but had no information at the time of publication about the online forum where he posted his thoughts. The pronouns used were determined by how the sources understood the identity being used by the teenager at the time of their death. The same approach was initially taken with the names Vanessa and V, both of which were pseudonyms. RNZ had been accused of dead-naming the victim – whereby a person’s birth name has been used when they have chosen a new name, but RNZ said this did not apply. “RNZ took every care to remove from the story identifying information of the family and teenager, including the part of New Zealand where this occurred.”
60. The teen’s gender was important in the role it played in the decisions made about treatment and care. But RNZ said this was not a story about gender.
61. RNZ’s formal response then considered whether corrections made to the story were adequate. Once reliable information was made available to RNZ about the teen’s preferred name, should RNZ have rewritten the story, or potentially taken it down? The existence of an online forum where Alex regularly published his thoughts was unknown to RNZ at the time of publication. Even if they had known about it, they would have had to consider the ethical questions of publishing material from a private forum posted by an under-age person who had now died.
62. It took RNZ a number of weeks to confirm the bona fides of those providing the information. Once the accuracy of the information was established the story was adjusted to use the name Alex “where appropriate”, RNZ said. This did not fundamentally change the core narrative, which was why the story was not taken down.
63. RNZ said they fully appreciated the concerns of those who complained about the use of the name Vanessa. The story was not intended to, nor did it, minimise or denigrate the experiences of New Zealand’s trans community, RNZ said. “But again, at the risk of over-stating our case, this was a story about the care of a teenager with a severe eating disorder which, combined with other significant mental issues such as autism, led to that child’s death from starvation.” RNZ said.
64. RNZ included messages of support for the story and a media release from the parents that spoke out against “sensationalised” further coverage of the teen’s story.
The Discussion
Balance and fairness
65. The Council first considered whether the article was accurate, fair and balanced, as required by Principle (1). The story was written primarily from the point of view of Alex’s parents. Their assertion that the teen was not properly cared for by the agencies that were charged with the teen’s care is at the heart of the story, as is their suggestion that the agencies were more concerned about the teen’s gender identity than they were about the life-threatening anorexia. RNZ asked all the agencies involved to give their side of the story and they declined or gave very limited and uninformative responses, mostly on the grounds that the case was before the coroner.
66. Several complainants suggested that RNZ should have sought balancing comment from experts who were not directly involved in the case, suggesting, for example, that there was evidence that not providing gender-based care can put an individual’s life at risk. RNZ rejected this suggestion, saying that because they had access to extensive medical records that there was nothing to be gained from discussing the case with other experts.
67. The parents are entitled to express their views about the tragic events and their views on the teen’s gender identity and RNZ is entitled to report them. But their perspective came from a particular point of view and drove the narrative. The fact that the story was brought to RNZ by a group that is regarded as having an anti-trans perspective should have alerted RNZ to the fact that there was a wider agenda at play. Council members considered it might have been wise, for the sake of transparency, to include in the story that the family was being supported by this group and that the group had brought the story to RNZ.
68. RNZ has stated in its response that this was not a story about gender, but most Council members disagreed. While it was about a death from anorexia, gender was a key distinguishing element of the story and it needed to be dealt with in a balanced, careful way. The parents’ views on the gender issues and their belief that gender was a symptom and not a cause of Alex’s tragedy were a significant feature of the narrative.
69. The Council noted that RNZ had made significant attempts, including obtaining privacy waivers, to obtain information from those directly involved. The fact that the agencies who had been involved in Alex’s care were unwilling or unable to comment substantively means their points of view, which may well have revealed a different perspective, were not included. RNZ cannot be blamed for that.
70. However, the majority of Council members felt that RNZ should have realised there was another side to this story, particularly after the story was published, information based on Alex’s online posts emerged, as well as a flood of commentary from people within the trans community who thought the story was unbalanced and unfair. Alex’s voice was missing in the first article. While that was understandable given Alex was deceased, once the messages were in the public domain it should have become clear that there were a variety of options open to RNZ to express that voice and provide balance following its publication. Alex's messages appear to show a very different person to that shown in the article.
71. The lack of balance in the initial article could have been corrected as complaints and information came in after the initial publication. If it had, Principle (12), which states that corrections may defuse a complaint would have applied. RNZ had various options. It could have edited the existing story to include material that gave Alex a voice based on his posts. It could have included the comments of a well-qualified expert on trans issues. It could have written another new article to give the other side of the story including Alex’s messages. These messages had been set out in a well-publicised post that came out three days after publication by RNZ of its story, and the NZ Herald published a lengthy article based on them three weeks later. This was a powerful, important story that discussed intimate details of a vulnerable, private individual. When new information that provided an insight that was missing in the original story came to light, it would have been fair for RNZ to have acted on it.
72. This was a difficult and complex complaint and two Council members disagreed that the story needed further balance, or that it was unfair, and felt it was within RNZ’s editorial discretion to limit this important story to the circumstances of this particular teen’s case. They felt that the focus on the article was clearly on the parent’s story and that was enough.
73. However on balance, most Council members agreed with the complainants that RNZ should have been aware that there was another side to this story that needed to be told. RNZ did make a change to using the name Alex in the latter part of the article. It should have gone further. It should have made greater efforts to present the alternative perspective, certainly when relevant and useable information came to light within days of the publication. The Council therefore upheld this aspect of the complaint as a breach of fairness and balance under Principle (1).
The other areas of complaint
74. Some complainants suggested that RNZ should not have covered the story at all until the coroner had a chance to consider it, but the Council disagrees. There was strong public interest in the story of a young person who died in the care of a variety of agencies, so the Council considers it was important to cover it at the earliest opportunity.
75. The complainants all objected strenuously, and in some cases angrily, to the use of a female name and pronouns when expressing the parents’ point of view, saying it was disrespectful to Alex and shows an anti-trans attitude. RNZ in response said the name and pronouns it used reflected the different perspectives of those being quoted. The parents backed up their decision not to accept the teen’s change of gender identity by saying that the psychiatrist who was treating the teen opposed affirming Alex’s transgender identity. They also say that the teen had communicated a change of heart to their parents about their gender identity towards the end of their life, although the online posts revealed after the article was published would tend to support the view that Alex’s male identity was stable.
76. This is an unusual set of circumstances, where the person at the heart of the debate had died and there is disagreement over the stability of their gender identity. The Council believes on balance RNZ is entitled to make the call in this case about how to handle the name and pronouns. RNZ’s general stance is to use the name and pronouns preferred by the person, but when that person was unable to express their preference, the decision to use the pronouns those discussing the situation felt most appropriate was not unfair or unbalanced.
77. Those opposing the parents’ view of Alex’s gender identity might strongly dislike the stance the parents took on Alex’s name and gender, but one of the Media Council’s overarching principles is protection of freedom of speech, and RNZ is entitled to report their stance. Once further information came to light about the teen’s gender identity, RNZ edited the story in part, but continued to use female pronouns and the pseudonyms Vanessa and V when discussing the parents’ point of view. The Council understands the wish of the complainants that RNZ should have gone further in editing the pronouns and names used, but considering the complexity of the situation and the different views of the various participants a majority of the Council did not think this amounted to a breach of any principles.
78. Several complainants said the article breached Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity which states: “Issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability are legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest and publications may report and express opinions in these areas. Publications should not, however, place gratuitous emphasis on any such category in their reporting.”
79. As stated before, this story was in the public interest, which allows reporting and expressions of opinion on matters of gender. However, the Council needed to consider whether the emphasis on the teen’s transgender identity was gratuitous. The Council thinks the inclusion of the parents’ views about the impact of Alex’s transgender identity on the teen’s treatment was relevant and therefore not gratuitous in the context of a story in which there is genuine public interest, so this aspect of the complaint is not upheld.
80. Several complainants cited Principle (2) Privacy, saying Alex’s privacy was breached. The Principle states in part: “...the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.” As previously stated, there was a strong public interest in this case, but the Council has also said previously (Ruling 3248): “Neither the Privacy Act nor the Media Council principles recognise any privacy rights pertaining to people who are no longer living.” Principle (2) was not breached.
81. The Council agrees with RNZ that Principle (9) Subterfuge is not relevant. This relates to obtaining news through dishonest means or misrepresentation and that does not apply here. On Principle (3) Children and Young People, the Council believes that there was an exceptional degree of public interest as required by the Principle. The complaint under Principle (4) was not upheld as there was a clear distinction between comment and fact. Principle (5) does not apply as this was a news story, not an opinion piece. The complaint under Principle (6) is not upheld as the headline accurately reflected the substance of the story.
Conclusion
82. These were difficult complaints. A minority of members (two) do not uphold the complaint. As stated they consider that the article was plainly presenting the parents’ views, and that a correction was not necessary given that reporting within the article of the responses of the agencies who had dealt with Alex.
83. The majority of Council members uphold this complaint under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. Reporting the death of a teen under the care of a variety of agencies and the concerns of the teen’s parents was clearly in the public interest. The Council believes RNZ should have been aware that there was a wider agenda at play and another side of the story that needed to be told, particularly when further information emerged after the publication of the first story. They could have provided a balancing alternative perspective in a number of ways, in the original story or subsequently.
84. The complaint is upheld for lack of balance and fairness. The complaint is not upheld on any other grounds.
85. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; it is not upheld under Principle (2) Privacy, Principle (3) Children and Young People, Principle (4) Comment and Fact, Principle (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinions and Letters, Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, Principle (9) Subterfuge, Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. Principle (12) Corrections was relevant.Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Guy MacGibbon, Marie Shroff, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Scott Inglis, Richard Pamatatau, Judi Jones
Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.
Ben France-Hudson declared a conflict of interest and left the room.