PATRICK MORGAN AGAINST THE POST

The Post ran an article on 1 April 2024, headlined ‘Disgruntled of Karori’ calls for rates revolt. It quoted a woman who was unhappy with many things the local council was doing – about what she saw as lack of transparency, financial mismanagement and flawed consultation processes. She had complained to councillors, the mayor, the Prime Minister and many others. She set out some of her complaints about the Reading Cinema deal, cycleways, town hall cost blowouts and more and said she would not pay any rates increases.

Patrick Morgan complained the article should have been labelled opinion. It failed to provide balance or support for the views presented. If it was intended as an April Fool's joke, it was not funny.

Mr Morgan added that the story lacked balance as no alternative views were presented.

The Post did not respond to Mr Morgan’s complaint when he first filed it as it did not think it was a formal complaint. But after he complained to the Media Council the Post sent a brief response saying this was not an opinion piece. It was a news article which reported a person with strong opinions. It was written in the style of a colour story talking to someone who was a prolific letter writer and complainer.

The Media Council considers this story was not an opinion piece. It was an article about someone who has strong opinions. While it included examples of issues where the woman had strong opinions, it was not an article about those matters themselves.

There was a list of issues that she was concerned about and none of her arguments were countered in this piece. On the face of it that might suggest it was not fair and balanced, but these are all matters which are widely canvassed in the paper’s coverage of council matters where all the arguments on every issue don’t have to be canvassed every time they are mentioned.

The Council can see how the editor might have mistaken Mr Morgan’s initial correspondence as a possible letter to the editor rather than a formal complaint about the story. Her decision not to run the letter was a matter of editorial discretion and was not, on its own, grounds for complaint that there was a lack of balance.

There were no grounds to proceed.