Pete Brown against Radio New Zealand

Radio New Zealand published an article on September 15, 2025, titled Auckland florists say industry ‘in shambles’, plagued by resentment.

The story reported florists facing difficulties relating to the state of the economy and a raft of changes made by their key supplier, United Flower Growers, which had switched to an on-line auction system and moved its premises further from the central city.

The article was based on comment from five florists who said they were facing rising costs, decreased business and that their industry was in a shambles and plagued with “resentment and a culture of fear”.

The article said many florists spoken to were too scared to raise their concerns with UFG, fearing if they spoke out against the company they would be blacklisted and that was why they asked to remain anonymous.

It also reported comment from UFG chief executive Pete Brown who explained there were good reasons for the changes made which he said offered a better service and fairer deal in the market. It included comment from Mr Brown explaining why the company had to move its base to South Auckland and that the online auction system was inevitable and necessary for the business to survive into the next generation.

In his complaint to the Media Council Mr Brown said the article wasn't balanced. It only reported comments from a small group of florists rather than its wider customer base of 450 buyers.

Several parts of the article were inaccurate. He said at least two of the florists spoken to by the RNZ reporter did not wish to remain anonymous.

“They wrote this to add more drama. It was not fair as it suggests we would blacklist buyers even though there is no past record or intention of doing this.”

He added that most of the points made in his email to RNZ were ignored in the article.

In response RNZ defended its decision to grant anonymity to the florists whose comments were reported in the story.

“The fact that a florist initially volunteered to go on the record is irrelevant if the final editorial decision, in mutual consultation with the source, was to protect them. The final action - the granting of anonymity - was accurate and ethically justified.

“The article clearly states the reason for anonymity: florists were “too scared to raise their concerns with UFG, fearing if they spoke out against the company they would be blacklisted, and their business put at risk”. This fear is not only stated but is a material point of the story. It illustrates the “culture of fear” being reported.

RNZ must also point out that your complaint itself proves the risk that the UFG might identify one or more of the sources and attempt to discredit them (by disclosing private credit status information). We are satisfied that this validates the reporter's decision to grant anonymity, demonstrating the commercial risk was real.

Responding to the claim the article was unbalanced, RNZ said it was structured as a clear challenge/response.

“The final section, beginning with the heading “The ‘efficient’ solution”, dedicates substantial word count to the comprehensive rebuttal from yourself.”

The Media Council notes Mr Brown also filed a complaint about this story with the Broadcasting Standards Authority which deals with broadcast complaints. The BSA ruling is still pending but it is also a matter for the Media Council because its jurisdiction extends to online content.

A feature of this complaint was Mr Brown’s concern about RNZ’s decision to grant anonymity to the florists. He challenged that on the basis that two florists spoken to by RNZ had told him they were prepared to be named. This was disputed by RNZ.

The Council was in no position to consider this issue as it had no information to establish with any certainty what the florists and reporter agreed to. Besides, the granting of anonymity in these circumstances is a matter of editorial discretion. That is appropriate and not a matter for second guessing by the Media Council.

Beyond that the Council was not convinced there was sufficient foundation for complaint about this article. The complainant cited Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance but there was no evidence that the article was inaccurate. As for fairness and balance, Mr Brown was given the opportunity to respond and key points made by him were reported, albeit at the tail of the article.  This sort of investigative reporting is supported by the Council.

Mr Brown also complained under Principle (4) Comment and Fact, Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, and Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics. However, nothing was advanced to support those complaints. The Council believed the headline fairly conveyed the substance or a key element of the article and no evidence was advanced about the use of photos in breach of the Media Council Principles.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.