Rachel Brown against Stuff (4)

Stuff published an article on June 4, 2025, headlined PMs press secretary ‘recorded sex workers without consent’.

The article reported that the Prime Minister’s deputy chief press secretary Michael Forbes allegedly recorded audio of multiple sessions with Wellington sex workers and amassed a gallery of women working out at a gym or shopping, and videos shot through a window at night of women getting ready to go out.

The article included comment from sex workers and a senior police officer who said the case was filed after an investigation as it did not meet the threshold for prosecution. Stuff’s inquiries on this story prompted Mr Forbes to resign.

Rachel Brown complained the reporter withheld vital information regarding the recordings which put the story in a different perspective. The impression she got from the June 4 story was that Mr Forbes entered or trespassed onto a property at night and sneaked around the property to then film the women by pointing his phone camera through a window.

However, the police issued a statement the following day which said in part: “On examining the phones, police also found a number of photos and video of women in public spaces, and what appears to be women in private addresses, taken from a distance away.”

Ms Brown questioned why this quote was not reported in the first story as the reporter and the sex worker clearly must have known but did not disclose this important fact in the context as to why Mr Forbes wasn't charged.

She said it did not report where Mr Forbes had taken the video from or whether it was from another building, the road or a park.

In response Stuff said the fact that the videos were filmed from a distance away was not disclosed by police when they were first approached for comment. This information was only available in a more detailed police statement the following day.

“Stuff's reporting on June 4 was fair and balanced, and accurately reflected information available at the time. Had the line you've highlighted been provided to us as part of the police's statement on June 4, it would have been included in our initial reporting, as it has been in subsequent reporting."

“It should also be noted that, regardless of where the video was filmed from, it was an invasion of the women's privacy, in a place where they could reasonably have expected to not be filmed without consent. If Stuff was to receive verified, on the record information about Mr Forbes' location when he filmed the video, we would be happy to include this in future reporting.”

Ms Brown challenged Stuff’s response. She questioned whether the women had a reasonable expectation of privacy if they could be seen through open curtains from a public location.

She did not believe that sex workers had not told the reporter that the footage recorded through a window was shot from a distance. In her view the reporter would have been aware of this and had withheld the information in the June 4 story.

The Media Council notes in the police statement that the videos were filmed from a distance was only made the day after the story was first reported.

Even then the statement was limited. It was not clear whether Mr Forbes videoed from a public place or another building, what distance was involved, whether the footage was magnified in some way, or whether the women would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The footage was not published, and the Council has no further information that might shed light on these matters. It has not seen any evidence to show the reporting was inaccurate or misleading.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.