Robert Brassey against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3759
Council Meeting: 21 July 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle: Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories: Headlines and Captions
Overview
1. On May 17, the New Zealand Herald published an article headlined Auckland villa owners told double-glazed windows violate heritage rules.
2. Robert Brassey complained under Principle (6) Headlines and Captions. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
3. The subject of the complaint is an article about the retrofitting of aluminium-framed double- glazed windows in an old villa in Mt Eden, Auckland, in violation of heritage rules.
4. According to the article, Auckland Council ordered the owner of the villa to remove the windows, which breached special character area rules requiring owners to get council approval before making alterations to street-facing exteriors in historic neighbourhoods.
5. The owner of the house said the order was expensive and unnecessary.
6. The council said aluminium framing and joinery was different to the old wooden frames around the glass panes and detracted from the street’s character.
7. The article goes on to say double-glazing can be installed into wooden window frames on special character homes, and this method does not require resource consent.
8. The article was first published under the headline: Auckland Mt Eden villa owners told double-glazed windows violate heritage rules.
9. The article’s headline was later amended to read: Auckland Mt Eden villa owners told aluminium-framed double-glazed windows violate heritage rules.
10. The article was also posted on Facebook under the headline: INSANITY’: Auckland villa owners told double-glazed windows violate heritage rules. With further text on the post reading: “Owners installed double-glazed windows without council consent. Now they have to go”.
The Complaint
11. Mr Brassey complained the headlines do not accurately and fairly convey the substance or the key element of the article.
12. The headline is worded in such a way as to imply and lead readers to believe that double-glazed windows are not permitted under Auckland Council heritage rules, Mr Brassey said.
13. The article is structured so readers would have to spend five minutes reading to the end of the article to glean the information that it was the aluminium frames that were at issue, not the double-glazing, Mr Brassey said.
14. Mr Brassey said he believed the headline was deliberately crafted to mislead and draw readers into the article.
15. The net result is that the title of the article, and the way the article is structured, has fuelled anti-council and anti-character/heritage sentiment amongst readers, said Mr Brassey.
16. Mr Brassey said it was his view that the editing of the headline to Auckland Mt Eden villa owners told aluminium-framed double-glazed windows violate heritage rules between two and three days after publication was a tacit acceptance by the NZ Herald that it was misleading.
17. By the time the headline was updated the damage was done, Mr Brassey said.
The Response
18. The NZ Herald rejects the suggestion the original headline was crafted to mislead readers.
19. The headline, as first published, fairly reflects a key element of the story, said the NZ Herald.
20. Headlines must be read in conjunction with the stories that follow, a principle well-established by the Media Council, the NZ Herald said.
21. The change to the headline came after receiving a suggestion from one other reader, and prior to receiving the email from the complainant. The amendment to the headline gave greater context but does not mean the original headline was wrong, the NZ Herald said.
22. The homeowners in the story installed double-glazed windows at their property and believed it was ridiculous that they were ordered to remove them because of heritage rules. The headline is a fair reflection of this fact, and their opinion of the ordeal, the NZ Herald said.
23. The story, as first published, clearly pointed out that the new window frames were aluminium, as opposed to timber (as required by the heritage rules), and that the council believed this detracted from the street’s character, the NZ Herald said.
24. The NZ Herald rejected the complainant’s contention that readers would have to read to the end of the story to gather that the aluminium window frames were where the alterations fell afoul of council rules. That was explained prominently in the sixth paragraph and also referenced in photo captions in the story, said the NZ Herald.
25. This information was repeated and elaborated on further down the story, the NZ Herald said.
26. The NZ Herald also rejected the complainant’s claim that it was fuelling anti-council and anti-character/heritage sentiment. The story gives a fair and prominent voice to the council and heritage advocates who argue for the need to preserve the city’s historic homes, the NZ Herald said.
The Discussion
27. Principle (6) Headlines and Captions states: “Headlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover”.
28. Although in his initial complaint Mr Brassey had concerns about the way the story was structured, his formal complaint was only about the heading.
29. Headlines are necessarily brief and cannot contain every element of a story. They serve the dual purpose of describing the content of the story and enticing the audience to read further. An element of ambiguity is often unavoidable and is acceptable as long as it is not misleading.
30. But what it includes (double-glazing) and omits (aluminium frames) would lead a reasonable reader to infer that it was the double-glazing that was problematic. In doing so, it invites readers to draw the conclusion that heritage rules were incompatible with bringing a home up to modern, healthy standards.
31. The amended headline Auckland Mt Eden villa owners told aluminium-framed double-glazed windows violate heritage rules is fair and accurate.
32. While the double-glazing of the windowpanes is not where the home alterations fell foul, upgrading a house with double-glazed windows for warmth and modern healthy home standards is the very likely purpose of such an alteration. It is therefore reasonable that it is a component of the amended headline.
33. Mr Brassey says the headline on the article was not updated between two and three days, which is not challenged by the NZ Herald.
34. A clarification should have been added to the story explaining the headline change.
35. The Facebook headline was never amended.
36. In the Media Council’s view, the original headline was misleading and the NZ Herald’s efforts to fix it were insufficient.
Decision: The complaint is upheld unanimously under Principle (6) Headlines and Captions.
Council members considering the complaint were: Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Katrina Bennett, Guy MacGibbon, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison
Thom, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson.
Katrina Bennett and Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.