*HR against the Cambridge News
Case Number: 3798
Council Meeting: 1 December 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Cambridge News
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Children and Young People
Comment and Fact
Photographs
Privacy
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. The Cambridge News published an article on September 11, 2025, titled On the wrong path.
2. It was complained that the article breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (2) Privacy; (3) Children and Young People; (4) Comment and Fact; and (11) Photographs and Graphics. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
3. The story reported concerns that school children were riding bikes and scooters on footpaths in the town’s CBD. It ran with a photo showing three uniformed schoolboys, whose faces were pixelated, riding on the footpath near a pedestrian. It reported the issue persisted despite the construction of a new cycleway to safely guide cyclists through town.
The Complaint
4. *HR whose son was one of the schoolboys in the photo, complained the blurring of the boys’ faces was not adequate to protect their identities. The boys were well known, this was a small town, and their peers and networks could immediately recognise them. It was implied they were misbehaving when there was no proof of this as there was no designated cycleway on this road.
5. She challenged the morality of “planting photographers to capture clandestine imagery of young people going about their private business.”
6. She said the article also failed to investigate or discuss alternative safe options for these students and expressed concern that no effort was made to respond to or delete Facebook comments that the boys should be shoulder charged or have umbrellas poked into their wheels.
The Response
7. The Cambridge News believed the pixelation of the boys’ faces was sufficient although Cambridge was a small community where it was quite possible people would be able to recognise themselves.
8. The paper did not plant photographers to capture clandestine imagery as suggested. The photo was taken in a public place and “we are not obliged to seek authority to run a photograph of someone riding on a public footpath.” There was no evidence to show a breach of privacy.
9. The paper did not agree that the article was misleading or conclude that young people were not welcome. The article highlighted an issue in Cambridge. This was appropriate and had resulted in a healthy debate.
10. No evidence was presented to support the claim there was no social media moderation or violent discussions. There were 86 comments published online. This discussion analysed incidents of close calls, the availability of cycle ways in parts of Cambridge, questions about rules, warnings that someone could get seriously hurt and accounts of abuse from people riding on footpaths. One post saying, “shoulder charge fixes that” was considered flippant, rather than “violent discussion.”
The Discussion
11. The Media Council noted the article fairly reported a community concern for the safety of pedestrians. The photograph was useful as it clearly showed the potential hazard in a way that could be readily recognised by all readers. It was taken in a public place and capturing a scene that could have been witnessed by anybody else on the street at that time.
12. While the face of the leading cyclist was fully pixelated, the red helmet could be seen as well as the boy’s arms, legs and torso. It may have been best practice to use more pixelation to minimise the risk of identification although, even then, it was probably inevitable that he and the other two cyclists might have been recognised by some members of the community. Media Council Principle (3) Children and Young Persons says editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of public interest to override the interests of the child or young person.
13. However, the Council took account of the effort made to protect the boys’ identities and the context. It did not show the boys being involved in anything that was awful or traumatic. It was unlikely to result in anything to their detriment beyond some minor embarrassment as they were reminded of the need to take care and not ride on the footpath through that part of town.
14. The Media Council considered the story, and its accompanying photograph, was published in the public interest as it underlined a simple safety message. The use of this image did not breach Principles (3) or (11).
15. The Council was also not convinced there was evidence to show the article was inaccurate, unfair, or unbalanced or that it breached any of the other principles cited in this complaint.
16. The Council understood *HR’s concern about some of the social media comments that were posted under this story. While the editor may regard the most provocative comments as flippant, those who are the target of the comments may really be worried and alarmed. It is a reminder that editors need to keep an eye on what they accept on social media threads.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld.
*Name withheld to protect the complainant
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon,
Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau