Rocket Lab against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3763
Council Meeting: 21 July 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Overview
1. On 20 May 2025 Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published an article on its website headed, Rocket Lab-launched satellites to help Ukraine in war against Russia. Rocket Lab Ltd complain that inaccuracies in the article breach Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
2. RNZ reported that Rocket Lab has put into space a group of satellites that will provide military intelligence to Japanese company iQPS, who in turn will aid Ukraine in the war with Russia. The article links to the Kyiv Independent, quoting that “it has been widely reported Japan has agreed to provide Ukraine’s military intelligence agency.” It quotes Rocket Lab founder, Sir Peter Beck saying, “Another fantastic launch by the Electron team to flawlessly deliver another iQPS mission to orbit,” taken from the Rocket Lab website.
3. There is wider discussion about synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery and its uses, particularly linking it to use in the Ukraine-Russian war.
4. Following a complaint from Rocket Lab to RNZ the article was retracted on 22 May 2025.
The Complaint
5. Rocket Lab complains of inaccuracy in the article saying that the statement “that iQPS satellites, launched by Rocket Lab would be used for the purpose of assisting the Ukraine war effort” is false.
6. RNZ relied solely on one source for its information and did not contact Rocket Lab, the New Zealand Space Agency, or iQPS, for comment or verification prior to publication. This created the misleading impression that Rocket Lab was involved in supplying military capabilities to Ukraine. iQPS publicly refuted the claim on 25 April 2025, stating it had not provided any data to overseas entities. RNZ did not pick up on this statement.
7. Rocket Lab rejects the implication in the article that there is a link between its launch of iQPS satellites and military strikes in the Ukraine war. They state that the suggestion it is directly involved in providing military capabilities to the conflict is a serious allegation with potentially significant reputational and commercial consequences.
8. In their initial complaint to RNZ, Rocket Lab requested a retraction of the article. Failing this they requested a correction and a published apology.
9. Rocket Lab says in their formal complaint to the Media Council that RNZ’s retraction of the article on 22 May is an admission of a breach of Principle (1) and therefore grounds for the Council to rule in Rocket Lab’s favour.
10. In their final comments Rocket Lab says that they had to intervene with RNZ’s share-partner, NewstalkZB, to retract the article, stating that RNZ’s notification to its content-sharing partners was ineffectual and that the article was only retracted from NewstalkZB’s website after Rocket Lab’s request, eight days after its initial publication.
11. Rocket Lab has provided a screenshot of the initial take down notice published on RNZ’s website on 22 May, showing that there was no apology to them from RNZ. They say that an apology was added after they made a further request of RNZ. Rocket Lab does not believe that their concerns have been resolved and that any mitigations by RNZ were reactive measures rather than proactive acts of accountability.
The Response
12. RNZ does not dispute Rocket Lab’s complaint regarding inaccuracies in the article. On receiving the complaint at 10:46 a.m. on 22 May, RNZ removed the article from its website by 3:10 p.m. the same day. RNZ advised their content-sharing partners so that they could also remove the article if they had published it. They apologised to Rocket Lab and have reviewed their processes to reduce the risk of this happening again.
13. Based on those actions RNZ believes that this complaint should be considered against Principle (12) Corrections. They say that they dealt with the error promptly and appropriately and that the complaint has been resolved.
The Discussion
14. The Media Council operates on the principle that complaints should first be directed to the publisher, allowing the editor an opportunity to address the issue promptly. In this case, a complaint was made directly to RNZ on 22 May 2025, raising concerns about inaccuracy and imbalance in the article. The Council’s consideration is whether there was a breach of Principle (1), and whether the publisher’s response at the initial stage was sufficient to remedy the error.
15. RNZ accepts that the article was inaccurate in claiming Rocket Lab supported Ukraine’s war effort. This was a serious error, stemming from RNZ’s failure to seek comment from either Rocket Lab or iQPS – the companies at the heart of the story. The potential impact for Rocket Lab was significant for their business and their reputation.
16. RNZ did acknowledge fault immediately and quickly retracted the article less than five hours after receiving the complaint from Rocket Lab. The Council recognises that to take down an article is a rare action and signals a clear admission of fault. However, that original take down notice did not contain an admission of inaccuracy or an apology. It only noted that the story had been retracted "after receiving additional information". It was sometime later that RNZ added the acknowledgement that the story "was incorrect" and an apology to the original ‘take-down’ notice on their website, prompted by what Rocket Lab says was repeated requests, and notified their share-partners (including NewstalkZB) of the fault. Regrettably it took eight days and a request from Rocket Lab before the article was removed from the NewstalkZB website.
17. This article fell short of the standard required for accurate and balanced journalism. There is no question that the article breached Principle (1) on the grounds of the error and failure to do even the most rudimentary checking. RNZ acted swiftly to remove the article, though were slow in issuing an apology. Sometimes the Council will find that speedy correction of an error is sufficient to remedy an error and will not find a breach of Principle (1). However, in this case the Council finds that despite RNZ’s relatively swift action, there was no immediate acknowledgment of error in the original take down notice or apology, and that only happened after further prompting. The seriousness of the error means that the article still warranted being found to be in breach of Principle (1).
Decision: The complaint is upheld on Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
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.
Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.