Simon Clarke against The Press
Case Number: 3756
Council Meeting: 21 July 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: The Press
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Conflicts of Interest
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Conflict of Interest
Other
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On May 6, 2025, The Press published an article titled School leaders welcome official probe into school lunch programme. Simon Clarke complains the article breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
2. The article is about the Auditor-General announcing an inquiry into the Government’s school lunches programme. It outlines some of the issues the programme has faced since being introduced this year, including claims of meals “contaminated with plastic”, an “explosive” cottage pie that burnt a student and “halal friendly” meals that contained ham.
3. The article says the inquiry has been welcomed by school leaders after “months of complaints from teachers across the country”.
4. The article contains comment from two principals, the Auditor-General, Health Coalition Aotearoa (HCA), the opposition Labour Party and The Office of Early Childhood Education. When the story first published there was no comment included from Associate Education Minister David Seymour, who is responsible for the programme. The story was updated the next day to include comments he made to another media outlet.
The Complaint
5. Simon Clarke, David Seymour’s Director of Communications, complained the article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance because no effort was made to contact the Minister’s office for comment during the formation of the story, despite the article containing direct criticism of him. He said because the article was already printed and had been online for at least 12 hours before any attempt was made to include comment, the opportunity for balance was rendered moot. He said the reporter instead sought comment only from known detractors of the programme and failed to approach other relevant stakeholders, such as the School Lunch Collective.
6. Mr Clarke complained the article also contained a significant undeclared conflict of interest relating to the reporter’s previous role. He said the journalist assigned to the story served as Director of Communications for Health Coalition Aotearoa (HCA), confirmed in correspondence with The Press’ editor. Mr Clarke said HCA has been an outspoken critic of the school lunch programme and the reporter had overseen communications campaigns against it.
7. Mr Clarke said the reporter approached HCA for comment in the story, which was included with no indication of the professional relationship between the two. He claims this falls short of ethical obligations to disclose information that may call into question the impartiality of the reporting. Mr Clarke said the lack of transparency, specifically no disclaimer acknowledging the reporter’s recent involvement with advocacy opposing the programme, leaves readers uninformed of facts that could influence their interpretation of the reporting.
The Response
8. The Press editor Kamala Hayman admitted there was a “failure” to include comment from Mr Seymour but said that was due to human error and was rectified over the following two days, across two stories. She said the story was treated as a significant breaking news event with multiple news directors, reporters and visual journalists contributing content for an article that was constantly being updated. She said in the confusion, no one from The Press was specifically assigned to call Mr Seymour’s office.
9. Ms Hayman said as soon as the error was brought to her attention the following morning on May 7, comments from Mr Seymour were added to the online file, soon after 9am. She said a second story on school lunches was published the next day, May 8, with Mr Seymour’s comments included. She said the Minister’s comments were given considerable prominence in the online version’s headline of that story: David Seymour on school lunch inquiry: ‘I’d be happy to organise some taste tests’.
10. Ms Hayman said despite the initial oversight, caused by human error rather than deliberate action, The Press took swift and appropriate action to rectify it. She said balance was achieved over two days, in the two articles about school lunches.
11. On the allegation of an undeclared conflict of interest, Ms Hayman strongly denied the reporter’s recent employment in any way influenced the story - either its origins, its scope, or its angle. She confirmed the reporter was employed by HCA for 20 months before joining The Press in March 2025, two months prior to the article being published.
12. Ms Hayman said the reporter’s contribution to the story was limited and she never once edited the file. She, alongside another reporter, provided quotes and comment from interested parties with news directors handling the article itself. Ms Hayman said HCA was contacted for comment only after discussion with the news desk and to suggest the organisation was quoted because the journalist once worked there ignores the processes involved in story production. She said to call for a disclaimer on the story is absurd.
13. Ms Hayman said the quote from HCA appeared near the bottom of the story and made up just 98 words of an 1100-word story. She said the organisation is frequently quoted by other journalists in other newsrooms for stories about free school lunches. She said there is no evidence the organisation was given undue prominence in this article, nor is there any evidence the reporter’s previous relationship with the organisation led to bias in the story.
14. Ms Hayman said it is entirely appropriate to declare conflicts of interest in opinion writing, when the author’s views are being presented. She said including a disclaimer naming a journalist’s previous employer in a news article however would be unprecedented and entirely inappropriate. She said many journalists come to the profession after careers elsewhere and they’re professionals who can put their personal beliefs and biases to one side when they report the news.
The Discussion
Conflict of Interest – Principle (10) – Majority View
15. The part of Principle (10) that is relevant in this matter is: "Where an author’s link to a subject is deemed to be justified, the relationship of author to subject should be declared."
16. In this case, the reporter’s link existed through her recent employment with Health Coalition Aotearoa. Given that the organisation had advocated against the new programme, the connection should have been declared at the end of the article. The principle does not exclude news stories.
17. It was unwise of The Press to allow a journalist to contact a former employer, where they held a leadership role and had worked there just two months before the article was published, and quote that organisation when it took such a strong stance on such a controversial issue.
18. A majority of members believe this is a clear-cut matter of transparency, trust and perception, and it is magnified at a time when trust in the media is in the spotlight.
19. The problem is exacerbated in that the reporter's byline is the only one on the story, even though others worked on it, and then Mr Seymour's office was not contacted for comment.
Balance and Fairness – Principle (1) – Majority View
20. The failure to contact Mr Seymour for comment creates a balance and fairness issue.
21. The relevant parts of Principle (1) are: "Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance", and "In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view. Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report."
22. The principle makes clear that an exemption may apply. It is not designed to provide absolute protection for publishers.
23. The school lunches programme is a long-standing issue. If this article had been confined to the auditor-general component and contained some simple background, there would have been no breach.
24. However, it was unbalanced and blatantly unfair to publish an article of 1100 words and five critical sources and not include even a responding comment from Mr Seymour's office.
25. Adding three lines of comment from Mr Seymour from another media organisation the next day falls short and does not neutralise the breach.
Conclusion – Majority
26. While each individual breach of principle on its own could be marginal in terms of an uphold, the combination of the two is what together warrants a clear uphold.
27. The complaint should be upheld under Principle (1) in that the story was unbalanced and unfair, and Principle (10) in that the journalist's conflict should have been declared, rather than being upheld under the Media Council's general preamble.
Minority View – No Individual Breaches of Principles, But a Breach of the Preamble
28. The Press itself admits it failed to seek comment from David Seymour and made an error in not doing so. The Minister’s office should have been contacted for comment as the person responsible for the Government’s school lunches programme. The Press did add comment from the Minister the following day, albeit from quotes he made to another media organisation, not in a direct statement to The Press. It also published a follow-up article two days after the initial story was published, angled on Mr Seymour’s response. While the situation could have been corrected more quickly, balance was added to the initial article with the inclusion of the Minister’s quotes and strengthened further through the publication of the second article. Media Council Principle (1) also says exceptions can be made for long-running issues, and the school lunch programme would fit into that category. The rollout of the scheme has attracted extensive media coverage with Mr Seymour’s views well publicised throughout. This article was a development in the ongoing story, namely the Auditor-General becoming involved. Balance has certainly been achieved over time. The minority would not uphold the complaint under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
29. The more complicated consideration is around Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. The article carries the byline of a reporter who very recently worked in a senior position for an organisation that openly opposes Government changes to the school lunch programme. The organisation, HCA, was quoted in the article.
30. The Press argues the reporter’s involvement in the story was limited to ringing around interested parties and sending quotes through to news directors. It said she did not write the story and never once touched the file. It said the quote included from HCA was brief and towards the bottom of the article, not prominently placed. Editor Kamala Hayman said journalists are professionals who can put their personal beliefs and biases to one side when reporting the news.
31. Complainant Simon Clarke said it’s not about the quantity of HCA quotes or their placement in the article. He argued the journalist had a recent leadership role for an advocacy organisation campaigning on the issue, ran communications campaigns on the issue, and reported their recent employer’s comments without disclosure to the reader. He pointed out there was only one byline on the article: the reporter’s. Mr Clarke said he wouldn’t expect a journalist’s work history to be declared on every news story they contribute to, but felt this was a specific case where there is a direct link that constitutes a conflict.
32. The Press claims the reporter contributed information and comment for the story but did not write it. Yet it carried her byline. To the average reader she would appear to be the author, regardless of internal processes taken to publish the story.
33. The minority concluded that there was no breach of Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. This Principle states:
To fulfil their proper watchdog role, publications must be independent and free of obligations to their news sources. They should avoid any situations that might compromise such independence. Where a story is enabled by sponsorship, gift or financial inducement, that sponsorship, gift or financial inducement should be declared. Where an author’s link to a subject is deemed to be justified, the relationship of author to subject should be declared.
Although the journalist concerned had previously worked for one of the organisations quoted in the article, the minority did not consider this link was so close that the relationship should have been declared, or that similar relationships must always be disclosed. Many reporters might find themselves in a similar position and there will not always be conflict that should be declared. Moreover, HCA was an obvious organisation to seek comment from given its prominent criticism of the school lunch programme and the quotes included are what would be expected in such an article. HCA’s comments could have been obtained by any journalist working for The Press. There is no evidence of bias or special treatment in their inclusion, and although the final article is distinctly unbalanced, only quoting detractors of the school lunch programme and failing to include comment from the Minister responsible, as mentioned previously, balance has been achieved over time.
34. Nonetheless, although the minority has concluded there was no breach of Principle (1) or (10), it considers something went badly wrong in the process followed to pull this story together. As the Editor of The Press acknowledges there was a great deal of ‘confusion’. The Preamble to the Media Council Principles states, among other things, that the Council is concerned with maintaining the press in accordance with the highest professional standards. Moreover, editors have the ultimate responsibility for what appears in their publications, and for adherence to the standards of ethical journalism which the Media Council upholds. This extends to editors maintaining high professional standards in the commissioning and publishing of news content. In this context, editors should be trusted to handle potential conflicts within their own newsrooms and to decide when a journalist should be involved in a story. It was unwise for The Press’s news directors to ask a journalist who very recently worked for HCA to contact the organisation for comment. Presumably someone else could have been asked. Moreover, it is unclear why, given the apparently minor role the journalist had in the preparation of the story it carried her byline. Although balance was achieved over time it could easily have been achieved from the outset.
35. Overall, in this case, although not prepared to uphold on the basis of breach of specific principles, a minority felt that professional standards were not met. As a result, the minority would have taken the rare step of upholding this complaint under the Media Council Preamble and the requirement to uphold the highest professional standards. At a time when the media industry is grappling with declining trust and confidence, it is crucial media companies are professional in their news gathering processes, and careful in their preparation of news reports.
Decision: The complaints under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest are upheld by the majority. The minority also upholds the complaint, but under the Preamble to the Media Council’s Principles.
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.
The majority consisted of the following members: Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Katrina Bennett, Scott Inglis, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Reina Vaai.
The minority consisted of the following members: Ben France-Hudson, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Hank Schouten.
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.