Tharaya Poorisat against BusinessDesk

BusinessDesk published an article on March 16, 2026, titled Graeme Clegg to sell New Image Group – sources.

The story led with rumours that Mr Clegg had signed a deal to sell New Image Group. It also detailed some of Mr Clegg’s history and involvement with the multi-level marketing business he founded in the 1980s. It also reported that Mr Clegg was detained in Vietnam over a disputed arbitration order.

Tharaya Poorisat, who works with Mr Clegg in the New Image Group complained the story breached a number of Media Council Principles.

“The article relies heavily on anonymous sources without sufficient verifiable detail, does not provide a direct opportunity for response from the principal subject prior to publication, and fails to clearly distinguish between unverified claims and factual reporting. As a result, it presents a risk of misleading readers by omission and lacks the required balance.

“Following publication, I formally requested that the article be reviewed and removed due to concerns regarding its accuracy.

“However, this request was declined, and no correction, clarification, or right of reply has been offered. As of today, the article remains publicly available.

“In addition, the issue has been further publicised by the journalist, Riley Kennedy, on LinkedIn, which extends the reach and potential impact of the reporting.

“While I acknowledge the protection of confidential sources, the lack of verifiable detail raises concerns as to whether reasonable steps were taken to ensure the reliability of those sources.

“For these reasons, I believe the publication may have breached the Media Council’s Principles of Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; Comment and Fact, and Corrections, and I respectfully request an independent review.”

Tharaya Poorisat added that the situation escalated significantly after the complaint was first lodged with the Media Council. The article had since circulated internationally, generating widespread speculation and reputational harm beyond New Zealand.

The absence of correction or right of reply compounded the impact with the reputational and commercial consequences now affecting international stakeholders.

In response BusinessDesk said it stood by its story which was based on multiple sources. It had since been corroborated, and the article would not be taken down.

The journalist said that prior to publishing the story he had repeatedly called, texted and emailed a person who had been a contact for the company on previous occasions. At no point was he advised the person was no longer a contact with the company.

The Media Council notes that the complainant did not say how the story was inaccurate. Essentially there was no case to consider without that.

The Council also noted that prior to publication BusinessDesk attempted to get comment from the company by contacting a person who had previously been a point of contact. This appeared to be a fair attempt to give the company a chance to comment before the story was published.

Even after it was published, the complainant provided no evidence to BusinessDesk to show how the article was inaccurate, offer a rebuttal or explain why there was good reason for the story to be taken down.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.