Wayne Smith against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3739
Council Meeting: 3 June 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories: Accuracy
Overview
1. On 1 March 2025 the New Zealand Herald published the text of a syndicated story from Radio New Zealand (RNZ). The NZ Herald added to the RNZ article a new headline “Hyundai may again bid for Cook Strait ferries after Winston Peters meeting”; and a new sub heading with summary bullet points including the words: “The government cancelled a previous $3 billion order with Hyundai due to cost blowouts.” The original RNZ headline was “Hyundai in running to build two new Cook Strait ferries”, and the RNZ article had no summary bullet points.
The Article
2. The NZ Herald initially responded to the complainant that, as the article was syndicated from RNZ, that the complaint should be answered by RNZ. The NZ Herald subsequently agreed to consider the complaint, relating to the wording it had added to the story in the header. The Media Council considers it is obliged to consider the complaint put before it, and we consider only the new material added by the NZ Herald editing process. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
The Complaint
3. Mr Wayne Smith complained on 2 March to the NZ Herald formal complaints address about inaccuracies in the article published in the NZ Herald. The NZ Herald responded on 3 March by referring Mr Smith to the RNZ complaints address. On 26 March Mr Smith told the Media Council he had also complained to RNZ but had received no reply. RNZ says they have no record of receiving the complaint. On 8 April Mr Smith advised the Media Council that RNZ had still not responded to his complaint.
4. On 23 April the Media Council decided to proceed with the complaint against the NZ Herald without an RNZ response; subsequent communications between the NZ Herald and the Media Council resulted in the NZ Herald accepting that it authored material in the heading and agreeing to respond to the complaint. Mr Smith says that he has only seen and read the article on the NZ Herald website. He says a formal complaint to the NZ Herald as publisher therefore seems more appropriate.
5. Mr Smith’s complaint to the Media Council of 25 March is made on grounds of accuracy, fairness and balance, and comment and fact. Mr Smith says the story contained factual errors and these were repeated in the lead link (sub-heading) on the NZ Herald website. He points out that previous articles published in the NZ Herald had correctly described the facts as follows. The Hyundai contract for the ferries was a fixed price $551 million contract which could not therefore be subject to an increase let alone a cost blowout. The overall cost of the new ferries and port upgrades had increased to an estimated $3 billion, but the fixed price contract with Hyundai could not have increased. These were serious errors of fact which in Mr Smith’s view called for a complaint to the Media Council.
The Response
6. The NZ Herald has now responded to this complaint, as it has agreed it was responsible for the sub-headline material on the website which contained incorrect facts. The NZ Herald says that it is industry practice that when the re-publisher of a syndicated story receives a complaint, the agreed and widely accepted process is to direct the complainant to the original publisher. The original publisher then reviews the complaint and advises the re-publisher of any changes necessary. (A relevant previous Media Council case of 2020, setting out this practice, is at Media Council - KEVIN HACKWELL AGAINST RNZ)
7. The NZ Herald also says it made an erroneous assumption, when reviewing the story, that the bullet points at the top were written by RNZ. The NZ Herald says “Upon hearing from the Council and understanding the situation, only then did the Herald appreciate its oversight that the bullet points were written by a NZ Herald digital producer. Within an hour of learning of that oversight the NZ Herald added a correction prominently to the top of the story.”
8. The correction, added on 9 May, now appears as a header on the story, on the NZ Herald website. In respect of the later paragraph Mr Smith complains of, the NZ Herald says it is contractually unable to change or alter syndicated copy and was told by Mr Smith that he had already complained to RNZ.
9. In addition, in response to this complaint the NZ Herald has now made two changes to its editorial processes for syndicated articles. Summary bullet points will no longer be added to syndicated stories. In future, when receiving a complaint about a syndicated story, the NZ Herald will inform the original publisher.
The Discussion
10. The facts which the complainant has challenged are clearly incorrect and the correct facts are widely known and reported. The story was a strong New Zealand-based one, and the NZ Herald had previously and accurately reported the fixed price $551m contract for the ferries with Hyundai.
11. The original article conflated the ferry contract with the large increase in cost of the port upgrade work required. We agree with the complainant that the article incorrectly attributed the two elements as both having caused the blowout. The NZ Herald has unfortunately picked up and emphasized in some of the bullet points the erroneous report of a ferry cost blowout. It has failed promptly to correct the obvious errors even when they were immediately pointed out. The Media Council is not convinced that persisting with such an obvious error is justified by NZ Herald’s reliance on the argument that it could make no changes to syndicated articles; and its confusion over authorship of the bullet points. The errors spotted by the complainant were added by the NZ Herald and were its responsibility. Once these errors were conclusively established, the NZ Herald had an obligation to correct such errors by promptly publishing a correction so that the NZ Herald’s readers understood there had been a mistake.
12. The complainant cites Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and Principle (4) Comment and Fact. The Media Council considers that Principle (4) is not relevant as the article is not marked as opinion or comment and is a news article reporting on the cost blowout aspect and likely next steps in the Cook Strait ferry replacement process. The complaint is not upheld on Principle (4).
13. On Principle (1) the Media Council considers that the NZ Herald is in breach of the standards required by that Principle. Previously well-known and widely publicised facts about the fixed price contract and causes of the project cost blowout were incorrectly reported. The opportunity offered by the complaint for the NZ Herald promptly to correct them was not taken up. The correction to the header was not made until more than two months later, on 9 May. The confusion over authorship of the bullet points should not, in our view, have prevented the NZ Herald from immediately providing a correction or explanation of an obvious error in the header.
Decision: The complaint is upheld on Principle (1).
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau,
Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin
Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and left the meeting