Wendy Baker against the Southland Times, Otago Daily Times, RNZ and Stuff

A Local Democracy Reporting article which was published across multiple publishers on August 1, 2025. It ran on Stuff under the headline: Southland mayoral candidate berates CEO at meeting. RNZ’s article was headlined: Southland mayoral candidate berates CEO, brags about sporting accomplishments at meeting.

The story was about comments made at a Southland District Council meeting by mayoral candidate Wendy Baker.  She read out a letter she had received from the Minister of Sports and Recreation about her sporting accomplishments and then went on to contrast this letter of praise with an upsetting letter she received from the council’s chief executive.

She did not detail the contents of the letter, and the chief executive also did not elucidate, saying it was a matter between the council and Ms Baker. The article also reported her complaint about the council’s lack of dog control; how little she got for the rates she paid and how she finished the last of six mayoral candidates when she stood at the 2022 elections.

A four-year-old photo of Ms Baker, previously published by the Otago Daily Times, was used to illustrate the story.

Ms Baker complained the publications had breached Media Council principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance (2) Privacy (4) Comment and Fact (6) Headlines and Captions (7) Discrimination and Diversity, and (11) Photographs and Graphics.

She said the “articles with bullying headlines towards my beloved sport, and using a sensitive irrelevant old photo of me, has caused me much grief. It was cruel of these online media channels to bully me. “

She said the old photo was very sensitive. It was taken four years after her war history artwork was vandalised. The photo showed her wearing her grandfather’s war medal and it also included a picture of the artwork.

It was “Absolutely insensitive of you to include this photo and it was also unfair of you to use the word berate, when I was nearly in tears at this meeting because of what had happen prior to my election campaign. Why do you feel the need to berate me with an unkind article. It takes a lot of guts to stand as a Council candidate and I paid $200, not to get bullied by uncaring people.”

She also complained that the Southland Times had gone behind her back when it asked the Southland District Council for a copy of a letter from its chief executive that she had mentioned at the meeting.

In its response RNZ referred to the Media Council’s Principle that “headlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover”.

“It is true that, though you were invited to speak on the council's dog control policy and bylaw review, you chose to speak of your sporting accomplishments. The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘to brag’ as ‘to speak with pride, often with too much pride, about something you have done or something you possess’. Given that your sporting background was not relevant to the issue before the council, it is not unreasonable to consider this ‘bragging’.

“Your speech was described by the reporter as ‘fiery’. As part of this you spoke of a letter to you from the Chief Executive Officer of the Council, again an issue that was not relevant to the one being considered by the meeting. The same dictionary defines ‘to berate’ as ‘to criticize someone in an angry manner’. That does not seem an unreasonable description of your speech.

“In terms of the photograph accompanying the story, it is an image supplied to RNZ. It is common for media to re-use photograph to illustrate news stories, even though they may be different to the original subject matter.”

In its response the Otago Daily Times said it was the source of the 2021 photo but had not used it with this story. It also advised that a note would be added to the photo to ensure it was not used in future as a “mug shot”.

The ODT said it did not use the term “brag” in the headline but stood by the headline and story.

“I have reviewed your submission to the SLDC via its on-line recording of the meeting. I believe that the footage, as well as the supporting quotes in the article, support the use of the word "berate''. You are clearly criticising the CEO for sending you a letter which upset you and scolding the council for ignoring your volunteer work. We stand by the use of the word "berate'' in the headline.

“Again, having watched the film of your presentation, I feel the journalist's article is a fair, balanced and accurate account of what happened at the meeting. Not do I feel there has been any attempt to humiliate or discredit you in any way.”

Stuff did not respond to the complaint, having left it to RNZ which has responsibility for the Local Democracy Team reporter who wrote the story.

The Southland Times defended its request for the district council to supply it with a copy of the letter sent to Ms Baker.

“As you will appreciate, when an individual seeks public office — particularly a position such as mayor — they assume a role that is subject to heightened public scrutiny.

“In this case, your public statement about receiving correspondence from the chief executive, and your characterisation of that correspondence as “bullying” places the matter squarely in the public domain. Given that, and the fact that, if elected, you would hold a position of authority over the chief executive, there is a legitimate public interest in understanding the context and content of the letter.

“We have requested the letter from the council to provide our audience with an accurate, balanced, and verifiable account of the matter. While the council has declined to release it on the grounds of privacy, we remain of the view that the public interest test — particularly in the context of an electoral process — is engaged here.

“Our role is to ensure transparency and accountability in reporting on candidates for public office. This includes seeking to verify claims, clarify context, and ensure our reporting is grounded in fact rather than assertion.”

The Media Council does not believe Ms Baker has provided evidence to show how the story, the headline or the re-use of her portrait photo breached any of the journalistic Principles cited in this complaint.

The Council was not persuaded that the story was unfair, inaccurate or unbalanced. The words used in the headline were justifiable and the use of the photo was not inappropriate. It is common practice for most news media to use file photos as this one was.

The Council also did not believe it was a breach of privacy for the reporter to ask the council for a copy of the letter it sent to Ms Baker. She was the first to mention the letter at a public meeting. This made its contents a matter of public interest, particularly as she is a mayoral candidate and cited the letter to criticise the council’s chief executive.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.