ruling

Wishart v Radio New Zealand - ruling

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

Filing Year For Action

On October 10, 2024, journalist and author Ian Wishart filed a complaint against Radio New Zealand (RNZ) before the New Zealand Media Council, a self-regulatory body funded by the media industry. Wishart alleged that five RNZ news items contained factual inaccuracies and therefore breached Principles (1) (accuracy, fairness, and balance) and (6) (headlines and captions) of the Council’s code. He also claimed that RNZ’s subsequent corrections were insufficient under Principle (12) (corrections).

The disputed stories related to the heavy rainfall and flooding in Dunedin in October 2024, which RNZ described as the city’s “wettest day in a century.” Wishart argued that this statement was inaccurate, as it did not take into account data from all weather stations across Dunedin. The articles linked the extreme weather to the broader context of climate change, emphasizing the increasing frequency and severity of such events in New Zealand. Wishart suggested that the inaccuracy could distort public understanding of climate trends and undermine the integrity of climate-related reporting.

In its ruling of February 7, 2025, the Media Council dismissed the complaint. It found that the error was minor, that the consequences were not significant, and that RNZ had sufficiently corrected its reporting. The Council noted that the inaccuracy occurred during a civil defence emergency when RNZ reasonably relied on information from an official agency. Importantly, it concluded that there was no evidence of systemic bias or deliberate distortion in RNZ’s climate-related coverage.

While the case raised questions about the standards of accuracy in media reporting on extreme weather events, the Council underscored the importance of contextual accuracy and responsible sourcing during emergencies. It implicitly recognized that climate-related reporting involves complex and evolving scientific data but reaffirmed that minor statistical discrepancies do not necessarily amount to breaches of journalistic principles.