Source: Radio New Zealand
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The Media Council has found that four complaints against RNZ did not have sufficient grounds to proceed.
In the first, the chief executive of United Flower Growers, Pete Brown, complained about the article Auckland florists say industry ‘in shambles’, plagued by resentment, published on September 15, 2025. The story reported florists facing difficulties relating to the state of the economy and a raft of changes made by their key supplier, United Flower Growers.
The article was based on comment from five florists, and included responses from Brown on behalf of UFG.
The Council noted that a feature of this complaint was Brown’s concern about RNZ’s decision to grant anonymity to the florists. He challenged that on the basis that two florists spoken to by RNZ had told him they were prepared to be named. This was disputed by RNZ.
The Council said it was in no position to consider this issue as it had no information to establish with any certainty what the florists and reporter agreed to. “Besides, the granting of anonymity in these circumstances is a matter of editorial discretion. That is appropriate and not a matter for second guessing by the Media Council.”
Beyond that the Council was not convinced there was sufficient foundation for complaint about this article. The complainant cited Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance but there was no evidence that the article was inaccurate. As for fairness and balance, Brown was given the opportunity to respond and key points made by him were reported, albeit at the tail of the article.
“This sort of investigative reporting is supported by the Council,” the judgment said.
***
In the second case, Martin Broadbent complained about a series of articles published between November 17 to November 22, 2025, on the problems caused by feral cats and the decision to allow them to be targeted as predators.
Broadbent complained that RNZ’s reporting on feral cats and Predator Free 2050 blurred the legal distinction between feral and stray cats, thereby misleading the public and undermining animal welfare protections under the law.
RNZ firmly rejected the suggestion that it was blurring the categories. The term feral was widely used and was included in Predator Free 2050’s list of species. It argued the first story in the series clearly explained the difference between companion, feral and stray cats.
The Council agreed the first article spelt out precisely how feral and stray cats were defined and two other stories in the series also defined the word feral to make it clear they are not referring to strays. On that basis it saw nothing to support a claim that this was of “an orchestrated blurring of categories that misleads the public into believing all unowned cats are “feral” and subject to lethal control.”
The Council ruled there was nothing to show the reporting breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
***
In the third case, RNZ published an article on November 23, 2025, titled Israeli airstrikes kill at least 20 people in Gaza, local medics say. This was a Reuters news agency report and was based on information provided by medics and witnesses to the airstrikes. It also included comment from the Israeli military and Hamas, who accused each other of violating a truce which was agreed to six weeks earlier.
Eric Mattlin complained that the story breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (4) Comment and Fact; and (7) Discrimination and Diversity. He argued: “The article demonstrates a pattern of asymmetrical attribution with uncritical adoption of Israeli military claims, and a lack of context that affected how readers understood the events being reported. This article concerns an ongoing and highly controversial international conflict involving profound power asymmetries. While balance does not require false equivalence, it does require that significant perspectives and relevant context be included.”
In response, RNZ rejected the complaint and sent Mr Mattlin its language guide to the Middle East Conflict, which explained why it used such terms as ‘militant’ and ‘hostage-prisoner’. It added that RNZ had broadcast and published hundreds of pieces over the past two years, providing a wide range of views and the historical context behind the conflict.
The Council noted that RNZ and all other major New Zealand news outlets rely on international news agencies for most of their world news. Agencies like Reuters report for a wide and diverse international audience which requires coverage to be even handed.
The Council considered this story to be a fairly typical news report from Gaza. In accordance with standard journalistic practice it identified where information was obtained, and comment about the alleged ceasefire breaches was attributed to the Israeli military and Hamas. It also provided brief background on how the Gaza war started two years earlier.
Dealing with the complaint about terminology, the Council refered back to its decision on Mr Mattlin’s earlier complaint (No.3725) which stated: “The Council notes RNZ and other New Zealand media outlets are reliant on overseas news agencies for their coverage of the conflict, and it would be risky or possibly even a breach of RNZ’s agreement with those agencies to change the terminology used.”
The Council noted the story cited in this latest complaint was one of many that have been published on the Gaza War. “This is a long and complex story which has been reported extensively, and it is impractical to expect every report to cover all the context and background. It is clear that balance has been provided over time.”
The Council saw no evidence of bias or that the coverage and terminology was unfair or asymmetrical.
***
In the fourth case, Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published an article on December 22, 2025, Winston Peters makes u-turn on Chorus debt sell-off. The story was about the NZ First leader Winston Peters reversing his previous opposition to the Chorus debt sell-off, which in turn would clear the way for the Government to proceed with a plan to sell about $650m in interest-free loans that Chorus owes the government.
Hector O’Brien complained that the comment – “The Government does not have an (equity) stake in Chorus” – was factually incorrect as the Government-owned holding company National Infrastructure Funding and Finance Ltd had around 61.6 percent of shares in Chorus.
RNZ said the article was correct. The Government did not have an equity stake in this privately owned company. However, it was owed debt by Chorus, more specifically Ultra-Fast Broadband securities. It said the word “stake” had been used in a previous report, but this was updated in this story to make it clear that the Government had no equity or ownership in Chorus.
The Council noted that the line was taken directly from the December 17 press statement in which Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop said: “It is important to note the government does not have an equity stake in Chorus and the securities involved are not ordinary shares.”
It further noted that NIFFCO is not listed as a major Chorus shareholder. Rather, it is shown through official documents and ministerial statements that the company was used to provide Government loan finance to Chorus.
In the circumstances no inaccuracy was shown, nor any unfairness.
All judgments can be found here: Media Council – Search
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
