McCully complaint upheld

Minister for Sport and Recreation Murray McCully. Photo / Paul Estcourt.

Murray McCully, Minister for Sport and Recreation, complained of a lack of accuracy, fairness and balance in a Herald on Sunday story published recently. He also said the paper had not followed New Zealand Press Council principles on corrections. The complaint, about a series of stories involving Canoe Racing NZ and two of its senior coaches, Ian Ferguson and Paul MacDonald, has been upheld.

The Press Council decision can be found here.

Background
In its October 3 edition, the Herald on Sunday reported 'Canoeing Crisis Sparcs Row'.

It reported a breakdown in the relationship between the prominent former competitive canoeists Ferguson and MacDonald and CRNZ (the body established to administer competitive canoeing). Ferguson and MacDonald claimed they were the subject of a CRNZ campaign to "oust them from their coaching positions".

The Herald on Sunday reported McCully, as Minister for Sport and Recreation, was behind this campaign.

McCully denied all the allegations levelled against him in a letter to the paper on October 5.

The Complaint
McCully claimed that the Herald on Sunday piece failed to achieve the required standards of balance, impartiality and fairness required. McCully referred particularly to: An article headlined 'Minister Singles out Ferg'; a statement that Ferguson was "in Mr McCully's sights"; a statement that "McCully felt it was unconscionable" that Ferguson was coaching his own son; a statement that "McCully would cut the team's funding" if objection was taken to Ben Fouhy being included in the New Zealand canoeing team; and a statement that McCully was trying to "cull" the old guard.

McCully said none of those statements was true. He said the statements were "expressed in a manner that was calculated to impugn the professionalism and integrity with which I discharge my ministerial duties".

He complained that nothing was put to him for comment before the story was published. McCully was also not confident the newspaper would accurately take the correcting action he believed was required.

The Response
The Herald on Sunday denied the claims in the story were calculated to cause damage to McCully's reputation.

The newspaper said the story was a significant one requiring urgent publication. It said the article was not finished until late on the day it was printed. The reporter's conversation with Ferguson, when McCully's role was discussed, occurred on the Saturday evening, precluding any approach to McCully.

Thirdly, the newspaper published a denial by CRNZ chief executive Paula Kearns that McCully had made the statements attributed to him.

The Herald on Sunday maintained the Kearns statement provided balance in the absence of any comment by the Minister.

The newspaper claimed McCully had later refused to provide his side of the story.The DecisionThe council agreed the article was not fair and balanced.

The sections of the article directed at McCully were based upon supposition and hearsay statements made by Ferguson and allegedly Kearns.

The lead headline 'Minister Singles out Ferg' clearly suggested this to be fact when it was little more than an unsubstantiated claim by Ferguson.

The council took the view that no steps were taken to corroborate Ferguson's allegations about McCully via any third party apart from an enquiry about what Kearns might have said.

On any objective view, the allegations made against McCully were serious given his position. They were sufficiently serious to require proper investigation before publication.

The council found the article unbalanced and unfair toward McCully. Kearns' denials, appearing as they did three-quarters of the way through the article, did not redress matters.

Neither the newspaper's view that publication was urgent, nor that the reporter involved had editorial responsibilities at the time, were factors justifying a departure from principles of fairness or balance.

In so far as the Herald on Sunday's reliance on McCully's failing to engage was concerned, the council noted McCully's October 5 letter to the newspaper. The council did not consider McCully was required to make any further statements beyond his bare denial. The council did not consider the newspaper's failure to report McCully's denials could be excused because McCully refused to further engage.

The council made no determination as to McCully's claim that the article was calculated to impugn his professionalism and integrity.

Subject to the immediately preceding paragraph, the complaint regarding breach of fairness and balance was upheld.