OMSA rules in favour of blogger

The Online Media Standards Authority has just delivered its first ruling on a complaint against a blog () that is a member and has not upheld the complaint.

The complaint was about this story on Whale Oil, regarding the New Zealand Network Charity.

The finding of the Complaints Panel was:

The Content subject to complaint appeared on the Whale Oil Beef Hooked website and was titled “Special Investigation: Charity Begins at Home.” It focused on the registered charity, The New Zealand Network Charity, and included a sound recording of a conversation between the Complainant, founder and Editor Cameron Slater.

The Complainant raised concerns about the accuracy of the article and the content of the recording and said the Publisher was rude and disrespectful and it was irresponsible “to not have ensured the things he was accusing me [of] were correct, founded and evidenced”.

The Complaints Committee found the information presented was an accurate reflection of the recording and included links to other sources. The Complaints Committee accepted the Publisher had made reasonable efforts to ensure that news and current affairs content was accurate and did not mislead in relation to all material points of fact.

The Committee noted the Complainant had approached the Publisher to promote her charity and it considered the recorded discussion was robust questioning from a journalistic standpoint. The Committee concluded that taking into account the context and public interest in the subject, the Publisher had dealt with the Complainant fairly. It noted recording interviews was common and acceptable practice in the media industry.

Taking into account the article was not presented in a way that it would cause panic, unwarranted alarm or undue stress, the Committee ruled the article observed the requirements of Standard 5 Responsible Content and was not in breach of Standards 1, 3 and 5 or Guideline 3(a) of the OMSA Code of Standards and ruled the complaint was Not Upheld.

I doubt even the harshest critic of Cameron will find fault with this ruling, if they read his story and the full decision. I think he raised very legitimate concerns over the charity.

Comments (10)

Login to comment or vote