Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
A Media Council ruling has upheld complaints against RNZ over a February 2025 article Hamilton's run of hot days shattered previous record. The complaints, lodged separately by Catriona Atkinson and Ian Wishart, alleged breaches of journalistic standards, including accuracy, fairness, corrections and misleading headlines. While the complaints about the story were not upheld, the Council agreed the headline breached Principle (6) on Headlines and Captions.
The article quoted climate scientist Dr Luke Harrington, who said Hamilton's recent heatwave "likely beats anything the city has experienced since temperature records began," based on data he had available going back to the early 1990s. He suggested that "if you went further back in time they would still remain the worst on record" and said such events were becoming more frequent due to climate change.
Wishart challenged the claim, citing historical data from the summer of 1934-35, which showed prolonged periods of high temperatures. The average maximum temperature in the 2025 heatwave was 28.46C and in the 1934-35 heatwave it was higher, at 30.28C, he said. He argued that RNZ failed to adequately investigate this historical data, misleading readers into believing the 2025 heatwave was unprecedented.
Dr Harrington responded that comparing historical and modern temperature data was difficult due to differences in measurement locations and methods. He agreed the 2025 event was not "record-shattering" and suggested changing the headline. He reiterated that the broader message-that climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather remains valid.
RNZ amended the headline to say the heatwave "breaks" rather than "shattered" previous records and added historical context from 1935, including reports of extreme heat and peat fires. However, Atkinson and Wishart maintained that the additions were insufficient and failed to convey the full extent of the 1930s heatwave.
RNZ defended its reporting, stating the story's focus was on current conditions and future implications, not historical comparisons. It argued that the use of "likely" in the article acknowledged uncertainty and that the updates made were timely and appropriate.
The Media Council concluded that the article did not breach any standards, finding that RNZ was within its rights to publish the opinion of the climate scientist and the amendments made were adequate, although they could have been made more promptly. However, the headline, even after it was corrected, did not indicate the degree of uncertainty expressed by the climate scientist, but stated as fact that records had been broken and was therefore misleading. The complaint was upheld on that basis.
The full Media Council ruling can be found here: Media Council - Ian Wishart and Catriona Atkinson against Radio New Zealand.
