Photo: RNZ / Diego Opatowski
The New Zealand Media Council has upheld a complaint against RNZ over its online article titled "Teenager starves to death alone in emergency accommodation", published on 12 June 2025.
Seventeen complainants argued the story lacked balance and fairness, particularly in its portrayal of the deceased teen's gender identity and the role of state agencies in their care.
The article, as the title indicates, was about the tragic death of a teenager who starved to death. It focused heavily on the views of the teen's parents, who claimed that professionals failed to properly care for their child, including prioritising the child's transgender identity over treating a life-threatening eating disorder. The story used female pseudonyms and pronouns based on the parents' perspective. After more information was provided, the teen's name was changed to Alex for the latter part of the article when she was living alone. This summary uses the name Alex.
It is not possible to comprehensively describe the 17 complaints and the detailed responses by RNZ. However, in summary, the complainants said the article was one-sided, perpetuated transphobic myths, relied too heavily on the parents' narrative, and failed to include voices from the trans community, independent experts, or those close to Alex. They also said that Alex's voice was missing. They argued that RNZ should have sought comment from professionals familiar with transgender youth and eating disorders, especially after new information emerged from Alex's online posts.
RNZ said they fully appreciated the concerns of those who complained about the use of a female pseudonym and pronouns. "The story was not intended to, nor did it, minimise or denigrate the experiences of New Zealand's trans community. But again, at the risk of over-stating our case, this was a story about the care of a teenager with a severe eating disorder which, combined with other significant mental issues such as autism, led to that child's death from starvation." RNZ did not have access to Alex's texts and, in any event, their use would have raised ethical concerns. The agencies involved in Alex's care had also refused to make any comment pending a Coroner's enquiry.
These have been very challenging complaints. The Council by a majority found that the story lacked balance. It recognised that on initial publication RNZ was entitled to tell the parent's story, and options for getting balance were limited (although it could have included comments from experienced trans-sympathetic health professionals). However, within three days some of Alex's messages were published and showed Alex's comfort in a male identity, and three weeks later a full article was published in the NZ Herald which gave a much fuller picture of Alex based on Alex's own messages. RNZ should have balanced its article to show the different perspective by adding paragraphs to the online article which was and is still available or published a follow-up article.
RNZ should have been alert to the danger of lack of balance, as it was informed of Alex's tragic death by a group with an anti-trans perspective. That was not a reason to not pursue the story, but RNZ should have been concerned to provide balance, given the source and the fact the story was about an extremely vulnerable young person.
The complaints directed to the use of the female name were not upheld. RNZ was quoting and giving the parents' story, and it was up to its editorial judgment as to what names to use, noting that after receiving advice following the publication of Alex's messages, that name was used in the latter part of the article. It also did not uphold complaints of discrimination, subterfuge and breach of privacy, as these were not established. Also, a complaint that the article should not have been published at all pending the coronial enquiry was not accepted, given that it was a story of considerable public interest.
Two Media Council members did not agree with the uphold, and considered that the focus of the story was clearly on the parents' story, and that was enough.
Complaints under other Principles-including privacy, discrimination, and subterfuge-were not upheld.
The full Media Council ruling can be found here: Media Council - Parker et al against Radio New Zealand