Amir Ashirov against Stuff

Stuff published an article on February 27, 2026, titled ‘Stuck in limbo’: Decade-old council data flags house as flood risk — owner says it’s wrong. It was also headlined on Stuff’s homepage with the headline Why Auckland homeowner ‘stuck in limbo’ with struggle to sell townhouse.

The story was about a man who was having trouble selling his family’s townhouse because an old council flood map, based on 2016 topographic data, showed the home was in a floodplain. The map predates the establishment of housing in the area.

Mr Ashirov complained that the thumbnail headline framed the story as a townhouse issue which was misleading because the article was clearly about outdated Auckland Council flood modelling.

“The substance of the story is about outdated flood modelling/LIM hazard data and how that affects buyer behaviour, lending and insurance — and that can apply to any home type. That distinction matters, especially at the moment when there’s a fair bit of angst and sensitivity around townhouses/apartments. A lot of people don’t read beyond the thumbnail/headline, so the teaser can shape perceptions even if the article itself is balanced.”

Stuff declined his request to change the headline, saying it was happy with the presentation of the story and that the headline was accurate.

The Media Council has always held that headlines have to be read in conjunction with the story they refer to. The headlines were not inaccurate.  They  could not be sensibly read as being about the sales of townhouses generally.  The first headline is about old data and the damage it can do to the marketability of dwellings, and the second is a lead into a particular problem in selling such dwellings, the problem being explained as being about old data.  The story made it quite clear there was an issue with outdated local flood maps rather than the type of dwelling built on the site.

Headlines summarise the substance or key element of a story and, of necessity, they are brief. People may misread them but that doesn’t make them wrong.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.