Andrew Rutherford against Crux News
Case Number: 3848
Council Meeting: 16 March 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Crux Media
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On 16 February 2026 Crux News published an article headed, The Bendigo mine supporters: Inside their threats of violence, sabotage, bombs and even death. Mr Andrew Rutherford complains that the article breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (4) Comment and Fact. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1).
The Article
2. The article reports that administrators of the Santana Mine Supporters Facebook page appear to encourage or condone violence and death threats against opponents of the proposed $4.5 billion Bendigo Mine, and that threats posted on the page are being investigated by police.
3. It reproduces several screenshots from the page, including two that contain explicit threats. In response to one, the article includes a post from the page administrator stating that a comment wishing for an opponent’s death had been removed and asking users to flag content that would not meet normal publishing standards.
4. Crux reports that, after it raised questions about the page, two complaints were made to police about threatening posts and that there appeared to have been changes to the page’s content. Commentary accompanying the screenshots refers to threats against opponents of the mine and to numerous posts critical of Māori.
5. The article includes responses from several parties. Santana Minerals says the supporters’ page is an independent group outside its control and that threats or abuse are unacceptable. Page moderator Tom Woodward states he has not seen hate speech, threats or racism on the page. Central Otago Mayor Tamah Alley comments that strongly held views exist on the mine but there is no place for bullying or threats. The article concludes with a statement from the page administrator, reportedly made on radio talkback, denying that death threats appeared on the page but saying any such posts would have been deleted.
The Complaint
6. Mr Rutherford complains that the statement that the Santana Mine Supporters Facebook page “appears to encourage, or condone, violence and death threats” is unproven and therefore inaccurate, breaching Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. He says the administrator’s post cited in the article demonstrates that such abusive commentary is censured, as evidenced by the administrator’s removal of a post wishing for a person’s death and the accompanying reproach. He also points to a rule for members of the Facebook page as “No hate speech or bullying”.
7. Further in a breach of Principle (1) Mr Rutherford says there is no evidence police are investigating any allegations relating to posts on the Santana Mine Supporters Facebook page. He says that complaints may have been made to police does not mean an investigation is underway, as stated in the article, and adds that it appears no comment was sought from police confirming an investigation.
8. Mr Rutherford argues that the article is imbalanced, written from an anti-Santana Mine Supporters perspective, and presented as fact rather than as an opinion piece, breaching Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
The Response
9. Crux News says it published “a clear representative selection of threats made on the group’s page” and that the subsequent removal of those threats by the page’s moderator does not mean they were not made. It says that during the first two weeks of the page’s operation it became a rallying point for hate and threats directed at opponents of the mine. Since then, however, Crux says there appears to have been some effort to moderate the tone, which it suggests may reflect concern that the page could be shut down by Netsafe or the police.
10. Crux says it was advised by the complainants that a police investigation was underway. It sought comment from police, but they indicated they would respond only if the complainants signed a waiver that could allow their names to be published. According to Crux, the complainants feared for their safety and wished to remain anonymous, and it was therefore unable to obtain confirmation from police that an investigation was underway.
11. Crux cannot make sense of the accusation that the article is unbalanced given that they published comments from both the Supporters page moderator and Santana Minerals.
The Discussion
12. The Media Council considers the complaint under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. It focuses on whether it was fair to say the Santana Mine Supporters page “appears to encourage, or condone, violence or threats,” and whether it was accurate to report that a police investigation without evidence or confirmation.
13. It also considers whether any lack of balance meant the article was closer to Opinion than News, potentially raising issues under Principle (4) Comment and Fact if it was not clearly labelled as such.
14. The phrase “appears to encourage or condone” in the lead sentence does soften the allegation and suggests it is not fully proven. However, given the seriousness of the claim and placement of the statement at the beginning of the article, readers would likely accept the allegation as fact and the cause of the reported police investigation.
15. The screenshots show that a number of abusive, threatening and aggressive statements have been made by members of the Santana Mine Supporters page towards opposers of the mine development. Following one post where it was suggested that someone opposing the mine should hang, the administrator posted a message saying that he had removed that comment on the basis that “content (death)” was not reasonable. In the same post he also said, “If you find something, the likes of what wouldn’t be printed, in say, the ODT, please forward to the Admin to review”.
16. The Media Council notes that a number of aggressive and violent comments appeared in the early days after the Supporters page was created. However, comments from the administrator indicate disapproval of such remarks, including the removal of threatening posts and a directive that contributors meet ODT publishing standards. As Crux also observes, there has been some moderation of tone in the page, and the frequency of threatening comments subsequently declined. These actions do not support the claim that the Facebook page, or its administrators, encourage or condone violence or death threats or even appear to as was published.
17. Crux in its response says it knows mine opponents who have faced serious threats, but it wouldn’t have been safe to name them. Standard journalistic practice would be to interview those opponents on the record to hear and seek proof of their claims. Crux could then have reported those claims without naming the opponents, just as it could have reported that threatening comments had been made on the site. But it went further and claimed the site, and by implication its organisers, were encouraging and condoning these threats. That was and is unsupported by any evidence and unproven.
18. Crux also reported as fact that the Facebook page “is being investigated by the police”. Crux says it knows this to be true from statements supplied by the mine opposition groups. It enquired with NZ Police, but “was not able to secure public comment” because the police required complainants to sign a waiver form that risked their names being made public. The Media Council is perplexed by this explanation. It is standard practice for police to confirm whether or not an investigation is underway. There is no need for waivers or for names to be released. Whether police are investigating or not, Crux has stated the investigation as a fact without confirmation from police, and therefore without the proof to back it up. That breaches Principle (1).
19. Mr Newport also says he was threatened by a “member of the page and have made a complaint to the police”. It is unclear whether Mr Newport includes his complaint as one of the “at least two formal complaints” lodged with police. If it is, Crux would be in breach of Principle (12) Conflicts of Interest. Because of the conflict of interest it is unethical for journalists to report on themselves in an objective news article. But given the lack of clarity on this point, the Council merely notes that without making a judgement. On the wider point of the claimed police investigation, we would add that claims of complaints are not proof of an investigation.
20. Views were included from a range of stakeholders, including the page moderator, Tom Woodward, the mine developer, Santana Minerals, and Central Otago Mayor Tamah Alley. This provides reasonable balance and supports the article being presented as news rather than opinion.
Decision:
21. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance in relation to the unsubstantiated statement that the Santana
Mine Supporters Facebook page appears to encourage or condone violence and threats. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) for the
lack of evidence that there is a police investigation underway.
22. The complaint is not upheld under Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom