Barry Bruce and Justin Wright against Crux News
Case Number: 3804
Council Meeting: 1 December 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Crux Media
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Conflicts of Interest
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Conflict of Interest
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Barry Bruce, a Queenstown Lakes District Councillor, complains about an online article Wanaka’s Councillor Barry Bruce launches attack on John Glover referring to him as sending insulting or snarky emails and being ‘invisible and silent’ at council meetings on October 5, 2025. He complains the piece went well beyond reporting and included subjective commentary. He also complains about advertising that ran at the top of the piece.
2. Mr Bruce says there is a clear disregard of NZ Media Council rulings, contempt of previous findings and this is made worse because it happened during the election cycle with the potential to cause public harm.
3. Separately, Justin Wright made a number of complaints about articles published by Crux News (see ruling 3816) including a complaint about this article. We consider his complaints about this article here.
The Article
4. The article is a short piece published on the Crux News, an online publication, which says it is a community-funded website that delivers action and issues focussed public interest journalism to the Southern Lakes region. The article says “Mr Bruce is making an attempt to undermine John Glover’s mayoral campaign by alleging Mr Glover was paid money by the council to run Shaping Our Future, a charitable trust.”
5. The headline is: Wanaka’s Councillor Barry Bruce launches attack on John Glover by Peter Newport. The article is labelled Analysis. It outlines that Crux News attends a lot of the council meetings and that Mr Bruce is ‘invisible and silent’ in them and that he has a habit of sending insulting emails, both to Crux News and to people he does not like. Another councillor is quoted as saying they have received those emails and worse.
The Complaint
6. This complaint is made under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (4) Comment and Fact, and Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. Mr Bruce also raises a procedural concern under Rule 25 of the Council’s rules, which allows for censure in cases of egregious or repeated breaches.
7. He complains the piece went beyond reporting and included subjective commentary. He said it had a mocking tone and was not labelled Opinion. He said he was portrayed as purposeless, invisible, and derisory.
8. He also said an advertisement for John Glover appeared as a banner above the article.
9. Mr Bruce states there was a risk of harm given the timing and that it could be seen as direct interference in the democratic process.
10. Mr Bruce stated there had been multiple other complaints made to the Media Council on similar issues. He refers to other decisions where the use of analysis/comment/opinion is the turning point. He says Crux News had failed to learn from this and asks for Crux to be censured.
11. Mr Wright’s complaint is in a similar vein. Mr Wright complains that the article was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. The only verifiable fact in this article was the fact that Mr Bruce sent an email to Crux News. It does not provide any supporting evidence, quotation or extract of the email itself and as a result readers have no means to assess the accuracy, tone or intent of what Mr Bruce wrote. The article claims, without evidence, that Mr Bruce’s purpose in sending the article was to undermine Mr Glover’s mayoral campaign. It is unfair to Mr Bruce as it uses pejorative language during an election period and it is unbalanced as it lacks Mr Bruce’s perspective and presents Mr Glover’s defence as authoritative. He also complains that the article blurs the line between opinion and fact, presenting personal opinions, judgements and insinuations as fact.
The Response
12. Crux News responded to both complaints stating that the article is clearly labelled Analysis. It said they had reported Mr Bruce’s accusation against Mr Glover and Mr Glover’s response. It included some analysis of his previous behaviour in making “behind the scenes” and unjustified attacks on fellow councillors and Crux. The defence is that the article is true and fair. Mr Newport responding for Crux News said he had himself witnessed Mr Bruce being as good as invisible at meetings. The context of Mr Bruce’s history of attacking fellow councillors, and media, was relevant and important to the overall balance and context of the story.
13. Crux News said all advertising was controlled remotely and they had no input into where advertisements appear. It says this is not within the remit of the Media Council and that advertising is remotely controlled via Google Ad Manager by their Sydney based Ad Ops agency. “We don’t control which ads appear where.”
14. Crux said it stood by the reference to his snarky emails and then said if Mr Bruce continued with his complaint to the Media Council, other elected members had agreed to supply copies of similar or worse emails. He said Mr Bruce had ‘Jekyll and Hyde” behaviour and that there was a very high public interest in the behaviour and conduct of elected officials.
15. In response to Mr Bruce’s comments about ignoring previous Media Council rulings Crux News could not see any merit or evidence in this part of the complaint.
The Discussion
16. It is clear there is a long running history between Mr Bruce and Crux News as both the complaint and the attached emails make clear, with animosity on both sides.
17. The article referenced Mr Bruce’s inadequacies as a councillor. It spoke of both the personal experience of Crux News’s editor Peter Newport and of another councillor. It then reported that Mr Bruce had emailed Crux News alleging that Mr Glover had taken money from the council to run the charitable trust. Mr Glover responded with a statement that was reported. Then the article goes on to say that Mr Bruce was invisible and silent at meetings. There is no further comment from Mr Bruce. There is nothing in the article to suggest that he had responded to the allegations of his performance at meetings, or that he was asked to respond or given a right of reply. Its tone is sarcastic and derogatory.
18. The first question in this case is whether it is a news story or an opinion/analysis piece.
19. A professional news story would include a balanced account of the story, comments from all sides and even data to support the statements about Mr Bruce. This article contains statements that at first glance appear to be facts, but there is nothing to back them up. It does not strictly follow the typical structure used in a news story and shows no sign of analysis. There is no balance in the sense of getting a response from those criticised.
Principle (4) Comment and Fact
20. The article is labelled Analysis. Under Principle (4):
“A clear distinction should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion. An article that is essentially comment or opinion should be clearly presented as such. Material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate.”
21. The Media Council’s preamble makes it clear that, "Distinctions between fact, on the one hand, and conjecture, opinion or comment, on the other hand, must be maintained. This does not prevent rigorous analysis.
22. This article was confusing in that it blurred the lines between claimed fact and comment and could not be described as rigorous analysis.
23. An analysis would be a careful consideration of all the pertinent sides of a discussion or event. Other than Mr Bruce’s initial email to Crux News, there is nothing in it to suggest there has been an analytical dissection of the issue. There are two others in the article with negative comments about Mr Bruce but nothing further from him.
24. It may well be the opinion of the writer, but it is not labelled as such. Even labelling the article Opinion would be a reach. There is no context to the article other than saying Crux News had not seen him say or do anything at council meetings. There are no supporting facts.
25. Using a label such as "analysis" does not give a licence to publish an article that says anything the writer likes. An analysis or opinion tag signals perspective, not a free pass. These pieces must still be built on solid facts and presented in a responsible way. The label cannot be used to excuse unsupported claims or personal assertions that cannot be substantiated in the article and should not be used as a get-out-of-jail-free card to allow anything to be said without check.
26. This article has failed to clearly distinguish between fact and comment, and it has also fallen well short of meeting the "highest professional standards" of journalism.
27. The complaint is upheld on this point under Principle (4)
Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
28. This aspect of the complaint is better suited to consideration under Principle (4) given its confused labelling, and the failure to
distinguish between comment and fact.
Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest
“To fulfil their proper watchdog role, publications must be independent and free of obligations to their news sources. They should avoid any situations that might compromise such independence. Where a story is enabled by sponsorship, gift or financial inducement, that sponsorship, gift or financial inducement should be declared. Where an author’s link to a subject is deemed to be justified, the relationship of author to subject should be declared.”
29. Mr Bruce is concerned about an advertisement for Mr Glover running right above the article he is complaining about.
30. It is far from ideal that the ad ran on the same ‘page’ as the article. Printed publications have had issues with ads that are inappropriate running next to stories e.g. Ads for fire extinguishers beside a story on a fatal house fire.
31. Advertising on online sites is sometimes templated by things like the length of articles. And in cases where online sites have overseas agencies creating and maintaining their site and selling ad space, they may not have full oversight into what ads are placed where.
32. News websites, however, should be wary of how it works and consider curating their sites. This is especially so when the publisher may not have full control over how ads are placed.
33. However, there is no suggestion here that the placement of the advertisement leads to any lack of independence as a publication. It does not breach Principle (10) and is not upheld.
Other aspects of this complaint
34. Mr Bruce says Crux News shows contempt for the Media Council, not learning from multiple previous rulings and have continued with the same practises. There are a number of rulings from the Media Council about Crux - with a mixture of upheld and not upheld. A number of them are over accuracy, fairness and balance complaints.
35. Mr Bruce mentions the timing of the article which was published during the local body election cycle. While from Mr Bruce’s point of view that is unfortunate, it does not breach any Media Council Principles.
36. He has also asked for Crux News to be censured. As outlined in its complaint’s procedure, the NZ Media Council may direct a right of reply, correction or retraction. In egregious circumstances, with a unanimous decision, the NZ Media Council may censure a publication. However, this article, while falling short of journalistic standards, does not meet this very high threshold.
Decision: The complaints by Mr Bruce and Mr Wright are upheld under Principle (4). The complaint is not upheld under
Principles (1) and (10).
Council members considering the complaint were: Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon,
Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau