Daniel Richardson against Stuff

Stuff published an article on October 12, 2025, titled Chloe Swarbrick, how should we define her contribution to politics?

This was an opinion piece which took issue with comments by Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick and criticised her for protesting the war in Gaza. The columnist wrote that Winston Peters’ claim that her language had contributed to the attack on his house was possibly correct. He also strung together references to genocide, violence against Jews and mob behaviour before slating Ms Swarbrick for championing a cause “which gives license to others to embrace their darker prejudices.”

He also disputed the comment by Ms Swarbrick, and others, that what was happening in the Gaza war was genocide, arguing that the UN definition of that word was too broad.

Daniel Richardson said the article breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters.

“While I acknowledge that opinion writers are entitled to express their personal views, this piece goes well beyond robust commentary. It contains factual inaccuracies, misleading assertions, and unfair character attacks that collectively fail to meet the standards of responsible journalism.”

The columnist’s claim that the use of the term “genocide” to describe events in Gaza was “untenable” dismissed without context or balance the fact that multiple UN experts, human rights organisations and international lawyers had identified acts that met the legal definition of genocide.

The article implied that Ms Swarbrick’s language had contributed to antisemitic violence. This was unsupported and crossed the line from opinion by attributing moral responsibility for the actions of others without basis.

It was complained that the author also used emotionally charged historical comparisons including references to the Holocaust, crusades and mob violence to frame current political debate in a sensation and misleading way.

He said the publication of this columnist’s inflammatory opinions reflected poorly on Stuff’s standards.

In his view the article failed to meet Media Council requirements for opinion pieces to be based on fact and for a clear distinction to be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion.

In response Stuff said this piece appeared in its opinion section where it aimed to reflect a range of views. It had also published commentary from others who interpreted the situation in Gaza differently and clearly believed genocide was taking place. While the UN and other reputable sources had expressed concern that acts in Gaza may amount to genocide, the International Court of Justice had not made a determination. It found the claim was plausible and warranted further proceedings, but no final ruling had been issued.

The Media Council has already considered an earlier complaint about this column (Ruling 3809). In that case it ruled the columnist was free to argue that the Genocide Convention’s definition of genocide was too broad and that he was also free to critique the views of Ms Swarbrick and others.

While the column was robust commentary, the Council was not persuaded it went too far. As harsh as the criticism was, the Media Council has often stated that while people may object to what’s said they do not have a right to not be offended. The Council’s approach is framed and guided by the statement - “There is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression.”

Decision: No grounds to proceed.