David Horgan against the New Zealand Herald and NZME

The New Zealand Herald ran an article on July 23, 2026, titled University of Auckland launches new Department of Cancer Sciences; inaugural head unveils vision for purpose-built centre.

The article was based on a Ryan Bridge TODAY interview with Dr Ben Lawrence who will head the new University of Auckland Department of Cancer Sciences.

It included a brief reference to comment made a week earlier by new ACT party candidate Paul Henry saying that he would love to build a world class cancer hospital that could cost billions, while Dr Lawrence said the university’s centre would be a lot less than that.

The online version of the story included a link to the Ryan Bridge TODAY video, which included a clip showing Mr Henry’s press conference at which he spoke about his vision for a cancer hospital. The story then switched to a longer substantive interview with Dr Lawrence who began by distinguishing his project from Mr Henry’s idea. He said his department was a first step towards setting up a comprehensive centre which would combine cancer research and clinical care.

David Horgan complained that the clip of Mr Henry talking about his dream of a cancer hospital was effectively a political broadcast or advertisement for the ACT Party.   He believed the public should be informed about who paid for and authorised the material.

“There seems to be a conflict of interest here and more care is required when dealing with a media mate running for political office.”

There appeared to be no balance in the segment which appeared on multiple platforms, and he was upset to see Paul Henry and overt political framing inserted into what should have been a straightforward apolitical story about cancer research. Mr Henry’s ideas had no substantive relevance to this announcement, and his inclusion gave the appearance of political bias.

In response the producer of Ryan Bridge TODAY said the Paul Henry clip was included to establish background for the viewer and also whether there was a connection between Mr Henry’s comments and the university’s announcement.

The relevance of the clip was also made clear in the presenter’s first question to Dr Lawrence when he asked, “So did he (Henry) let the cat out of the bag or is this something you’ve been working on for a long time?”

The producer said he did not consider the item presented a political issue requiring competing political viewpoints and nor did it seek to advance a political view.

Mr Henry’s character or political views were not relevant to the editorial assessment of whether this clip had a clear political purpose, and that it did not compromise the impartiality or balance of the coverage.

The Media Council saw nothing of substance to support this complaint. It was not a political advertisement and there was no evidence of bias or that it was presented as it was to support Mr Henry’s political campaign.

The 40-second clip close to the start of a nine-minute video interview was relevant background to help readers distinguish between Mr Henry’s recently announced idea and the University’s plan for a new cancer centre.

As for balance, there is no clear requirement for balance in this news story reporting on a university announcement.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.