James Stokes against Crux News
Case Number: 3851
Council Meeting: 16 March 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Crux Media
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Comment and Fact
Conflicts of Interest
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Conflict of Interest
Privacy
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. This complaint is about an article published by Crux News on Substack and distributed to its subscribers via email. The article listed the profiles and pictures of people who had liked or reacted to a Mr Richard Thomas’ LinkedIn post about his complaint of Crux for a different article being upheld by the Media Council. The article stated that those listed did not back “transparency”. The complaint is upheld.
The Article
2. The article was apparently published as an email and then published on the subscription publication of Crux News known as ‘the Crux Substack’. Previously, Mr Richard Thomas, a Queenstown businessperson, had successfully complained to the Media Council. After receiving the Media Council decision upholding his complaint, he had posted on LinkedIn a post referring to the Media Council decision. That post effectively celebrated the Media Council decision upholding his complaint and was very critical of Crux News.
3. The article posted by Crux was headed in bold “The Richard Thomas’ LinkedIn Post – and Everyone Who Liked It”. Underneath was the following sentence: “the supporters list is a rare glimpse into Queenstown’s business community - who backs transparency - and who does not”.
4. There are then a few sentences which placed the LinkedIn post in context and responded to Mr Thomas’ criticism of Crux. It is said “now we’ve managed to get access to the post and a full list (February 22) of everybody who supports it.” This is followed by the photographs and names of those who liked or reacted to Mr Thomas’ LinkedIn post, which Crux has interpreted as supporting Mr Thomas’ post.
The Complaint
5. Mr Stokes says that the article was first sent as an email newsletter to his database without any note saying it was editorial, opinion or analysis. He states that Crux appears to have inserted those words in the Substack version (although the Media Council notes that these words appear after the reference to backing a lack of transparency).
6. The details and pictures of individuals who liked Mr Thomas’ social media post were shown in the article. Mr Stokes complains that Crux has used those details to “tar every one of these individuals with an accusation that they do not ‘back transparency’”. Mr Stokes says that this claim has been made without any backup evidence. He describes the suggestion by Crux that the list should be read “carefully” is a dog whistle for those who do not support Mr Thomas’ views to engage in harassment of the individuals on the list.
7. He notes that, in fact, the individuals were congratulating Mr Thomas on his complaint being upheld and agreeing with the criticisms by the Council. Their expressions of support have nothing to do with transparency. Mr Stokes says the article is an attempt to intimidate those who have supported Mr Thomas and his upheld complaint.
The Response
8. Crux’s immediate response to Mr Stokes was that Crux did not intend to make any changes to its published content. The publisher, Peter Newport went through the contents of Mr Thomas’ LinkedIn post and said that the post raises questions “as to whether they were prompted to do so by either Mr Thomas or business interests close to Mr Thomas.” Mr Newport observed that a consistent and strong focus on transparency and accountability has been the trademark of Crux.
9. Mr Newport considered that he was entitled to express the opinion that the persons who responded to Mr Thomas’ post were stating their opposition to the body of work published by Crux. Attempts were being made to show that Crux was not a legitimate news platform.
10. Mr Newport commented on the complainant’s politics and stated that Crux has constantly championed increased openness, transparency, and accountability. He said that the complainant is well aware of that, as would those who have supported Mr Thomas’ post. Mr Newport made a number of remarks critical of Mr Thomas and emphasised that Crux acknowledges its error in not asking Mr Thomas for comment. He said effectively that there is a campaign to prevent him from attracting advertisers.
The Discussion
11. The words “editorial/opinion/analysis” were put in later in the Substack version, and this breach of Media Council Principles was corrected. Although not ideal it is accepted that this was a sufficient correction.
12. However, the statement at the top of the article under the headline “The Richard Thomas’ LinkedIn Post – and Everyone Who Liked It” is unambiguous. It reads “the supporters list is a rare glimpse into Queenstown business community – who backs transparency - and who does not”. This, in effect, is a statement that the people who liked or reacted to Richard Thomas’ LinkedIn post, who were all listed in the article and their photographs shown, did not back transparency.
13. In fact, the post by Mr Thomas for which the listed persons have expressed support said nothing about transparency. It was a post in which Mr Thomas expressed his ‘delight’ at his complaint being upheld, and where he says Mr Newport had tried to damage his reputation. Most of the post is a quote from the Media Council decision. Mr Thomas states at the end that the decision “shreds Mr Newport’s credibility” and that the decision summary had to be published. He states that Crux is nothing more than a ‘personal blog’ that was not true, for Peter Newport’s various ‘self-righteous musings’. The word transparency is not used.
14. In supporting Mr Thomas’ post, those persons who liked or reacted to the post could not be said to have, in any way, supported a lack of transparency. They are doing no more than expressing support for a post that deals with the upholding of a complaint by the Media Council and criticism of Mr Newport and Crux. Neither the Media Council decision or Mr Thomas’ post said anything about transparency. The response from Crux does not seek to justify the accusation of the responders not backing transparency but focuses rather on the perceived attack on the Crux publication.
15. Even as expressed as opinion, this statement was a breach of Media Council Principles. The statement is inaccurate and not supported by any factual material at all, including what is said in the body of the short narrative before the list. The listing of all these persons as “against transparency” who have done no more than express ‘like’ to a post (which has nothing to do with transparency) constituted a significant unfairness towards them all. It was inaccurate. Those who reacted were expressing a view about an article commenting on a Media Council decision, that is all.
16. Further the “transparency” sentence also blurs the distinction between comment and fact.
17. We also comment that we do not think it is good journalistic practice for a publisher to list a long recital of the personal details of persons who have liked or reacted to a post as indicating something about those persons beyond the fact that they liked or reacted to the post. There are a multitude of reactions that could be made to a LinkedIn post, including “support” and “insightful”. Also, as was the case here, comments can be made by those who have reacted which give context to the reaction. To draw any general conclusion about the motivation of such multiple reactions is likely to involve unfairness to some of the LinkedIn responders.
Decision:
18. The complaint is upheld for breaches of Principle (1) inaccuracy and unfairness and Principle (4) blurring the distinction between 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