James Stokes against Crux News
Case Number: 3850
Council Meeting: 16 March 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Crux Media
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Headlines and Captions
Subterfuge
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Columnists Opinion
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Deception
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Mr Stokes complains that in an editorial by Peter Newport published on 19 November 2025, entitled Crux under attack from three different sources, Crux News published wrong information and allegations of abuse of Mr Newport by Queenstown business leaders. Mr Stokes says this is a further example of behaviour by Crux which has given rise in recent years to the upholding by the Media Council of a number of complaints against Crux News. The complainant says the article breaches Principles (1), (4), (5), (6) and (9), and requests withdrawal of the editorial, an apology and a censure from the Media Council.
The Article
2. The editorial outlines alleged multiple threats and abuse received recently by Mr Newport, both in person and online, about the nature of his reporting in Crux News of Queenstown district issues over the past few years. This reporting has included allegations against the local Council and members of the business community. It goes on to refer briefly to some specific alleged incidents of failures and abuses covered by Crux News over the years. The editorial says, “It’s a battle of money, influence and toxic, vested interests.” It says although we live in a boom town, many townspeople are not benefiting. Crux says it will keep up the fight against lack of transparency and accountability and inequality of outcomes.
The Complaint
3. Mr Stokes complains under Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinions and Letters, (6) Headlines and Captions and (9) Subterfuge. He says Mr Newport has made serious and unsubstantiated allegations of abuse of the editor of Crux, by members of the Queenstown business community. He also says Crux wrongly reported that a LinkedIn comment had been taken down as a result of action by one businessman.
4. Mr Stokes says the editorial twists reactions to the upholding by the Media Council of a recent complaint against Crux News into a claim of a systematic campaign against the publication. There is also an attempt to gain funding and support for his continued reporting on local issues. Crux is therefore trying to profit from the findings of the Media Council. He says Mr Newport’s behaviour is unbecoming of a journalist and seeks a censure of Crux News from the Media Council.
5. In a final comment Mr Stokes stands by all his complaints and points out that Mr Newport could have avoided this situation by taking responsibility for the upheld complaints and ceasing his attacks on private individuals.
The Response
6. In a formal response to the complaint, Crux News contests Mr Stoke’s view that the allegations made in the editorial are untrue and cites a “tidal wave of abusive comments from business leaders” about Mr Newport on LinkedIn. Mr Newport has acknowledged that the LinkedIn post he alleged had been removed is still live, but he alleges that he personally was blocked from reading it. The Crux News site now displays this explanation next to the claim that the post had been removed, a correction Mr Newport says he posted as soon as he realised he had been blocked from reading it.
The Discussion
7. Mr Stokes has complained first under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. As this article was clearly labelled as an editorial, where comment and opinion are to be expected, this aspect of the complaint is not upheld.
8. Under Principle (4) Comment and Fact, material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate. The editorial was wrong in stating a LinkedIn post had been removed. We note that rather than the post being removed, Mr Newport had allegedly been blocked from reading it. The article online now explains those circumstances and the Media Council therefore does not uphold the complaint on grounds of inaccuracy under Principle (4).
9. On Principle (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinions and Letters, the editorial was clearly labelled, falls under the classification of Opinion and this aspect of the complaint is therefore not upheld.
10. Principle (6) Headlines and Captions requires that headlines should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report below. The Media Council considers the headline conveys a key element of the editorial. Crux was being attacked by various persons. This aspect of the complaint is not upheld.
11. Principle (9) Subterfuge covers dishonest obtaining of information by the news media. The Media Council does not consider Principle (9) applies in this case. Mr Stokes may be referring to the apparent attempt by Mr Newport to turn the current situation to his advantage by seeking funding for his publication, which he sees as being under attack. The Council does not find that this in itself is a breach of media standards or Principles. As Mr Newport says, the situation has become a battle, and we think the openness of the contest allows the public to judge for themselves the merits of arguments on both sides.
12. Mr Stokes has made a general complaint of failure by Mr Newport to uphold standards of journalism expected by the Council. He quotes our recent adjudication of 2 February 2026.
13. We note also that the introduction to our Principles and Procedures, says “The Media Council’s scope applies to published material in newspapers, magazines and their websites, including audio and video streams, as well as digital sites with news content, or blogs characterised by their news commentary.” The Media Council is also required to support freedom of expression. The preamble to the Principles says, “In dealing with complaints the Council will give primary consideration to freedom of expression and the public interest.”
14. Mr Newport’s Crux News site has a long history of sparking complaints to the Media Council, a number of which have been upheld. Strong language and entrenched positions are features of both sides. In this particular case the complaint cannot be upheld on the specifics of the Media Council Principles cited. Mr Newport has used the Crux platform to make strongly worded statements, even accusations, against people and institutions. These are understandably troubling and offensive to those targeted. However, as is often stated in our decisions, there is no right to not be offended.
15. In the circumstances of this complaint, we do not make a finding of a breach on grounds of journalistic standards. We do not
uphold on Principles (1), (4), (5), (6) and (9).
Decision: The complaint is not upheld.
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