Jason Jones against the The Listener

The NZ Listener published an article on April 16, 2026, and titled Simon Wilson: Tactics to keep speedway at Western Springs were destined to fail “value for money” test.

The article, which was also published on the New Zealand Herald website, was an opinion piece in which the author commented on a six-hour Auckland Council meeting during which speedway supporters urged the Council to allow racing to return to Western Springs because the move to Waikaraka Park had not been a success.

The author reported comment from councillors saying they rejected the bid for various reasons. This included value for money, the fact that councillors objected to abuse and claims officials were unprofessional and incompetent, and that supporters were trying to delay things.

Jason Jones complained that the article was an inaccurate account of what happened at the Council meeting.

“This article is untruthful and skewed in misrepresenting the events that took place on the day of the meeting, the events that led up to that day and the High Court legal action underway.”

He also complained that it failed to identify the Western Springs Speedway Association’s lawyer or provide a substantive account of her legal arguments. It failed to provide context, was unbalanced, included unverified and anonymous allegations and mischaracterised judicial review as a delay tactic.

Statements such as “most councillors saw through it” presented opinion as fact without attribution or evidence. This blurred the distinction between comment and fact.

Mr Jones also said no member of the Speedway Association was approached for comment. Taken together, these issues resulted in a materially misleading and unbalanced account of events.

In response the NZ Listener said the column was clearly identified as "Commentary" in print, and "Opinion" online and it did not believe an apology or correction was required.

The Media Council noted the article was not a news report. It was clearly marked as opinion. It was the author’s view of what happened and he was free to express his opinion as to why councillors voted the way they did.

Principle (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters states that columns are widely understood to consist largely of the writer’s own opinions. Though requirements for a foundation of fact pertain, balance is not essential.

There was no requirement to name the Speedway Association’s lawyer or present her arguments.  The relocation of the speedway had been the subject of long running controversy and debate, with this meeting alone lasting six hours.

This article was labelled “opinion”. It was clearly the author’s view on why the speedway supporters campaign failed to win political support.  As spelt out in Principle (5), balance was not essential.

Mr Jones was entitled to disagree with points made in the article but has not provided evidence to support a complaint that it breached Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact, (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters or (6) Headlines and Captions.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.