Jeremy Nimmo against Stuff (Gaza)

Stuff published an article on October 29, 2025, titled Netanyahu orders ‘powerful strikes’ in Gaza.

The syndicated Associated Press story reported Israeli Prime Minister ordering immediately army strikes in Gaza and the Hamas response that it would delay handing over the body of a hostage. These moves put new pressure on the US-brokered ceasefire.

It also reported on where strikes had taken place, comment from an Arab official that both sides had breached the ceasefire agreement, information on the return of Israeli and Palestinian bodies and an update on the Palestinian death toll since the war began two years earlier. 

Jeremy Nimmo complained the headline should have been more neutral and was a breach of Media Council Principle (6) Headlines.

“A reasonable neutral headline would be "Genocidal Zionists violate ceasefire because of their lust for the blood of innocents"

He also said there had been a breach of Principle (10) as the author of the article was “a Zionist extremist who celebrates the slaughter of innocent Palestinian children.”

Mr Nimmo said Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance was also breached as the claim that Hamas violated the ceasefire “is a lie by the Zionists and is not identified as such.” There was no proof that some body parts returned were from a prisoner of war previously returned, but it was stated as fact.  He also believed Principle (1) and (10) were breached as statements were reported as fact with no proof.

The comment that the ceasefire that began on October 10 had largely held despite at least two previous flare-ups in violence was dishonest as it had been “repeatedly violated by bloodthirsty Zionist filth.”

Mr Nimmo said it was wrong to describe Israelis who were taken captive by Hamas as hostages. He said they were Zionist home invaders. He also complained the story devoted several paragraphs to covering the return of the remains of an Israeli man who was killed in captivity, when no such coverage was given to Palestinian victims.

Stuff responded briefly, saying the story was “from our syndication partners at AP and a straightforward piece of reporting".

It also said it was confident it did not breach any Media Council Principles.

The Media Council notes the article appeared to be a standard news agency report of the latest developments in the Gaza conflict. It focussed on breaches of the ceasefire agreement and whether it would hold.

It was a daily wrap on the latest developments including detail on the military strikes and the handover over bodies. It also reported comments from observers, officials and statements from protagonists engaged in this long running war. The conflict is a long-running issue where there are constant events and factual updates, usually reported from established international media sources.   It is accepted in the Media Council Principles that not every side of an issue, or perspective of an event, can be presented in these almost daily ongoing reports.

Further, the extreme language that Mr Nimmo proposes should have been used would have been entirely inappropriate.

The headline conveyed a key element of the story, and the Media Council saw no evidence that the headline or the story were inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced.

Decision: No grounds to proceed.