John Marshall against Stuff
Case Number: 3868
Council Meeting: 20 April 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle: Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories: Headlines and Captions
Overview
1. Stuff published an article March 12, 2026, titled The Covid immunity cycle: Why catching the virus is basically our new booster.
2. John Marshall complained it breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and (6) Headlines and Captions because the headline did not reflect the main thrust of the article. The complaint was upheld.
The Article
3. The story discussed the latest new wave of Covid cases and asked whether further booster shots would continue to be needed each year. It included comment from Canterbury University Professor Michael Plank who described how immunity waned over time and how infections could again increase. It also reported his advice that people should get the vaccine.
The Complaint
4. John Marshall complained that the headline did not reflect the main thrust of the article, in which the reporter received a booster, and did not accurately reflect current public health advice.
5. Mr Marshall said that while the headline said, “catching the virus is the new booster”, the quoted expert Professor Plank specifically said in the article that over time immunity gained from infections wanes. When specifically asked if we still need a booster vaccine in the face of “combined immunity”, Professor Plank said “yes”. That, Mr Marshall said, contradicted the headline.
6. ”It is a public health fact that COVID vaccination plays a vital role in reducing illness severity and lasting effects such as Long COVID, transmission through the community, and overloading of the public health system.
7. While Stuff agreed with these facts and correctly stated that the article made this case, the headline plainly implied the opposite: that “catching (COVID) is our new booster”.
8. He said the media should not be presenting such misleading statements.
9. “It encourages the busy reader, who may not read the article with the same attention they give to the headline (or at all), to believe that the health outcom from a COVID illness are comparable with receiving a booster vaccination. This is patently false.”
The Response
10. In response Stuff said two key issues were raised the complaint - whether the headline was accurate and whether it fairly reflected the substance of the article.
11. It said the headline was accurate and reflected a key element of the reporting that infection contributed to temporary increases in population-level immunity within a broader cycle of waning and renewal.
12. “This is directly addressed in the article and supported by the expert commentary included. As the article explains, while vaccination plays an important role in reducing the severity of illness and protecting individuals, vaccination alone does not prevent Covid-19 waves at a population level.
13. “Infection therefore continues to contribute to temporary increases in immunity as protection wanes over time. The headline reflects that dynamic. The article also provides appropriate context and balance, referencing vaccination as a means of reducing illness severity, and does not advocate infection as a preferred course of action.
14. “On whether the headline fairly reflects the substance of the article, we are satisfied that it does. The cyclical nature of immunity, how it increases following waves of infection and then declines over time, is a central element of the article’s explanation of recurring Covid-19 waves. The headline captures that element directly. Professor Michael Plank’s comments within the article make this clear, describing how immunity “will dip, and then it will increase over time”, with infection contributing to temporary boosts before that protection wanes. Readers who click through to the article encounter that explanation as a core part of the reporting.
The Discussion
15. Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, says: “Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. And Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, says: “Headlines...should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover.”
16. The Council accepts that headlines are designed to entice people to read on and has frequently commented that they have to be read in conjunction with the stories they cover.
17. The article was crafted to draw people in by giving a well-worn subject a new twist, with a first-person approach in which the reporter asked why he should get yet another shot. It then went on to spell out how Covid infections came in waves and how immunity waned. It also referred to the relevance of vaccines and carried explicit advice that booster shots were needed to reduce the impact of the virus.
18. However, the headline conveyed a message that was contrary to that by suggesting that herd immunity is the new booster. Stuff argued that it conveyed a key point made by Professor Plank – that higher infection rates boosted immunity. But that was only part of his message as the Professor went on to say that booster shots were a good idea as they were the best tool for reducing the impact of the virus.
19. He did not say that catching the virus was the new booster, that is, the equivalent to a booster. He just said that catching Covid could boost a person’s immunity, which is a different thing. The real message he was giving was that immunity wanes and that people should be vaccinated. The headline gave the contrary impression – that just getting Covid meant that no booster was required.
20. The article carried much more information as it set out the facts and gave some sensible advice. Stories like this play an important role in helping to keep the public informed, aware of the risks and abreast of the latest expert advice.
21. Mr Marshall acknowledged the article correctly made the case for vaccinations and the Media Council agrees it cannot be faulted for that.
22. However, the headline carried a misleading contrary message. It was not accurate and did not fairly convey the substance or a key element of the story.
Decision: The complaint is upheld under Principle (6).
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
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote