John McDonald-Wharry against Stuff
Case Number: 3873
Council Meeting: 20 July 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Discrimination and Diversity
Conflicts of Interest
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Conflict of Interest
Discrimination
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. John McDonald-Wharry has complained about a Stuff podcast called Quarantine Nation, which was released on 25 February 2026. His complaint focuses on episodes 6, 7, and 8, the final three episodes of the series (adding parts of episode five for his second complaint).
2. The complainant has asked for his complaint to be covered in two parts. The first complaint concerns the podcast’s journalism and its treatment of people, notably opponents of government policy during the pandemic. The second concerns its handling of historical and scientific facts.
The Article
The Podcast
3. The narrative podcast describes itself as an in-depth examination of “what worked, what failed, and the unintended consequences” during the Covid-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022. The episodes in question are each roughly 40-60 minutes long and feature interviews with scientists, government officials, health workers, ordinary New Zealanders, amongst others.
4. The podcast was funded by New Zealand on Air and made for Stuff by independent production company Te Pūrongo Productions.
The Complaint
First Complaint
5. Dr McDonald-Wharry describes the three episodes as “unfair, inaccurate, unbalanced, and demeaning in their treatment towards opponents of the controversial vaccine mandates and the mRNA injection campaign”. These complaints are made under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance which requires publishers to be balanced, and “fair voice” given to opposition views, and Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, which says publishers should not put “place gratuitous emphasis” on certain groups of people, including “minority groups”.
6. The complainant says in the nominated episodes, critics of mandates and mRNA injections are under-represented and treated in a discriminatory manner, as a small, fringe group. He argues that a substantial number of New Zealanders opposed those policies. He quotes Massey University research from June to August 2021 that showed 56.7 percent of the 1852 New Zealanders surveyed disagreed or strongly disagreed with employers having the right to terminate the employment of someone who refuses a covid vaccination.
7. Supporters of vaccine mandates and mRNA (messenger RNA) injections made calm comments in non-hostile interviews and were presented as respected and sensible people, while opponents of the measures were not given the same treatment, “presented as either a menace or misguided; described instead of interviewed”. Opponents were selectively clipped from social media or recordings of protests, and the hosts framed their comments as “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and "utterly divorced from reality".
8. The complainant believes the podcast should have included interviews with people who refused the vaccines and survived or vaccine critics and complains about the focus on a dead man’s Facebook page and the conspiracies “John” published. “John” was presented as fringe and crazy, misleading listeners into thinking that he was representative of those who opposed the government policies and that all critics were therefore fringe and crazy. While a respectful interview was given to Swedish health official Dr Anders Tegnell, the same was not granted to local critics. Dr McDonald-Wharry said the closest thing to calm comment from opponents came in the form of clips from Voice of Freedom’s submissions to the Covid-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry, but the podcast producers accused the group of spreading misinformation, without giving examples, and faded out their testimony.
9. Finally, Dr McDonald-Wharry complained under Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. He says the amount of government funding provided to Stuff and the interviewed supporters of the injection campaign, as well as any money paid by the pharmaceutical industry, should have been fully disclosed.
Second Complaint
10. Dr McDonald-Wharry also complains about the historical and scientific facts presented in the podcast. He argues the podcast breaches Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
11. He says the podcast misrepresents or misunderstands the government’s vaccination campaign by reporting that it was technically well-done “in terms of science, technology, manufacturing, medical deployment, safety, and effectiveness” but the communication was sub-standard. “I take the opposite view. I think the evidence supports the view that the Pfizer injection campaign had serious and deeply concerning technical issues.” He thinks the communication was over-resourced and ethically-compromised.
12. Dr McDonald-Wharry points to specifics parts of episodes five to eight and says the “Omicron changed everything” narrative “is false and misleading” because the mRNA vaccine was waning in effectiveness even before Omicron outbreaks in other countries.
13. He says phrases in the same episodes such as “need a vaccine” and “forcing” Auckland into lockdown give a misleading impression these were required actions not policy choices.
14. The complainant says a description of the spike protein as “pretty much harmless on its own” in episode six is “dangerously false” as multiple studies indicate it can cause serious disease. He’s also concerned the podcast plays down the risk of myocarditis.
15. Further, the complainant believes the vaccine testing process was rushed and flawed. The podcast does not reflect that concern and says the vaccine was “extremely safe”, when it was not. He suggests other people the podcast could have interviewed and warns against believing Pfizer.
16. Finally, he says the coverage of the protests outside parliament in early 2022 is misleading. It frames the protest as a “violent, fiery riot” and “septic” before police moved in to remove the crowd, when Dr McDonald-Wharry says the riotous behaviour only began after “the violent police operation”.
The Response
First Complaint Response
17. Stuff replied to the complaint saying any assessment of the complaint should be based on the full podcast. “Across this series, this podcast included, inter alia, scientific and public health voices, political decision-makers, members of the public and critics of mandates and vaccination”. It included extensive primary-source material from critics, including “protest rhetoric and media clips, social media content and Royal Commission of Inquiry testimony”.
18. New Zealand achieved a first- and second-dose vaccination rate exceeding 90-95% by late 2021, so it was accurate to depict the anti-vaccine movement as a minority faction. Terms such as “divorced from reality” were not used to describe all opponents of government policy, but referred to specific “demonstrably false information, such as the claims highlighted in Episode 6 that “a large number of Italian troops” were secretly deployed to New Zealand”.
19. Episode seven featured audio of individuals affected economically and socially by the policies, including a school principal who lost his job and a nursing student who lost her scholarship due to their refusal to comply with the mandates. Stuff says: “The podcast explicitly noted that the mandates ‘came at a cost’ and ‘created a sense of deep alienation’.”
20. Stuff acknowledges that public health officials got long-form interviews while audio from archives and public hearings were used for critics. It says long-running, controversial public issues do not require every perspective to be repeated with identical length or formatting within a single report. To ensure other perspectives were given, episode six included a detailed interview with Dr Anders Tegnell, the former State Epidemiologist of Sweden, describing his country’s “individual responsibility” approach.
21. The story of one deceased anti-vaccination critic, called “John” in the series, and his belief in disinformation was accurate and showed the real-world trajectory of online radicalisation. His real name was withheld to protect his family and an attempt to speak to a friend, although declined, clearly showed attempts to provide the critic’s viewpoint.
22. On the Voices for Freedom’s appearance before the Royal Commission being faded out, Stuff says audio documentaries routinely edit, cross-fade, and insert voiceover over long-form testimonies. The group’s core arguments were made clear. It is a statement of fact to describe them as a publisher of misinformation.
23. Stuff denies any conflict of interest. Funding by New Zealand on Air is common for in-depth documentaries and its funding mechanisms “prohibit any state of corporate editorial control over the content produced”. Stuff has no idea where the suggestion of “pharmaceutical industry funding comes from” and states no such funding was received.
Second Complaint Response
24. Stuff accepts there is, and will continue to be, robust debate over the mRNA campaign, but says “Quarantine Nation accurately represents the scientific and governmental consensus that shaped New Zealand's response”.
25. It notes the complainant’s own research into the issue and the fact he disagrees that the vaccine campaign was “technically well done” by “communicatively flawed”. Stuff leans on the Royal Commission, which found the vaccine approval and safety processes were “robust and effective” and its estimate the campaign saved at least 6500 lives. The podcast reflects its conclusions that while the mandates came with a “human cost”, the overarching decisions were “considered and appropriate” in the light of the information at the time.
26. On the “Omicron changed everything” narrative, Stuff stresses the podcast is about New Zealand and reflects the “lived experience and the prevailing public health advice” at the time. For example, vaccination rates were higher here than in many other countries. It was reasonable to rely on experts such as Professor Shaun Hendy and the scientific consensus in New Zealand, which viewed Omicron as a significant “evolutionary leap” and a “tool-defeating disruption”. Stuff says the podcast quotes Dr Helen Petoussis-Harris acknowledging that “as time went on, the immunity waned”, but that does not make the Omicron narrative misleading. The narrative accurately traces how the vaccine’s capacity to stop transmission was heavily degraded by Omicron’s arrival, while it still suppressed mortality. This was confirmed by the Royal Commission.
27. The use of words such as “need” and “forced” regarding vaccines and lockdowns “accurately reflect the political, scientific and statutory reality of the time. The then-Government’s stated public health framework required a highly vaccinated population” before it would open the borders. Similarly, residents within Auckland and other regions were legally restricted from leaving their homes via enforceable Public Health Orders”.
28. The comments on the spike protein, vaccine safety and the risk of myocarditis are attributed to “qualified experts, including Associate Professor Helen Petoussis-Harris, who sits on global vaccine safety networks”. The description of the spike protein was in the context of explaining that the vaccine does not introduce the live virus and aligns with “the core medical consensus used by health regulators at the time of the rollout”.
29. The key claim that SARS-CoV-2 infection causes myocarditis at a vastly higher rate than the Pfizer vaccine reflects verified public health data from Medsafe New Zealand, the CDC, and international peer-reviewed journals.
30. Stuff stands by the podcast’s coverage of the parliament protests. The description of the protest “turning septic” was explicitly used to describe the occupation’s shift in atmosphere over several weeks, not just the final day, it says. The script notes that at times through the occupation there was “carnival atmosphere” while protestors were also calling for the public execution of public officials. It accurately represented the police action, saying the protest was “forcibly broken up” and “Parliament grounds were cleared”. The audio used captured the historic events unfolding.
The Discussion
First Complaint
31. Many New Zealanders had their lives seriously disrupted by the pandemic and by the resulting government policies, therefore many New Zealanders have strong views about those policies, especially the lockdowns and vaccination mandates. The complainant disagrees with those policies and feels he did not hear opinions like his fairly presented in this podcast.
32. It is fair to say that the episodes complained about are dominated by voices of mainstream scientists and those close to the decisions made by the government at the time. Stuff admits as much. As a result, the podcast is sympathetic both to mainstream science and, often but not always, to those government decisions. The complainant is not wrong to say that the producers gave less time to those critical of the policies, and, with the emphasis on “John” and Voices for Freedom, less time again to more moderate critics. He makes a reasonable case that official voices get more time and respect and a podcast with more reasonable critical voices given the same treatment as the scientists and public officials, would have been fairer.
33. But that does not make the producers’ approach in this podcast unfair and nor does it mean the producers are discriminating against government critics as a “minority group” under Principle (7). No series can capture every voice and nuance, and while debate is important, Media Council Principles require journalists to follow where the facts lead. Feature narratives like this also have some licence to add colour, humour, tangents, and analysis that might be regarded differently in a straight news story. The producers have editorial discretion to emphasise certain views and choose certain clips, as long as they are accurate and fair, and balance is achieved across the podcast as a whole. The officials and scientists used were expert and informed voices who make important contributions to helping listeners understand the pandemic, government policies, and the lessons learned. Their reflections, in fact, critiqued some of those policies and the government’s handling of the pandemic is undoubtedly debated through the series. It is not all pro-government.
34. It is fair comment that “John” and Voices for Freedom get a significant amount of time and that the absence of more moderate opponents therefore skews the critical voices in the podcast towards the extreme end. But they provide balance under Principle (1) and are important voices to hear. It is clear they do not represent all opponents to the mandates and vaccines. Stuff is correct to say that the language around “disinformation” and “divorced from reality” was aimed at specific examples not generally applied to all opponents of government policy and that fades and voiceover summaries are standard in podcasting.
35. Listeners heard a range of criticisms and were left in no doubt that some ordinary New Zealanders strongly opposed the government’s policy and some suffered from those policies. The podcast made clear how contentious key decisions were. The health officials who got much of the interview time were critical of parts of the government’s pandemic response. For example, one explained the mandate was designed to combat the Delta strain, but by the time it was enforced Omicron had arrived, making the mandate of questionable use. Dr Anders Tegnell was given a calm and respectful platform to make the case for a different approach to mandates. The hosts do talk about the public mood shifting, some people only “grudgingly” getting vaccinated, the “deep alienation” of “people who don’t want to be pushed around”, and the debate between individual and community rights. They said of protestors that some had “rather more convincing arguments” than others and acknowledged those protesting outside parliament were there for a range of reasons. While more extreme opponents of vaccinations who spread misinformation and disinformation were criticised, evidence and context were provided as to why. The discussion of these issues was central to the issues addressed in the podcast. It was in the public interest to expose this misinformation and disinformation and was not gratuitous under Principle (7).
36. In short, the views offered are varied and nuanced and some are critical. The producers could have fairly and accurately included more critical voices more in line with the complainant’s views and the Media Council would have not upheld a complaint against it, either. Journalists have discretion on how they report contentious issues and the editorial decisions made here by no means amount of inaccuracy, unfairness, or imbalance. Nor do they veer into comment or discriminate against the opponents as a minority group. It’s noted that the weight of argument in the podcast largely aligns with the findings of the Royal Commission.
37. Regarding conflicts of interest, as Stuff says, New Zealand on Air commonly funds such documentaries and its funding decisions are publicly available. Stuff fully disclosed who funded the podcast and there is no evidence to suggest those interviewed were conflicted by funding. Therefore, we see no breach of Principle (10).
Second Complaint
38. On the second complaint, the Media Council notes it is not a scientific body and rules on media standards not scientific debates.
39. Broadly, the podcast takes the position that vaccination is a good public health response to a pandemic and New Zealand’s high vaccination rates saved thousands of lives (and a multitude more than it harmed). Based on the Royal Commission, experts interviewed, and mainstream science that is a fair and accurate position to take under our Principles.
40. The podcast presented itself as an investigation into “what worked, what failed, and the unintended consequences that followed”, so it was certainly open to engaging in some of the scientific debates raised by the complainant. But while it didn’t necessarily ask all the questions the complainant wanted asked, it covered some (e.g. myocarditis) of his and many more that other listeners would have been asking.
41. The use of words like “need” and “forcing” reflected the legal reality in New Zealand at the time, but listeners were left in no doubt this was down to government choices. The reporting on the Swedish experience alone makes this clear.
42. It is not inaccurate comment to say the parliament occupation turned septic over the “early February to early March” period mentioned and culminated in violence. Some protestors were calling for the death of public officials. The audio of the young man blaming Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for the violence over the sounds of the riots shows some blamed the government not the protestors. These examples do not amount to inserting comment into a news story and so are therefore not in breach of Principle (4).
43. The narrative that “Omicron changed everything” was based on the analysis of several experts and presented as their own view. Each provided evidence for that view. The podcast does not ignore the rushed nature of the vaccine trials or the risk of myocarditis and has experts comment specifically on those issues. While those experts acknowledge the risk, they argue the benefits heavily outweighed them. And they provide more balance on the complainant’s key concerns than he acknowledges. They make it very clear no vaccine is 100% safe, that immunity wanes, and the vaccination campaign had flaws (e.g. “sorta too late”). But ultimately, they disagree with the complainant that this means the campaign was badly done or technically unsafe. With those caveats, they describe the vaccine and campaign as essentially safe. There is no breach of Media Council Principles in them coming to those conclusions based on their expertise.
44. As noted above, while scientific research can be debated and historical views are largely subjective, no investigation can cover every nuance and view. A series like this has to be careful not to peddle misinformation and disinformation, so Stuff used its editorial discretion to choose leading experts as their primary sources. The people the complainant recommends are not scientific experts. While many of those interviewed endorsed or led the government response to the pandemic and other expert voices might have added to the debate, these were familiar voices precisely because they are New Zealand’s leading experts in the relevant fields. It’s reasonable therefore for Stuff to rely on their expertise. It is also in the public interest to hear them reflect on what worked and what failed. In ensuring its adherence to Principle (1), Stuff had every right to rely heavily on the Royal Commission, given the depth of its work and its access to experts and evidence.
45. Despite the complainant’s concerns, the podcast included a range of views, challenges to the government’s policies, and reflections from experts as to what could have been done differently. It discussed disputed points of science and politics and accurately represents the views of a range of experts and the Royal Commission. While the complainant disagrees with their conclusions, this does not mean the historical and scientific facts presented in the podcast are false or misleading.
Decision: The complaints under Principles (1), (4), (7) and (10) are not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson, Alison Thom, Jo Cribb, Susan Freeman-Greene, Andrew Chen, Deborah Morris, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff.
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote