Jose Aquino against Stuff (Analysis)

Stuff published an article on January 26, 2026, titled In Trump’s America, the right to bear arms now puts a target on your back.

The syndicated Sydney Morning Herald article, which was identified as “Analysis,” was about the controversy surrounding the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good who were shot by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It highlighted the conflict between the US Constitutional right to bear arms to ensure people are free to defend themselves, with the Trump/MAGA argument that any resistance to a federal officer justified a person being shot.

The author commented “It is another remarkable contortion from hollow people who will apparently jettison any principle or belief to comply with the authoritarian tendencies of the Trump administration.”

Jose Aquino complained that article should be labelled as Opinion instead of 'analysis' due its subjective and opinionated statements that smeared people.

He said opinion should be labelled as such, and it was no defence to say they got it from another outlet. Stuff was responsible for what it published and should not be allowed to abdicate their journalistic responsibilities.

The Media Council does not believe Stuff was wrong to label the story as “Analysis.”

The article reported the facts around the shooting of people protesting the actions of ICE agents in the United States. It reported the official justifications and the ensuing controversy and backlash. It also included commentary and opinion which is not out of place in a clearly identified piece of analysis. It was far more than just an expression of opinion; it contained a consideration of detailed material, considered and balanced by the writer to justify the opinions expressed.

The Media Council operates under the precept that there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression. That means there’s room for robust comment on politics.

The article could have been labelled “Opinion” rather than “Analysis,” but nothing really turns on this; there is no indication that readers were misled by the label.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.