Jose Aquino against Stuff

Stuff published an article on April 17, 2026, titled Luxon says he’s got the full support of his caucus, but the leaks tell a different tale.

The story reported that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon repeated the line “I have the full support of my caucus” nine times in a six-minute media conference.

The article included a brief video showing Mr Luxon repeating the statement in response to questions from reporters about a possible challenge to his leadership.

Jose Aquino complained: “This 'reporting' omits the fact that Luxon was asked the same question 11 times as if the reporters were children. It hasn't occurred to Stuff that asking the same question 11 times we would expect Luxon to give the same answer 11 times. You could have pointed out that Luxon was consistent, but your failure to point out this consistency reveals a bias in your reporting.”

He complained Stuff breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance , (4) Comment and Fact, and (9) Subterfuge.

The Council noted this article was clearly marked as analysis. The video clip did not include the questions posed but it was a situation where reporters repeatedly probed the Prime Minister on the strength of support in his leadership.

The journalist obviously thought it was notable that the Prime Minister chose to answer so many questions with the same brief comment and the short tightly-edited video was used to illustrate that point. 

In considering this complaint the Media Council refers to its founding precept that there is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression. It is a fundamental right that allows members of the public to comment freely on the performance and conduct of even the most senior politicians.

That extends to journalists, commentators, cartoonists, editors and people who can argue a wide range of political issues and make their own observations about government ministers.  All politicians have to accept that comment and criticism go with the territory.

There was no evidence to support the complaint or show any breach of the Council’s Principles.        

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.