Justin Wright against Crux News
Case Number: 3816
Council Meeting: 1 December 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Crux Media
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Headlines and Captions
Discrimination and Diversity
Conflicts of Interest
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Columnists Opinion
Comment and Fact
Conflict of Interest
Discrimination
Errors
Headlines and Captions
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Justin Wright complains about seven articles published by Crux News in the context of the 2025 local body elections:
- Lewers claims “misinformation”, Guy resorts to insults. Wong says Lewers is right (26 September 2025).
- Lewers launched recruitment process before telling councillors that Theelen had resigned (28 September 2025).
- Lisa Guy: questions over CEO recruitment ‘disrespectful and inaccurate (22 September 2025).
- Lisa Guy’s undeclared conflict could derail QLDC $1 billion water CCO (27 September 2025).
- Data shows it’s Guy and Lewers making the personal attacks – not their opponents (1 October 2025); and
- Auditor General: ‘Up to QLDC to manage any actual or perceived Lisa Guy conflicts of interest’ (3 October 2025).
2. The final part of Mr Wright’s complaint involves the article Wanaka’s Councillor Barry Bruce launches attack on John Glover (2 October 2025). The Media Council also received a complaint about this article from Barry Bruce [ruling 3804]. Given the similarities between the two complaints, we consider Mr Wright’s complaint in that decision and uphold it on the same basis.
The Complaint
3. Mr Wright initially raised a number of concerns with Crux News . These concerns were wide ranging alleging various breaches of Media Council principles in relation to 15 articles, in addition to concerns about advertising and social media comments.
4. In his formal complaint to the Media Council Mr Wright raises issues in relation to a smaller number of articles and we consider the six that were raised within the one-month time limit for complaints. We note that the Media Council scope applies to published material in newspapers, magazines and their websites, including audio and video streams, as well as digital sites with news content. It does not extend to complaints about comments made on social media and we do not consider those aspects of Mr Wright’s complaint.
5. The first part of Mr Wright’s complaint concerns two articles Lewers claims “misinformation”, Guy resorts to insults. Wong says Lewers is right (26 September) and Lewers launched recruitment process before telling councillors that Theelen had resigned (28 September).
- The 26 September article is headed “analysis”. The subject matter of the article is the process to appoint a new CEO for the Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC).
- The 28 September article begins with an editor’s note summarising the content of the piece and stating, “Crux is publishing this article from Councillor Niki Gladding who has managed to obtain documents linked to the QLDC’s controversial recruitment of a new CEO – without reference to elected members.” In the piece that follows Niki Gladding puts forward her opinion in relation to various matters relating to the recruitment process.
- Mr Wright complains that across these articles Crux News failed to distinguish between fact and comment, was not accurate fair or balanced, amplified personal denigration, platformed a candidate’s advocacy as news without clear labelling or adequate counter-view and did not make corrections or updates when other media outlets published contrary information. In particular he states:
i. The 26 September article was inaccurate as it presents assertions as facts, for example “anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of the recruitment industry known that that the recruitment agent does basically what the client wants”. It was also inaccurate in that it suggests advice from the Auditor General stresses the conflict and division that can arise from recruitment processes, when the advice actually allows for consultants to be appointed. Likewise, the editor’s note to the 28 September article treats disputed claims as fact, for example “Mayor Lewers started the new CEO requirement process before telling councillors that Mike Theelen had resigned.”
ii. Both articles fail to draw a clear distinction between factual information or comment or opinion. In addition, the commentary in both articles is based on factual inaccuracies.
iii. The headlines of the articles contain statements of fact that are contradicted by other sources and that use pejorative framing.
iv. The 26 September article contains demeaning references to Councillor Lisa Guy that are irrelevant, unsubstantiated and disparaging.
v. The 28 September article was an electoral candidate’s advocacy article published as news without prominent disclosure and without clear labelling as opinion or analysis. This was a conflict of interest.
vi. No corrections were made after another media outlet published a piece that took a different angle on the story.
6. The second part of Mr Wright’s complaint concerns four articles (and refers to an earlier article published in April 2025): Lisa Guy: questions over CEO recruitment ‘disrespectful and inaccurate (22 September 2025), Lisa Guy’s undeclared conflict could derail QLDC $1 billion water CCO (27 September 2025), Data shows it’s Guy and Lewers making the personal attacks – not their opponents (1 October 2025) and Auditor General: ‘Up to QLDC to manage any actual or perceived Lisa Guy conflicts of interest’ (3 October 2025):
- The 22 September article begins by reporting a comment by Lisa Guy (a QLDC councillor) about Niki Gladding and her comments in relation to the recruitment process for a CEO. It notes that Niki Gladding and John Glover (a mayoral candidate) had raised questions about this process. It then states that Councillors Guy and Cocks and the then mayor (Lewers) form the “three person, public excluded committee that oversees the pay and performance of the council CEO” and that it was this group that awarded the then CEO a “15% pay rise last year at the same time as the council’s own community trust and satisfaction survey dropped to an all-time low.” It ends by reproducing two emails sent between Lisa Guy and John Glover from which earlier aspects of the article are drawn.
- The 27 September article is headed “analysis”. It notes that Councillor Guy voted in favour of moving water services to a council-controlled organisation earlier in 2025, notwithstanding public opposition of which she was dismissive. It notes that the mayor’s casting vote was necessary for the motion to pass, and that if Councillor Guy was ineligible to vote as the result of a conflict of interest, then the vote would have gone the other way. It then explores Councillor Guy’s statement regarding her role and financial involvement with Rationale Ltd (apparently a Guy family business consultancy involved with advising the QLDC about water services) and associated trusts. The article ends with a statement from Stephen Brent the sole director and shareholder of EGLG Trustees Ltd (apparently a Guy family trust). Finally, the article notes that Crux News would seek a response from the QLDC “next week” as to how the initial vote would be affected by Councillor Guy’s involvement with Rationale and noting that Councillor Guy had not responded to questions put to her by Crux News earlier in the day.
- The 1 October article ‘shares’ an article from Queenstown Lakes Community Action which contains a data analysis of what various councillors had said over the course of about a week. This analysis is said to be aimed at shedding “some light on who is actually attacking who in the current local elections.” In a bold section at the top of the article it states, “At Crux we have found both Mayor Lewers and Councillor Lisa Guy unusually evasive when it comes to answering actual question, but both a very comfortable accusing us and their opponents of ‘misinformation’ and even ‘defamation’.” After giving an example, it ends with the statement “This is Dirty Politics and needs to be called out, using data rather than emotion.”
- The 3 October article reports on the Office of the Auditor General’s response to Crux News’s questions to it about the CEO recruitment process. It includes a comment by Crux News that “It seems clear that this QLDC position does not include any future or unknown connection between Lisa Guy/Rationale and the soon to be formed $1 billion external QLDC water CCO”.
- Mr Wright complains that across these articles Crux News was inaccurate and unfair, presenting unverified allegations as fact, and omitting balancing information. Overall, Mr Wright suggest that these articles portray Lisa Guy as dishonest and conflicted. In particular he states that:
i. The 22 September story frames allegations as fact, for example, describing and “early secretive recruitment of a replacement council CEO” and “behind closed doors work”. This article relied almost entirely on correspondence between two councillors and made no attempt to verify the claim of secrecy. Moreover, other media outlets had more balanced stories, including that a majority of councillors considered that the process was transparent and appropriate.
ii. The 27 September story continues this pattern, noting for example, that a “crucial vote on moving one billion dollars of QLDC water services to an external Council Controlled Organisation could be overturned due to an undeclared piece of advisory work.” However, at the time of publication no authority had found any breach and this claim was speculative and misleading. He notes that a later finding by the Auditor General confirmed that neither Councillor Guy, nor Rationale had any pecuniary interest in the water services decision – which directly contradicts Crux News’s assertion.
iii. The 1 October article also uses language that is openly judgmental and blurs the line between observation and accusation. By presenting subjective commentary within what was billed as data-based analysis the article further distorted the facts and undermined fairness.
iv. Although the 3 October article reproduced the Auditor General’s statement that Lisa Guy had no financial or pecuniary interest in the water decision, Crux News immediately inserts speculation about the accuracy of this statement by saying “It seems clear that this QLDC position does not include any future or unknown connection between Lisa Guy/Rationale and the soon to be formed $1 billion external QLDC water CCO”. The conjecture undermines the authoritative finding of the Auditor General and perpetuates doubt.
v. All articles fail to draw a clear distinction between factual information or comment or opinion. For example, the 22 September article opens with reference to an early and secretive recruitment process, it refers to work behind closed doors and states that Lisa Guy had “not copied in any media”. The 27 September article takes a similar approach containing a lot of conjecture presented as news reporting. The 1 October article editorialises by using language such as “unusually evasive”. As noted above, the 3 October article speculates on how accurate the Auditor General’s statement actually is, blending opinion with news.
vi. The headlines were sensationalist, declarative and misleading, presenting allegation or opinion as established fact and framing the stories in a prejudicial way.
vii. It was a conflict of interest to report that Councillor Guy was threatening to bring a Media Council complaint as this was a dispute in which it was involved and did not involve an editorial separation.
viii. No corrections were made after both the Auditor General’s Office and another media outlet made statements contradicting Crux News’s earlier reporting. For example, on 30 September 2025 the Auditor General’s Office released a statement saying, “From the information you have provided to us, it does not appear that Cr Guy or Rationale Limited had a reasonable expectation of financial loss or gain from the Council’s decision about its future water services delivery model.” At this point this 27 September article ought to have been corrected.
The Response
7. Crux News considers that this is a scattergun complaint lacking in specifics, except for broad claims of bias. Given the number of articles complained about and the lack of specifics, Crux News says it is hard for it to defend itself. It notes that some of the matters raised are outside the scope of the Media Council. It rejects the aspects of the complaint that refer to previous complaints about Crux News to the Media Council noting that it has published around 4,000 articles over the last three or four years with no complaints and that it receives advice from a specialist media lawyer.
8. Generally, it stands by its coverage and considers it has respected all Media Council principles. It considers the complaint is politically motived in both structure and substantial content. It considers that:
- All articles are clear, marked with ‘analysis’ where appropriate and containing verified reliable sources.
- There are no factual errors or any blurring of opinion and fact.
- Mr Wright clearly disagrees with the content of the articles. That is his choice.
- The electoral coverage gave fair and balanced coverage to all candidates within the usual confines of newsworthiness and genuine points of view.
- Crux News has not ignored previous Media Council rulings. It has always taken the Media Council principles seriously and followed required procedures as directed. It has modified its style over the years, in response to advice from legal experts. A key aspect of its reporting has been to ‘call out’ elected councillors who appear to be silent and inactive for failing to represent the people who elected them. That appears to have upset some members of the community that support those councillors.
9. With regards to the articles published on 26 and 28 September 2025 (Lewers claims “misinformation”, Guy resorts to insults. Wong says Lewers is right and Lewers launched recruitment process before telling councillors that Theelen had resigned) Crux News suggests the complaint is motived by a desire by Mr Wright to damage Crux News and to give vent to his personal view that Crux News is biased against particular people who have stood for re-election. It states it cannot constructively comment on the 28 September article as it was clearly published as Niki Gladding’s opinion/views. Nobody from the QLDC has been able to refute any of the points raised by her, which are supported by guidelines provided by the Auditor General. The bullet points published by Crux News at the beginning of this piece (headed ‘Editor’s note’) are all accurate, fair and balanced. It was unnecessary for Mrs Gladding to produce documents or sources, but in any event her statements have not been refuted, nor has Mr Wright provided any evidence that supports the suggestion her claims are untrue. As a serving Councillor she is a legitimate and authoritative source in her own right. Although Mr Wright references reporting by another media outlet, that simply expresses the frustration of some other councillors that Mrs Gladding was raising the issue at all, it does not change Crux News’s position in relation to what it has published.
10. The article of 26 September is also clearly opinion and is headed analysis. The context is factual and reflects the honestly held opinion of its author, the editor of Crux News.
11. Regarding the series of articles relating to Lisa Guy Lisa Guy: questions over CEO recruitment ‘disrespectful and inaccurate (22 September 2025), Lisa Guy’s undeclared conflict could derail QLDC $1 billion water CCO (27 September 2025), Data shows it’s Guy and Lewers making the personal attacks – not their opponents (1 October 2025) and Auditor General: ‘Up to QLDC to manage any actual or perceived Lisa Guy conflicts of interest’ (3 October 2025) Crux News states that the 22 September article simply reports on Councillor Guy accusing Councillor Gladding of lacking respect for fellow councillors and being inaccurate in her views on the process to appoint a new CEO. John Glover responds saying he shares those views. It disagrees with Mr Wright’s suggestion that this is an attack on Councillor Lisa Guy. Although another media outlet published materials outlining some councillors’ frustration with Mrs Gladding that does nothing to prove that she is wrong. In relation to the material in the story published on 27 September relating to Lisa Guy’s interests in Rationale Ltd, Crux News stands by its reporting, which it maintains is accurate. Crux News also rejects the complaint about the 1 October article, which it notes was written by and clearly attributed to Queenstown Lakes Community Action and based on a huge amount of data and analysis. The article documents all its sources and provided important context to accusations from Glyn Lewers and Councillor Guy that it was “the other side” making personal comments and attacks during the election campaign.
The Discussion
12. Mr Wright has raised a number of media council Principles in his complaint. We begin by noting that we do not consider any of these articles have beached our Principles in relation to:
- Principle (6) Headlines and Captions. We consider that the headlines fairly and accurately convey the substance or key aspects of the stories referred to. Although we do uphold complaints in relation to some of the articles, we do not think the problems with those articles extended to their headlines.
- Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity. We do not consider that any of the reporting, although it was critical of some people in places, engaged this principle nor did it place gratuitous emphasis on any of the categories covered.
- Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. We do not think any of the articles indicate that Crux News had a conflict of interest in relation to any of this reporting.
- Principles (12) Corrections. Mr Wright appears to suggest that where a different media outlet publishes a piece that might contradict reporting by Crux News there is a requirement for Crux News to run a correction. Generally, we consider that the appropriate step in these circumstances would be for a publication to publish a follow-up story (as Crux News did in relation to the Auditor General’s advice). Although there might be circumstances where a correction is necessary, we do not think that situation arises in relation to any of this reporting where later information appears to have focused on differences of opinion.
13. We consider, however, that the complaints in relation to Principal (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact and (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters require deeper analysis. We consider that the complaint largely falls to be decided under (4) Comment and Fact, which states:
A clear distinction should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion. An article that is essentially comment or opinion should be clearly presented as such. Material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate.
14. We begin by noting that two of the pieces complained above are labelled “Analysis”, however, as we note in the related complaint Barry Bruce against Crux News [ruling 3804] labelling something as ‘analysis’ suggests a piece will contain a careful consideration of all the pertinent sides of a discussion or event. At the very least it should contain an honest comment based on factual background. In the two pieces complained about by Mr Wright it is used in a way that is on the borderline of what would be considered opinion, although it is not as clearly mislabelled as the piece in ruling 3804. We note that Crux News would do well to label their comment and opinion pieces more clearly. If the comment is personal opinion rather than more detailed and fact-based analysis, the use of the label ‘Opinion’ would be clearer again to its audiences.
15. The article of 26 September 2025 Lewers claims “misinformation”, Guy resorts to insults. Wong says Lewers is right was labelled “Analysis” and we consider that, although somewhat ambiguous, this piece does present as one of comment or opinion and it follows that the key question is whether any of the opinions expressed could be said to have reasonably been formed on the basis of underlying accurate information.
16. We do not think that Mr Wright has pointed to any specific aspect of this article that is clearly inaccurate. Although Mr Wright does not like the personal attacks contained in the piece, as the Media Council has consistently stated, there is no right not to be offended. Although colourful, we do not think it was an unreasonable statement to say that “a war [had] broken out amongst a group of QLDC election candidates”. It seems clear that there were strong feelings on both sides about the recruitment process for a new CEO and the statements from which this observation was drawn appear to have come from social media and other aspects of the public record. They also present alternative viewpoints. Likewise, Crux News is entitled to its view regarding the power dynamics of recruitment contracts, the appropriateness of the then CEO getting a 15.5 per cent pay rise and to express its view on the closed nature of the pay and performance committee that made that decision. We note that although Mr Wright points to a different part of the Auditor General’s advice relating to the appointment of Chief Executives than that referred to by Crux News, we do not think this necessarily contradicts the point Crux News was making. Appointment of a consultant (such as a recruitment agency) to assist the process of appointing a new CEO is permitted, but conflict and division arising from a recruitment process can influence the attitude of elected members towards the new chief executive. These propositions are not mutually exclusive, and Crux News was highlighting the risks and objective to the process undertaken in this case, not saying appointment of a recruitment agency could not be done at all.
17. The article of 28 September (Lewers launched recruitment process before telling councillors that Theelen had resigned) carries the by-line “Niki Gladding”. The ‘editorial note’ that begins the piece states that it is an ‘article from Councillor Niki Gladding’. Although readers are likely to be clear that what follows is Councillor Gladding’s view, we uphold the complaint as the piece was not clearly labelled as comment or opinion by any normal standard. Indeed, it was labelled an article. Moreover, giving an election candidate an unchecked ‘article’ in the middle of an election campaign with no reply from other candidates is clearly unfair.
18. We also uphold the complaint in relation to this article in relation to the ‘editorial note’ at the beginning, which summarises the content of the piece. Even if the piece by Councillor Gladding had been clearly labelled as opinion, we consider that drawing out ‘key points’ of such a piece would amount to reporting on the claims made in that piece. We acknowledge that the editor’s note urges readers to read the full article, however, the statement “these are the key points revealed by the documents” clearly indicates that Crux News is reporting on the documents, rather than summarising the views of Councillor Gladding which follow. As a result, we uphold the complaint in relation to this piece for a breach of Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
19. The 22 September article (Lisa Guy: questions over CEO recruitment ‘disrespectful and inaccurate) is also presented as a news report. We agree with Mr Wright that the statements “early secretive recruitment of a replacement council CEO” and “behind closed doors work” inappropriately blur the distinction between fact and opinion. Both statements read as statement of fact by the reporter. We accept that the email response from John Glover to Lisa Guy reproduced in the article includes his view that “there is no reason for a secretive, exclusive process behind closed doors …”. However, the article itself does not present the problematic statements as Mr Glover’s view, or attribute them to him. Instead, they are presented as facts. We uphold Mr Wright’s complaint in relation to this article as a breach of Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
20. The 27 September article (Lisa Guy’s undeclared conflict could derail QLDC $1 billion water CCO) is labelled ‘analysis’ and we accept that, although not entirely clear, it can be read as a comment on the material considered, as opposed to a news report on the subject. As a result, the question is whether the opinions expressed could be said to have reasonably been formed on the basis of underlying accurate information. Mr Wright has not pointed to anything in the piece that is clearly inaccurate, and the Media Council is in no position to assess the interests held by any individual in a trust or company. The possibility of a councillor having a conflict of interest in relation to an important vote and the consequences that might flow from that is an important issue, and one Crux News can give an opinion on. As it has not been proven that material facts (on which the opinions expressed in the analysis were based) were inaccurate, the Media Council finds there was no breach of its Principles relating to comment and opinion in relation to this article.
21. The 1 October article (Data shows it’s Guy and Lewers making the personal attacks – not their opponents) is authored by a community group. However, as republished by Crux News it is not labelled as comment or opinion, nor is it obviously otherwise presented as such. Although it carries the statement “republished with permission” Crux News is responsible as the publisher for ensuring it complies with Media Council Principles. As the Media Council has previously observed, advocacy journalism has its place, but there needs to be a clear distinction drawn between facts and opinion, with clear labelling. In relation to this piece, we think that readers would be very uncertain as to whether what they were reading was a factual news story, or a piece of commentary drawn from the author’s subjective analysis of a set of data. We uphold the complaint as a breach of Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
22. We also uphold the complaint about this article under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The article makes a number of claims about named individuals, and we consider it was unfair and unbalanced not to give them an opportunity to comment on the analysis of the data provided. Moreover, this is compounded by the bold section of text before the article (clearly authored by Crux News). This contains several statements that are not clearly news and are critical of Mayor Lewers and Councillor Lisa Guy and makes accusations that they are playing ‘dirty politics’. Although these comments were short and made in response to the piece that follows (essentially in support of the point made in the piece), we think it was unfair for Crux News to publish them without giving those criticised an opportunity to comment. We uphold the complaint about these aspects of the article as a breach Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
23. The 3 October article (Auditor General: ‘Up to QLDC to manage any actual or perceived Lisa Guy conflicts of interest’) is also presented as news, as opposed to ‘analysis or opinion’. We agree with Mr Wright that the statement “It seems clear that this QLDC position does not include any future or unknown connection between Lisa Guy/Rationale and the soon to be formed $1 billion external QLDC water CCO” inappropriately blurs the distinction between fact and comment. This appears to be an entirely speculative view, and we uphold the complaint about this article under Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
Decision:
1. Lewers claims “misinformation”, Guy resorts to insults. Wong says Lewers is right (26 September). Complaint not upheld.
2. Lewers launched recruitment process before telling councillors that Theelen had resigned (28 September). Complaint upheld for a breach of Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
3. Lisa Guy: questions over CEO recruitment ‘disrespectful and inaccurate’ (22 September 2025). Complaint upheld for a breach of Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
4. Lisa Guy’s undeclared conflict could derail QLDC $1 billion water CCO (27 September 2025). Complaint not upheld.
5. Data shows it’s Guy and Lewers making the personal attacks – not their opponents (1 October 2025). Complaint upheld for a breach of Principle (4) Comment and Fact and Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
6. Auditor General: ‘Up to QLDC to manage any actual or perceived Lisa Guy conflicts of interest’ (3 October 2025). Complaint upheld for a breach Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau