Malcom Molver, Maree Voorend, Luke Kirkeby, Sarah Axford against Stuff

Malcolm Molver, Maree Voorend, Luke Kirkeby and Sarah Axford complained about the headline on a Stuff article published August 11, 2026, titled Cheeses Christ!  A block of cheese has cracked $20.

The story reported that the cost of 1kg supermarket cheese had risen to $20. It outlined prices at various supermarkets and price movements across major food groups.

All four complained the headline was offensive and unnecessary. Mr Molver said the obvious play on the name Jesus Christ for comedic effect was offensive and unacceptable. It was a pun that served no journalistic purpose and appeared to be designed to attract attention through irreverence. It was disrespectful to religious belief, lacked sensitivity.

“The headline contributes nothing of substance to the story and risks alienating and offending readers who hold sincere religious beliefs.”

Maree Voorend said: “This newspaper has created hostility and emotional harm by their mocking and blaspheming the name of Jesus Christ.

Luke Kirkeby said: “The use of ‘Jesus Christ’ as a blasphemous expression is highly offensive to Christians.”

Sarah Axford complained of: “The deliberate and gratuitous use of a sacred religious reference for humour where religion has no relevance whatsoever.”

She believed this was a breach of Media Council Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity. This states that religion is a legitimate subject for discussion where relevant and in the public interest, but that publications should not place gratuitous emphasis on such categories.

There was no religion issue in the story and Jesus Christ was referred to solely as a pun.

She also argued it was a breach of Principle (6) Headlines and Captions as the headline did not convey the substance or a key element of the story.

In response to the complainants Stuff acknowledged some readers might find the play on the expression “Jesus Christ” to be irreverent and offensive.

“However, we do not consider the headline to be offensive or inappropriate to the extent that it breaches our editorial standards. It is a light-hearted pun relating directly to the subject of the story, rather than an attack on, or disparagement of Christianity or Christians.”

The Media Council understands why the complainants were offended by the headline. They had reasonable and heartfelt complaints. The pun was bound to offend some readers who could see it as blasphemous and a breach of the biblical commandment that the Lord’s name should not be taken in vain.

However, the Media Council does not have Principles relating to blasphemy or even good taste. Nor is it persuaded that Principles (6) Headlines and Captions, or (7) Discrimination and Diversity have been breached. The headline “Cheeses Christ” is an exclamation referring to the high price of cheese and it therefore relates to the substance of the story.

The Council also does not accept an argument that the use of a pun based on the exclamation “Jesus Christ” breaches Principle (7). Its careless use in everyday language - as an exclamation, curse or swear word - is so common and indiscriminate that most users would not even think of it as a religious invocation.

As the Media Council has often stated, the use of language and questions of taste are matters of editorial discretion.

In a recent ruling on a Sunday Star Times article in which the “c...” word was used to describe women politicians (Ruling 3755), the Media Council said: “readers do not have the right to not be offended and, if they find a publication distasteful, they can choose to get their news elsewhere. That is a risk editors run when they publish material that is likely to upset a significant number of readers.”

In another ruling dealing with a complaint about the use of the word “Jesus” as an expletive in a cartoon (Ruling 3890) the Media Council said: “[it] has long held that editors have sole responsibility for the use of language and decisions relating to matters of taste. It is over to them to judge what their readers will accept, tolerate, or appreciate. That is not something the Council can dictate.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.