Mark Eliassen against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3726
Council Meeting: 21 July 2025
Decision: Not Upheld with Dissent
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle: Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories: Headlines and Captions
Overview
1. On 20 March 2025, the NZ Herald published an online article Malaysian Government approves last-ditch search for missing MH370 flight. A teaser for the article was headlined Bombshell development with last-ditch search for MH370 flight. Mark Eliassen complained the teaser headline breached Principle (6) Headlines and Captions. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article said that on the previous day, the Malaysian Government had given approval for a final search for the missing plane. It reminded readers of the circumstances of the missing flight and then outlined details of the final search to be conducted by a marine bioptics company. The company had conducted two previous searches, but the Government had now approved the company to conduct one last search on a no-find no-fee basis.
The Complaint
3. Mr Eliassen’s complaint was that the teaser headline was “pure clickbait – cheap and cruel” and designed to get attention. He said announcing a “bombshell development” would lead readers to expect the wreckage had been found, but in fact the article merely repeated information that had largely already been announced.
4. Mr Eliassen said there was no new angle to justify the “bombshell development” headline. He provided links to BBC and ABC articles showing the new search had been agreed in principle in December 2024 and the Malaysian Government had announced it on 25 February 2025.
5. Mr Eliassen noted while the publisher had changed the headline and deleted the Facebook post, it had not expressed any regret for publishing the original headline.
The Response
6. The NZ Herald said the article was a story and headline syndicated from news.com.au. It said the article “no longer shows up on our homepage and the Facebook post [was] being deleted.”
7. The NZ Herald did not agree that readers reading the headline would think the wreckage had been found. It said, “A development of that magnitude would have been clear in the headline and not something the Herald would shy away from.”
8. The NZ Herald said the new angle was that the Malaysian Government had approved the terms and conditions for the robotics company to conduct the search. It pointed out that the story made it clear the search had been approved in December 2024 but now the terms and conditions had been agreed.
9. It said the homepage headline would only have been “visible for a few hours so it no longer shows up on the homepage.” It said it had deleted the Facebook post after receiving Mr Eliassen’s complaint but noted that the Geelong Advertiser was still carrying the "bombshell" headline for the story.
The Discussion
10. The issue in this complaint is whether the teaser headline met the requirements of Principle (6) Captions and Headlines. If the Media Council believes the headline did not meet the requirements of Principle (6), then it will need to consider whether the removal of the Facebook post and the fact the headline is no longer visible meets the requirements of Principle (12) Corrections.
11. Principle (6) says “Headlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover.”
12. The article was syndicated from news.com.au. It provided an update on the search for the missing plane, which, as the article acknowledged, the Malaysian Government had approved and announced in December. The new information was that the Government had now approved the terms and conditions of the search, meaning the search was now to go ahead. While it is debatable whether that is “bombshell” news, confirmation of the search could be seen as a significant development.
13. On balance the Media Council does not find the “bombshell” headline breaches the requirements of Principle (6). We are satisfied the story does accurately explain the development and what the headline writers saw as “bombshell” news. We note that the NZ Herald used a supplied headline and did not add any exaggeration.
14. There was a procedural development in the search for the missing plane and this was new information. Whether or not it could be categorised hyperbolically as a “bombshell” is a matter of opinion – it is not a question of fact. However, the Media Council notes that using such strong hyperbole for what was merely a procedural update could serve to reduce trust in the media.
15. In our view, the length of time the headline was available is not a relevant consideration. While it removed the Facebook post, the NZ Herald did not remove or alter the headline and is relying on the actions of an algorithm to say the headline only appeared for a short period of time.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld under Principle (6).
Dissent by Judi Jones, Hon Raynor Asher, Ben France-Hudson
The minority does not agree that the use of the term "bombshell" was justified. While there was new information on the search, the article is merely reporting on the continued development of the already announced final search. There was no breakthrough or new development justifying the use of such a strong word. The “bombshell” headline did not reflect the content of the article and therefore breaches Principle (6).
In its response, the NZ Herald said it was republishing a story under a syndication arrangement with news.com.au, and therefore unable to change the headline. However, the NZ Herald decided to run the story, including the teaser “bombshell” headline, and is responsible for ensuring its publication meets the Media Council standards.
We are not satisfied the NZ Herald’s actions in removing the Facebook post was a sufficient “correction” in terms of Principle (12) Corrections. Principle (12) says “A publication’s willingness to correct errors enhances its credibility and will often, defuse the complaint.” The NZ Herald continued to defend the headline but advised that the teaser headline would have disappeared from the homepage within a few hours of its initial publication. We agree with the majority comments at paragraph (15).
We see the misuse of the word “bombshell” as sensationalist and unjustified. It is unfair to the reader and a breach of Principle (6) as the headline does not accurately and fairly convey the substance of the report.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Katrina Bennett, Guy MacGibbon, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Reina Vaai, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin, Scott Inglis, Ben France-Hudson
Katrina Bennett and Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.