Michael Lidski against The Post

The Post published an article on June 9, 2026, titled Full interview: Russian ambassador says New Zealanders are being fed Ukraine ‘propaganda’.

The article was an interview with Stanislav Krans who recently took up his post as the new Russian ambassador to New Zealand.

The ambassador talked about his mission which included improving relations and putting across Russia’s perspective on its war with Ukraine.

Michael Lidski and Olha Viazenko sent an open letter to the journalist who interviewed the Russian Ambassador challenging his comments. The journalist stated that they raised important points in the open letter and that The Post would like to publish it on their website in response to the interview.

The letter was published and subsequently, Olha Viazenko complained to The Post about how it was published (it was only published online and not in the paper).  She complained that this created a significant imbalance.

In their formal complaint to the Media Council Michael Lidski said The Post failed to provide sufficient factual context and scrutiny of highly disputed claims concerning Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“The article presented official state narratives on matters of significant public importance without adequately distinguishing political advocacy from established fact.”

He said the article should have included information to balance the ambassador’s claims about the war. There was an editorial responsibility to distinguish official advocacy from established facts and provide readers with sufficient context to assess contested claims.

This included the ambassador’s rejection of the terms “illegal” and “invasion” without readers being informed that Russia crossed Ukrainian borders in February 2022, that the UN had condemned Russia’s aggression or that New Zealand has consistently described the invasion as illegal and imposed sanctions in response.

He said it also failed to challenge the ambassador’s claims that Russia was protecting Russian-speaking populations, of Western responsibility for the conflict and that the article omitted reference to war crime investigations.

“An ordinary reader could reasonably be left with the impression that there remains genuine uncertainty about whether Russia invaded Ukraine or bears primary responsibility for the conflict...”

The Post responded that the ambassador’s claims were challenged in the interview. It also reported the Ministry of Foreign Affairs response. It added that the article had to be seen in the context of years of reporting it had published on the conflict.

As for their letter, The Post said decisions about what appeared in print were at the discretion of its senior editorial team and based on factors including space, timing and what else was available on the day. The letter, like the article, was published behind a paywall and both were prominent on its website. It was very well read.

The Media Council noted the article was presented in a Q & A format, which tends to limit scope for putting a subject’s comments into context. Plainly the ambassador’s answers were identified as opinion. They did not need to be labelled as such.

Nevertheless, the ambassador’s views were questioned and challenged on key points – particularly on the fact it was an illegal invasion.  The questions were hard hitting and put the ambassador on the defensive. His claims did not go unchallenged The presentation of the interview gave readers the opportunity to hear, or at least see, precisely what the ambassador had to say and draw their own conclusions.

The Council also believes balance has been provided in the extensive coverage provided throughout this long-running war.

As for the decision not to run the letter in print, the selection and placement of letters to the editor are entirely a matter of editorial discretion. There was no evidence to show any breaches of Media Council Principles.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.