Sam Russell against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3849
Council Meeting: 16 March 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Errors
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On 8 February 2026, Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published an online article Cook Islands reports dengue death, amid increase in outbreak. After considering a complaint from Mr Sam Russell, RNZ amended the story on 13 February.
2. Mr Russell remained dissatisfied following the amendment and complained to the Media Council that the amended article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The complaint was also considered under Principle (12) Corrections. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
3. The article covered an outbreak of dengue fever in the Cook Islands, opening with the statement: “A clinician says dengue fever vaccines should be made available in New Zealand …”. The article provided further information from the clinician, Dr Shaw from Worldwise Travellers Health, on vaccines for dengue fever available in other countries. It quoted Dr Shaw as saying a vaccine was available in Australia “and has been trialled and tested across most of the world, including in Europe, the US, and South America.” He said the vaccine had yet to be registered by MedSafe in New Zealand.
4. The article also provided information on symptoms, advice for travellers in protecting themselves from the risk of dengue fever, and the steps tourist companies were taking in the Cook Islands in response to the outbreak.
5. Following Mr Russell’s complaint, RNZ amended the article and added a note at the start of the article to advise readers “This article has been amended with information about the vaccine.” The amendments:
- Deleted the words “There is currently no vaccine against dengue currently available in New Zealand”
-
Added the words “However, the vaccine situation was complicated” ahead of new information from the Ministry of Health (MoH) that
explained:
- MedSafe could only approve a vaccine if a pharmaceutical company applied, and none had
- Doctors could import unapproved medicines for their patients
- Australia did not have a generally available vaccine but those who had had the disease before could get one in very limited circumstances.
The Complaint
6. Mr Russell complained the article misled readers about the availability of the vaccine. He said it gave the impression that New Zealanders were missing out on healthcare available in Australia. He provided information (supported by references to sources) to show the vaccines were not widely available in the way represented by the article.
7. Mr Russell was not satisfied with RNZ’s amendment, saying it remained misleading. He said:
There are 2 dengue fever vaccines. Dengvaxia (available in AU and US but discontinues (sic) production at the end of 2026) and Q-Denga (available in EU). Original article mentions neither and conflates the two and provides misleading information about AU access. Updated article confirms limited AU access but still conflates the two vaccines, adds a quote from MoH about Q0-Denga, but not Dengvaxia (the vaccine available in Australia).
Layperson could be misled to believe that NZ could offer access to the vaccine used in AU (Dengvaxia), but this is impossible as it is discontinued.
The Response
8. In response, RNZ said:
- The main focus of the article was to provide timely advice about the dengue fever outbreak in the Cook Islands, including practical steps for travellers to take when travelling there
- RNZ was entitled to publish Dr Shaw’s opinion (as a specialist in travel health) that NZ should have access to a dengue vaccine
- After consulting with the MoH, it updated the article to include the pathway for approval of a vaccine
9. RNZ said it did not believe the article would mislead a reasonable reader. It said the key public interest information in the article was:
- Dengue fever cases were rising in the Cook Islands
- No vaccine was currently available in NZ
- The precautions travellers should take
The Discussion
10. Principle (1) requires RNZ to “be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission.” The issue in this complaint is whether the information about the availability of a dengue fever vaccine in the original and amended articles was accurate, in the context of a broader article reporting on a dengue fever outbreak in the Cook Islands.
11. The original article had a greater emphasis on the unavailability of the vaccine in NZ. The opening paragraph reported Dr Shaw’s view that a dengue fever vaccine should be made available in NZ. The article then provided the context of the Cook Islands’ outbreak and information on dengue fever before returning to the availability of the vaccine. The article quoted Dr Shaw as saying a vaccine was available in Australia and had been “trialled and tested across most of the world” and “There was strong demand for it in New Zealand, but it needs to be registered with MedSafe … to be offered here.”
12. Dr Shaw is entitled to his view and RNZ are entitled to report it. However, the article left the reader with the overall inaccurate impression that New Zealanders were unable to access a vaccine that was widely available elsewhere.
13. The amendment provided the more nuanced information that the vaccine position was “complicated”. In the amended article, RNZ provided the greater context. The amended article explained the MedSafe approval process, said doctors could import unapproved medicines, and explained the vaccine was only available in very limited circumstances in Australia.
14. The Media Council is satisfied it was important to include the information that a vaccine was not available in NZ – as most travellers would be considering what vaccines they need to have before travelling overseas. The amended article made it clear to travellers that not only was a vaccine not available in NZ, MedSafe had not received an application for approval, and one was not generally available in Australia. This made the information in the article on precautions even more significant for the reader.
15. Mr Russell claims the article, even as amended, presented the vaccine information in a way that suggested Australians had a better deal from their health service. The Media Council disagrees – the amended article said a vaccine was only available Australia in very limited cases. The article could have continued, as Mr Russell suggested, to note that the manufacturer had stopped producing that vaccine, but the absence of that information did not make the article inaccurate.
16. Mr Russell was also concerned that the article conflated the two vaccines and should have specified the vaccine available in limited circumstances in Australia. The Media Council disagrees. The article was not intended to provide specialist medical advice and information on ‘a vaccine’ was sufficient for the general reader.
17. The Council is satisfied the original article did not meet the requirements of Principle (1). This is because the ordinary reader would have believed an effective vaccine was generally available but not in NZ. After considering and checking the information Mr Russell helpfully provided, RNZ’s amended article presented the more nuanced position, and RNZ’s amendment was made promptly.
18. When publishing the amended article, RNZ added a note at the start of the article to advise readers RNZ had amended the article. The Council is satisfied this meets the requirements of Principle (12) for corrections to be published with due prominence.
19. However, the original article was available for almost six days before correction:
- 8 February RNZ (and Stuff under a partnership arrangement with RNZ) published the article
- Mr Russell saw the article and complained to Stuff
- 10 February RNZ received complaint from Stuff
- RNZ sought comment from MoH
- 13 February MoH responded to RNZ (after 3 pm)
- RNZ amended article (6.30 pm) and advised partners (7 pm)
20. RNZ’s actions on receiving the complaint were prompt and appropriate. On balance, given the most important information in the article was about the outbreak, symptoms of dengue fever, and precautions for travellers to take, the Media Council is satisfied the correction met the requirement of Principle (12) to make corrections promptly.
21. This complaint highlights the importance of partners sending a complaint to the original publishers immediately after they receive it. The original publisher’s delay meant the inaccurate information was in the public domain for longer than it should have been.
Decision
22. The complaint is not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom
Tim Watkin declared a conflict to interest and did not vote.