Simon Smelt against Stuff
Case Number: 3799
Council Meeting: 1 December 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Simon Smelt complains about four Stuff articles on the war in Gaza published between 29 July and 12 August 2025. Dr Smelt complains that these articles are evidence that Stuff has a one-sided view of the war in Gaza.
The Article
2. The first article is an editorial by Keith Lynch, Editor-in-Chief, on 29 July that invites readers to share their perspectives on Gaza, includes links to article about a child that starved to death and reference to AP and The Washington Post as the sources for Stuff’s reporting on this subject.
3. The second article published on 31 July What’s the truth behind two images of starving children in Gaza? includes an embedded video fronted by Paula Penfold titled ‘Gaza Explained’ and includes conflicting quotes about starvation in Gaza from the Israeli Prime Minister and US President. It includes an image of a girl pleading for food and outlines the debate around the authenticity of the photo. It also includes additional detail about the pre-existing medical issues of the malnourished child referenced in previous articles.
4. The third article, published on 1 August Why not enough food is reaching people in Gaza even after Israel eased its blockade outlines the constraints and issues about getting aid trucks into Gaza. It includes references to violence from Israelis and Palestinians desperate for food and the use of airdrops.
5. The final article Increasing the danger: Journalist killing in Gaza sends a chilling message was published on 12 August outlines details of the death of an Al Jazeera correspondent in Gaza. It includes discussion of the death toll of journalists in Gaza, and the use of local sources (such as doctors and civil servants) by new organisations to get reporting.
The Complaint
6. Dr Smelt’s complaint against the first article, the 29 July editorial, is that it is inaccurate because there is no mention of the pre-existing condition of the child who starved to death nor of the nature and role of Hamas in the war.
7. He states that the second article contains a photo of a child with a food bowl that is inaccurate and an example of Palestinian propaganda (that he refers to as Pallywood).
8. His complaint about the third article is that it under-represents the volume of aid trunks going into Gaza and relies on the UN attributing the lack of aid in Gaza on Israeli military restrictions and lawlessness in Gaza. Dr Smelt says it is inaccurate because there is ‘no serious discussion about the vast size of the aid stacked just inside the border or the aid previously intercepted by Hamas and others and stockpiled by them.’
9. The comment that Israel had not produced evidence that the Al Jazeera journalist killed was a Hamas operative is refuted in the last article. Dr Smelt argues that Israel produced a range of evidence, though acknowledges accusations that the evidence produced was fabricated.
10. Overall, Dr Smelt argues that these four articles demonstrate “a record of persistent, heavy bias in one direction” and that the negative role of Hamas and a more nuanced reporting on the food issues in Gaza is needed to achieve balance.
The Response
11. Stuff responds by stating they have published numerous articles on Gaza from a wide range of perspectives, including several that include strong criticism of Hamas. Stuff stands by its reporting as any statements or numbers included are clearly attributed and when definitive proof at the time of publishing is not available, the articles are worded accordingly.
The Discussion
12. The complaint focuses on two aspects of the Media Council’s Principle (1): inaccuracies within the four articles and a lack of balance over the four.
13. For reference, Media Council Principle (1) says:
“Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance, and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers by commission or omission. In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view."
“Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report."
14. In regard to the first article, the Media Council notes that the link in the editorial takes the reader to an article that outlines the nuances of the child in question’s death.
15. Also, as Gaza has been declared several times by the Media Council as a long-running issue (refer to rulings 3505, 3780, 3782) publications do not need to include all aspects of the war in reporting, such as describing the nature and role of Hamas in every article.
16. Dr Smelt provides links to websites challenging the accuracy of the image used in the second article and the claim about the lack of evidence in the fourth. The Media Council is not in the position to verify such sources However the second article clearly outlines how the authenticity of the photo is questioned and attributes all statements to their source. The third and fourth articles, similarly, have clear attribution of statements.
17. As previous Council decisions have concluded, reporting on war and conflict from afar is always challenging for New Zealand news media, which seldom have their own reporters in or near the war zones. War reporting will always contain contestable issues. It is reasonable for publications to rely on reputable agencies, although clear errors should be corrected.
18. Attributing all statements, especially when information cannot be independently verified, is standard practice. Readers should be left in no doubt that the events described in the article are based on claims from a particular source.
19. Publishing stories from reputable international news organisations is also seen standard practice. Stuff has used the services of AP; a reputable agency with much experience covering wars as impartially as they can for a diverse international audience.
20. As both practices have been followed in these articles, and the Media Council can find no evidence of the breach of Principle (1) in regard to inaccuracies in any of the four articles.
21. The war in Gaza has been the subject of many multitudes of news articles and as mentioned before has been declared a long-running issue by the Media Council. Principle (1) states:
“every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report”
22. As such, the lack of information about Hamas in the four articles selected by Dr Smelt cannot be taken to indicate a ‘heavy bias in one direction.’ Stuff is not bound to include every side of an issue in all articles.
Decision: The complaint is Not Upheld
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
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote