Valentines against the New Zealand Herald


Case Number: 3898

Council Meeting: 12 October 2026

Decision: Not Upheld

Publication: New Zealand Herald

Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Corrections

Ruling Categories: Accuracy
Comment and Fact
Errors
Apology and Correction Sought


Overview

1. The New Zealand Herald published the online article Health officials investigate norovirus reports after Valentines Manukau diners fall ill on 24 June 2026 and the print article Buffet Outbreak on 25 June 2026. Both report on an investigation by public health officials into a norovirus outbreak linked to Valentines Manukau.


The Article

2. Health officials investigate norovirus reports after Valentines Manukau diners fall ill begins by stating that public health authorities are investigating complaints that 15 people reported symptoms after visiting Valentines Manukau on 12 June. The source of the outbreak had not been identified, and the restaurant was co-operating with authorities.

3. A quote from the Auckland Council licensing and compliance manager states that food safety officers from the Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries made a joint visit on 18 June and found no food safety issues, and that no issues had been found previously.

4. The article goes on to report that staff who ate at the restaurant during their breaks did not fall ill, and that the restaurant had received only two complaints. Google reviews from customers describing their illness are included, and the article concludes with an explainer about norovirus.

5. Buffet Outbreak is a short article stating that public health officials are investigating an outbreak of norovirus involving 15 people with symptoms linked to Valentines Manukau. It includes a quote from the region's medical officer of health.



The Complaint

6. Valentines complains that the article is inaccurate because it states that 15 people reported symptoms. Valentines says Auckland Council told it that only five cases had been tested. Reporting symptoms and being clinically tested are not the same thing. One is anecdotal; the other carries clinical weight. Valentines argues that publishing the figure of 15 without that context paints a significantly more alarming picture than the confirmed data supports.

7. Valentines also questions the prominent use of quotes from Google reviews. It says these are unverified and inaccurate accounts (for example, referring to bacterial infections that were not detected) and were placed before the official’s findings and the restaurant's response.

8. Valentines repeatedly asked the Herald for access to the data sources used in its reports. It says this was because the articles had the potential to cause significant reputational and commercial harm, and it wanted to verify the factual basis for the reporting.

9. Valentines further argues that although the Herald amended some aspects of the article, it did so only after the original version had been widely disseminated. By then, readers had already seen the negative Google reviews and reporting that gave the impression 15 people had suffered "food poisoning" from food served at the restaurant, even though the available evidence did not support such a definitive conclusion.




The Response

10. The Herald stands by the sources and accuracy of the story, including the information that 15 people reported symptoms. It says Health New Zealand's National Public Health Service emailed this figure to it twice. The three agencies and their three spokespeople are clearly named in the story, and Valentines could have obtained the same information directly from those agencies.

11. The Herald defends its use of the Google review quotes. While the source of the virus is still under investigation, this does not change the fact that customers posted about symptoms consistent with norovirus after eating at the restaurant. The Herald notes that it subsequently amended one quote.

12. The Herald states that it is under no obligation to share its data sources. It rejects the claims that the facts were not verified, that the story was unbalanced and that it contained inaccurate information. It verified the information by speaking to several agencies and, to ensure balance, waited for a response from Valentines before publishing.

 


The Discussion

13. The Media Council appreciates the potential impact of an article like this on a business's reputation, and on its staff and owners. It balances this against a publisher's role in reporting facts about local businesses.

14. In this case, the Media Council finds no breach of its principles. Principle (1) requires publications to be accurate at all times. The figure of 15 is data provided by a government agency and was accurately reported as people experiencing symptoms, as was the link between the restaurant and the outbreak. Valentines was asked for comment before publication and provided it, and the restaurant's counterpoints are included in the article.

15. The complainant may have seen the use of the Google reviews as unfair. However, the reviews are clearly presented as customer comments, are relevant to the story and are already in the public domain. Their use and placement are an editorial decision, so long as they meet expected standards.

16. Principle (12) concerns corrections. Errors should be corrected promptly and with fair prominence. The Herald acknowledged that Google comments contained errors (citing food poisoning as the cause of the illness when officials had stated it was norovirus).  The Herald made amendments quickly (within one day of receiving Valentines' complaint), and these are clearly noted at the top of the article.

17. Finally, the Council concurs that publications are under no obligation to release their source material to complainants. 


Decision: The complaint is not upheld

 

Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Andrew Chen, Susan Freeman-Greene.

Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.