Vincent Ellerson against NZME
Case Number: 3916
Council Meeting: 12 October 2026
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: NZME
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Conflicts of Interest
Ruling Categories:
Balance, Lack Of
Conflict of Interest
NZME published an episode of the New Zealand Herald podcast The Front Page on 20 September 2026, featuring an interview with the owner of the New World supermarket in Kawerau. She spoke about the challenges of running a big supermarket and the possible effects of proposals by
various political parties to try to bring down grocery prices.
Vincent Ellerson complained that the podcast breached Media Council Principle (1) Balance, as it gave almost 20 minutes of uninterrupted airtime to an industry insider without presenting a counter-argument.
He also believed NZME breached Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest, as Foodstuffs (New World’s parent company) was a big advertiser and a highly sympathetic interview - with no disclosure of the financial relationship - was a severe conflict of interest.
In response NZME said the podcast was designed to show the perspective of a supermarket owner and should be considered together with other recent Front Page podcasts on the subject of supermarkets.
One - described as a Katie Bradford explainer - detailed how the political parties were planning to take on New Zealand’s supermarket giants. Other podcasts in the same series featured Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick discussing the Greens' supermarket price gouging proposal and Grocery Action Group chair Sue Chetwin discussing supermarket competition and market reform.
The Media Council did not believe a case was made to support this complaint.
Although the podcast featuring the supermarket owner essentially provided only one perspective, it had to be seen alongside other podcasts on the same subject, which presented political arguments and expert commentary on the supermarket business, whether there is insufficient competition and whether consumers might benefit from regulatory and structural changes to the market. The Council considered that journalistic balance was provided over time.
As to the claim that NZME had a conflict of interest on this issue, there was no evidence to show advertising revenues influenced how the issue was covered. This is a big political issue. NZME would be remiss if it avoided covering it. It would also be remiss if it did not cover viewpoints like those of business owners who could be directly affected by possible changes to their industry.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.
Vincent Ellerson complained that the podcast breached Media Council Principle (1) Balance, as it gave almost 20 minutes of uninterrupted airtime to an industry insider without presenting a counter-argument.
He also believed NZME breached Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest, as Foodstuffs (New World’s parent company) was a big advertiser and a highly sympathetic interview - with no disclosure of the financial relationship - was a severe conflict of interest.
In response NZME said the podcast was designed to show the perspective of a supermarket owner and should be considered together with other recent Front Page podcasts on the subject of supermarkets.
One - described as a Katie Bradford explainer - detailed how the political parties were planning to take on New Zealand’s supermarket giants. Other podcasts in the same series featured Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick discussing the Greens' supermarket price gouging proposal and Grocery Action Group chair Sue Chetwin discussing supermarket competition and market reform.
The Media Council did not believe a case was made to support this complaint.
Although the podcast featuring the supermarket owner essentially provided only one perspective, it had to be seen alongside other podcasts on the same subject, which presented political arguments and expert commentary on the supermarket business, whether there is insufficient competition and whether consumers might benefit from regulatory and structural changes to the market. The Council considered that journalistic balance was provided over time.
As to the claim that NZME had a conflict of interest on this issue, there was no evidence to show advertising revenues influenced how the issue was covered. This is a big political issue. NZME would be remiss if it avoided covering it. It would also be remiss if it did not cover viewpoints like those of business owners who could be directly affected by possible changes to their industry.
Decision: No grounds to proceed.