NZ Media Council upholds complaint over Stuff headline on Covid immunity

Tuesday, 5 May 2026

The NZ Media Council has upheld a complaint against Stuff after finding that a headline on a Covid19 article was misleading and did not accurately reflect the substance of the reporting.

The ruling concerns an article published by Stuff on 12 March 2026 titled “The Covid immunity cycle: Why catching the virus is basically our new booster.” The story explored a new wave of Covid cases and examined whether ongoing booster vaccinations were still necessary. It included expert commentary from University of

Canterbury Professor Michael Plank, who explained how immunity from both vaccination and infection wanes over time and why booster shots continue to play an important role.

John Marshall complained that the headline breached the Media Council’s Principles of accuracy and fairness. He argued that the headline implied catching Covid was equivalent to receiving a booster vaccination, a claim he said was contradicted by the expert quoted in the article. Professor Plank, when directly asked in the piece, said people should still receive booster vaccinations, despite having “combined immunity” from previous infections.

Mr Marshall said the headline risked misleading readers, particularly those who only skim headlines, into believing that the health benefits of a Covid infection were comparable to those of vaccination. He warned that this could undermine public health messaging by encouraging the false idea that boosters were no longer necessary.

Stuff rejected the complaint, arguing the headline captured a key concept discussed in the story – that infections can temporarily boost population-level immunity as part of a wider cycle where immunity rises and then wanes. Stuff said the article clearly explained the value of vaccination and did not promote infection as a preferred or safe alternative.

The Media Council accepted that headlines are designed to attract readers and must be read alongside the articles they introduce. It also acknowledged that the article itself was accurate and responsibly reported, clearly supporting vaccination and explaining that immunity decreases over time.

However, the Council concluded that the wording of the headline suggested that “catching the virus” was effectively a substitute for a booster shot. While Professor Plank had explained that infection could boost immunity temporarily, he did not say it was equivalent to vaccination or that boosters were unnecessary.

The Council said this distinction was critical.

By presenting infection as “basically our new booster,” the headline conveyed a message directly contrary to the article’s central point – that vaccination remains the best available tool to reduce the impact of Covid.

The Council found this breached Principle (6), which requires headlines to accurately and fairly convey the substance of an article.

The full Media Council ruling can be found Media Council - John Marshall against Stuff.