Overview

1. The Spinoff published an article on March 19, 2026, titled “Should Chris Hipkins’ private life be the public’s business?”

2. POLITIK published an article on March 18, 2026, titled “The Trolling of Chris Hipkins”.

3. Ani O’Brien complained that The Spinoff article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (12) Corrections. She also complained that the POLITIK article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.

4. The complaints are essentially the same and therefore combined for the purposes of this ruling. We deal with The Spinoff article first despite it summarising the POLITIK article, as it has greater focus in the complaints.

The Article – The Spinoff

5. The writer of The Spinoff article about Jade Paul’s social media claims against her ex-husband, Labour leader Chris Hipkins – which he has flatly and comprehensively denied – said it had prompted as much scrutiny of the media as of the man at its centre. Its writer said most media outlets chose not to repeat the substance of Ms Paul’s allegations, for legal and ethical reasons.

6. In part of the story analysing the coverage, a subheading – The oxygen from the right – went on to talk about how the story had drawn attention partly because of how it had been amplified. Richard Harman, writing in POLITIK, notes that most of its oxygen has come from the right on social media: Cameron Slater has been active on X promoting Ms Paul’s account, as has Ani O’Brien, a former press secretary to Judith Collins. Ms O’Brien has posted on X that “while she has made no secret of her friendship with Paul, she is not pulling strings behind the scenes”.

The Complaint

7. Ms O’Brien complained that The Spinoff article’s characterisation of her was inaccurate and misleading, and she requested both a correction and a retraction. Ms O’Brien said the implication that she was “amplifying” or “pushing” the story was simply not true.

8. She said she had posted about the issue only two or three times in total and had been deliberately restrained in her public commentary, partly because of a significant volume of abuse and harassment. Ms O’Brien said to single her out as a source of “oxygen” for the story was not supported by the facts.

9. Her complaint to The Spinoff outlined that:

• She did not leak or distribute any screenshots to media.
• She had no involvement in Ms Paul’s decision to post.
• She had not been “pushing” or amplifying this story across platforms.
• She made one statement on Facebook addressing false rumours about her involvement.

10. She requested a correction, a retraction of any implications in The Spinoff reporting that she had been a primary source of amplification, and a public apology to be considered due to the reputational harm and ongoing harassment.

The Response

11. There was a response delay of five days due to the original complaint going into a junk folder. The Spinoff Editor, Veronica Schmidt, apologised for that delay but rejected the grounds for the complaint.

12. Ms Schmidt, after reviewing the complaint, said she was comfortable the story was accurate. She said Ms O’Brien posted to her 37,500 followers on March 15 – the day before any news media began reporting on Ms Paul’s post. She said Ms O’Brien continued to post to her large group of followers in the days following, and all posts were widely viewed, commented upon, and re-posted (as demonstrated by screenshots The Spinoff supplied to the Media Council). She noted these posts occurred before Mr Hipkins gave any media interviews or did any media standups on the subject.

13. Ms Schmidt said the following day (March 16), Ms O’Brien posted at least five X posts supporting Ms Paul’s account of her relationship with Mr Hipkins or questioning why Mr Hipkins had not been treated more severely over her allegations. These X posts included her own comments and re-posting others’ comments to her followers. Ms Schmidt noted that one of the reposts was of right-wing figure David Farrar, the National Party’s pollster.

14. Ms Schmidt said The Spinoff reported accurately that the story about Ms Paul and Mr Hipkins had been amplified by right-wing figures on social media, including Ms O’Brien, and that Ms O’Brien had supported Ms Paul’s account of the relationship. She said The Spinoff was fair and balanced in its reporting on Ms O’Brien’s role in the story of Ms Paul and Mr Hipkins, by quoting Ms O’Brien as saying on X that while she has made no secret of her friendship with Paul, she was not “pulling strings behind the scenes”.

Discussion

15. Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, 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.”

16. Principle (12) says: “A publisher’s willingness to correct errors enhances its credibility and will often defuse the complaint. Significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence. In some circumstances it will be appropriate to offer an apology and a right of reply to an affected person or persons.”

17. The article “Should Chris Hipkins’ private life be the public’s business?” was not written to trawl over the social media posts of his former wife or her allegations but was a wider piece about the media’s coverage of politicians’ private lives, journalistic standards and public interest journalism versus what the public are interested in. It traversed who was giving oxygen to the story on social media and also looked at how other spouses in the public eye had been treated in similar situations. It was written by a contributing writer.

18. Ms O’Brien is a well-known X member. She has a large following – 38,000 – and is a very regular participant on X, tweeting and reposting. At the time of writing, more than 62,500 posts had been made.

19. It is fair to say that Ms O’Brien is an active X user and has been since 2009. She would be well aware of the community she plays in. X is a real-time social media platform with a big following. Anyone signing up to an account knows this and the reach it gives them. X is known as a playground for voices and opinions.

20. Both Ms O’Brien and The Spinoff provided the tweets in question and the reposts around that time and pertaining to the wider story. Ms O’Brien says that claims that she has “amplified” or provided “oxygen” to this story are demonstrably false.

21. She said her public commentary on the matter has been minimal—limited to two or three posts on X when the story first emerged. She also said she did repost other people’s posts. She claimed the article presented her as a significant driver of attention around the story.

22. The Spinoff provided five tweets from Ms O’Brien and a couple of reposts.

23. While Ms O’Brien was no doubt supporting her friend – Mr Hipkins’ ex-wife, she was also openly tweeting about the coverage as it unfolded and reposting other comments about the story.

24. Amplification is adding extra details, which on balance Ms O’Brien did. Her posts were also made ahead of any press conference given by Mr Hipkins.

25. Ms O’Brien’s first tweet said: “They will call her crazy. She is not crazy. I suspect they will say she is an alcoholic or something similar. They will do anything to discredit her. Bear with me. I am going to come back and tap this sign in the future.”

26. Ms O’Brien later confirmed on X that this post was about Ms Paul and her allegations regarding Mr Hipkins.

27. On March 16, Ms O’Brien posted at least five X posts supporting Ms Paul’s account of her relationship with Mr Hipkins or questioning why Mr Hipkins had not been treated more severely over her allegations. These X posts included her own comments and re-posting others’ comments.

28. The following day, Ms O’Brien posted again, a lengthy post about her friendship with Jade Paul and talking at length about not being the shadowy operative pulling the levers in the background.

29. On balance, the Media Council believes that The Spinoff’s article was not unfair, nor untrue, and that Ms O’Brien was giving oxygen to the story. This was not a chat with a friend, but comments made to a large online audience and retweets, capturing a larger audience.

30. Ms O’Brien says The Spinoff had characterised her as amplifying or pushing the story, but the article in question was an edition of The Spinoff’s newsletter, The Bulletin.  The Bulletin is essentially an aggregator.  It is not a piece of original reporting or column writing. It was summarising coverage of the Hipkins story by multiple other media and accurately reported that POLITIK had claimed “the right” was giving the claims oxygen.  While even an aggregator must still take care of what it publishes, and correcting the obvious errors, it cannot be expected to fact-check all the claims made by other media.

31. It was adding fuel to a fire brewing on social media. Ms O’Brien made the choice to join the conversation on X; she could have tweeted nothing.

32. By tweeting and disclosing her friendship with Ms Paul, she became involved in the story. Ms O’Brien’s political background is well-known on X, and The Spinoff was justified in attributing her political leanings to the right.

The Article – POLITIK

33. The March 18 POLITIK article “The Trolling of Chris Hipkins” also references Ms O’Brien regarding online amplification.

34. The article said: “Social media, meanwhile, has been running wild with lurid and abusive allegations about Hipkins, and perhaps worryingly, there are hints that some people named in Nicky Hager’s 2014 book, ‘Dirty Politics’, are actively involved in promoting Paul’s allegations.

35. It went on to say: “There are other political figures involved with Jade Paul. Ani O’Brien is a former press secretary to Judith Collins when she was National leader, and O’Brien is happy to admit she is a friend of Paul.”

36. The article said that in a tweet Ms O’Brien said: “There seems to be a rumour doing the rounds that I’m somehow ‘pulling strings’ behind the scenes in relation to Jade’s Facebook post. I’m not,” she posted on Facebook.

37. “Jade is a friend of mine and has been for several years, before she and Chris separated. I have known about many of the personal difficulties she went through for a long time, but because she is a friend, I have always felt those experiences were hers to speak about (or not speak about) as she chose.”

38. POLITIK then wrote: “That is where the story seems to be getting most of its oxygen from, the right on social media.”

The Complaint

39. Ms O’Brien complained that any suggestion that she had been “trolling”, amplifying, or otherwise driving this story was inaccurate. Ms O’Brien requested a clarification of how she had been described in the article and a correction to the implication that she was “trolling” or actively amplifying the story. She also requested an update to ensure the reporting accurately reflected her limited and uninvolved role.

The Response

40. In response POLITIK said the story described the collective actions of right-wing social media users as “trolling”, rather than labelling Ms O’Brien’s individual posts as such. The piece provided balance by quoting Ms O’Brien’s denial of “pulling strings” in full.

41. POLITIK also argued that Ms O’Brien has a documented history of criticising Mr Hipkins and using her platform to discuss his private life, including past social media posts in February hinting at past problems in Mr Hipkins’ treatment of his former wife, Jade Paul. It also cited her personal connection – she is a long-time friend of Jade Paul and has publicly stated her “visceral dislike” for Hipkins.

42. POLITIK also said Ms O’Brien is characterized as a key player in the “right on social media” ecosystem. Her influence was bolstered by her professional affiliations to the Taxpayers’ Union – she works for a company closely associated with this advocacy group and she maintained strong ties with The Free Speech Union.

43. While Ms O’Brien sought a retraction and apology for the “trolling” association, POLITIK said it stood by the reporting. It argued that the story focused on her background and professional connections to explain why the right-wing digital sphere was the primary driver of the controversy.

Discussion

44. The article did not specifically say or imply that Ms O’Brien was “trolling”, though it did imply that she was giving oxygen to the story by commenting on the relationship and her friendship with Jade Paul.

45. Given the wide audience Ms O’Brien has on X and the flavour of her posts the Council does not believe Ms O’Brien would not have known the impact her tweets would have.

46. Her professional affiliations and connections with the centre right is well recorded and not in dispute.

47. The tweets showed a personal connection to Mr Hipkin’s ex-wife and hinted at knowledge of the relationship. Her tweets added to the narrative of the story and pushed it along.

 

Decision: The complaints are not upheld

Gold.

Less Free Speech and more Me Preach.