The mission of The Integrity Institute that I’m setting up is to hold the powerful accountable and scrutinise and challenge vested interests in the political process.
I understand from my sources (some of which are well placed in media circles) that there has been a view for some time that the NZME Board needs a refresh so I don't think Grenon's views should be a surprise nor should there be any sense of threat.
I can understand that there are some on the Left (Michael Wood - really - who would taken any notice of him) who might be a bit fearful but I think that this might be a case of anticipation exceeding the event.
There is a bit of focus on the pleasure that Chantelle Baker got from the news - hardly a surpise since she was defamed by the Herald and has settled with them. But otherwise what does her perspective bring to the table other than that there is a healthy dose of schadenfreude in what is happening.
WIth public trust in the NZ press currently at 27%, the NZ Herald needs to be rebranded and publish articles on a range of topics which they refuse to do at the moment.
They have refused to publish fact based articles on the Treaty as this is against current editorial policy to publish anything that will contravene the PIJF. - how State controlled and biased is that!!!!!
The Hobson's Pledge backed ad was slammed by the Advertising Standards Authority, after it received many, many complaints from the public. Media advertising is also governed by a set of rules.
'Historically, the Herald has been under the influence of wealthy owners such as Tony O’Reilly and Rupert Murdoch, and traditionally, it has served as a platform supportive of the business community, free-market capitalism, and establishment politics.'
Rupert Murdoch bought Wellington's late newspaper The Dominion in 1964, his first overseas acquisition. I'm not so sure about any connection with The NZ Herald.
PIJF = Public Interest Journalism Fund. To qualify for these funds, the organisation involved had to agree to the interpretation of the Treaty as outlined by the then Labour government
The piece assumes that the main influence upon the Herald's articles, selection, prominance and bias, comes from the stance of the board. That ignores the political biases of the correspondents and reporters. It would seem that many of them veer to the left of centre. A counter weight from the board might rebalance what should be a neutral view.
Who is the backer of Stuff who stepped in to financially support it after CEO Sinead Boucher bought it for $1? The details have been kept hidden. That's legal as it's a private company but not very transparent.
Bryce
I understand from my sources (some of which are well placed in media circles) that there has been a view for some time that the NZME Board needs a refresh so I don't think Grenon's views should be a surprise nor should there be any sense of threat.
I can understand that there are some on the Left (Michael Wood - really - who would taken any notice of him) who might be a bit fearful but I think that this might be a case of anticipation exceeding the event.
There is a bit of focus on the pleasure that Chantelle Baker got from the news - hardly a surpise since she was defamed by the Herald and has settled with them. But otherwise what does her perspective bring to the table other than that there is a healthy dose of schadenfreude in what is happening.
I think it may be a bit early to panic.
WIth public trust in the NZ press currently at 27%, the NZ Herald needs to be rebranded and publish articles on a range of topics which they refuse to do at the moment.
They have refused to publish fact based articles on the Treaty as this is against current editorial policy to publish anything that will contravene the PIJF. - how State controlled and biased is that!!!!!
The PIJF started and ended with the previous govt.
NZME have lost the trust of the majority of population - let’s see what happens
Evidence?
The Hobson's Pledge backed ad was slammed by the Advertising Standards Authority, after it received many, many complaints from the public. Media advertising is also governed by a set of rules.
'Historically, the Herald has been under the influence of wealthy owners such as Tony O’Reilly and Rupert Murdoch, and traditionally, it has served as a platform supportive of the business community, free-market capitalism, and establishment politics.'
Rupert Murdoch bought Wellington's late newspaper The Dominion in 1964, his first overseas acquisition. I'm not so sure about any connection with The NZ Herald.
PIJF = Public Interest Journalism Fund. To qualify for these funds, the organisation involved had to agree to the interpretation of the Treaty as outlined by the then Labour government
The piece assumes that the main influence upon the Herald's articles, selection, prominance and bias, comes from the stance of the board. That ignores the political biases of the correspondents and reporters. It would seem that many of them veer to the left of centre. A counter weight from the board might rebalance what should be a neutral view.
In terms of right leaning and beyond activist takeover of widely consumed media this viewpoint is fascinating:
https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-danger-of-the-woke-right-2025-03-02
Who is the backer of Stuff who stepped in to financially support it after CEO Sinead Boucher bought it for $1? The details have been kept hidden. That's legal as it's a private company but not very transparent.
The PIJF is still paying out to subservient media outlets
Excuse me for being not always up with TLA's but what in the world is a PUF