The media is in crisis, as New Zealand audiences flee from traditional sources of news and information. The latest survey results on the public’s attitude to the media show plummeting trust. And New Zealand now leads the world in terms of those who want to “avoid the news”. But who or what is to blame for this striking and alarming trend?
When Jenna Lynch is married to the Act party president and Jesica mutch McKay gets a Job at ANZ post election and is heard saying we have to get the people to know Luxon and when the political editor at the heralds brother and father where mps for the national party its hard to trust that they aren't delivering news without bias
Much has been made about so-called journalist bias, but little has been reported about editorial bias – that of editors, editorial writers and chief executives (such as former TVNZ CEO and former Nat MP Simon Powers) all swayed by the big money filters of advertising and media ownership. Journalists (and even editors) self-censor to keep their job and retain hope for promotions
Thanks Bryce. Very important study and no surprises. I guess individuals media needs and perceptions will differ according to their interests. One stand out theme for me is our largest media outlets (especially RNZ and TVNZ) coverage of international affairs and geopolitical trends. Their complete lack of diversity of opinion is Orwellian - exemplified no more overtly than the hysteria over RNZ subeditor Mick Hall’s miniscule effort to nudge coverage a couple of degrees towards greater balance. Our state broadcasters rendering of the momentous challenges and changes happening within the world economy and geopolitics, and their willingness to simply regurgitate obvious propaganda is particularly shameful. For curious minds there is excellent historical and contemporary context and analysis available but not within our state media and seldom within our corporate media. NZ is the poorer for it.
News they used to watch/read and stopped doing so because of the obvious bias and negativity. Can't stand this 'Aotearoa' business either; when were we asked if we wanted to change the name of our country?
After reading Herman and Chomsky's writing on propaganda and the media since the 80’s, it has been amusing to see their findings recently distorted and co-opted by the populist far right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M&ab_channel=AlJazeeraEnglish It is a bit like that famous story of the pickpocket when caught with his hands in someone’s pocket, yelling “thief, thief!” to distract attention from his crime- the MAGA crowd (and their NZ counterparts complaining about ‘”Fake News”. And these far right wing propagandists have been the pioneers of disinformation -also with the deepest pockets for the internet flac while honing and proliferating misinformation and right-wing cliches. The anti-vaccine campaign by the far right was enormously successful. It has morphed into anti-climate science and exaggerated anit wokeism
.
That goes a long way toward explaining the public’s misperception of a “left media”. Although over 20 years old and in the USA, a thorough study of journalists’ sentiment was illuminating. They may have been leftish on social issues but were generally right of center on economic issues.
Much has been made about so-called journalist bias, but little has been reported about editorial bias – that of editors, editorial writers (right wingers Jenna Lynch, married to the Act party president and Jesica Mutch McKay), and chief executives (such as former TVNZ CEO and former Nat MP Simon Powers). All are swayed by the big money filters of advertising and media ownership, not to mention other power structures.
For example, we had illegal signs by the National Party around the nation up to 5 months before the election in Hastings, Whanganui and likely other districts that clearly were voiding their own bylaws and overlooked by their Tory council members. Several media organizations began to file reports on these infringements but suddenly and without reasonable explanation buried those reports.
Journalists (and even editors) self-censor to keep their jobs and retain hope for promotions. History is littered with those who failed to obey, Raymond Bonner of the NYT being one of the most famous
Is anyone else looking at that graph of the political orientations of newsrooms (heavily left biased), and plotting a normal standard deviation curve over the top of it, tracing out all the empty space on the right. I read something similar around the election about how this lack of trust in msm is much stronger on the right. No wonder people of that political persuasion seem to be much more inclined to go jumping down rabbit holes. We are all much poorer for it. Because Trump comes out the other side. Doesn't matter what side of the spectrum the anti-democracy populist figure emerges from, we all lose.
Once the dissemination of events, particularly of a political or social nature, descends into opinion, reckons and 'gotcha' moments and the outlets for such dissemination are owned by private national or international interests that want a return on their invested dollar then the narrative is controlled to engineer these outcomes.
Leaving aside shock jock radio (of the NewsZB variety where impartial critiquing of events died a long time ago) we are left with main TV journalism and whatever 'reputable(?)' newspaper outlets still manage to carve a living in the modern age of instant social media information.
It is here that it is possible to discover the most pernicious nature of journalism in Aotearoa New Zealand. I believe that political aspirations can be largely defined by those who espouse either 'we' or 'me' outcomes as broad banners to operate under. Another broad trait of difference is the readiness to be upfront and informative or to obfuscate when called to explain manifestos and modus operandi.
If the fourth estate has a duty it is to dispassionately critique unfolding events of national/international importance in such a way that the onlooker is able to make their own minds up about where a 'truth' may exist. It is not the place of the forth estate to create a narrative that engineers 'their truth'
The most recent example of failing to present a comprehensive accurate and informed explanation for the public to make their own minds up relates to the '3 Waters' debacle.
From the start the narrative presented via the media was one of fear that Maori were to benefit disproportionately via the proposed legislation rather than to focus on how financially important it was for all New Zealanders share the costs of such a massive infrastructure upgrade via a national taxation system.
In this instance the narrative written by the fourth estate was one of 'me' not 'we' one of obfuscation rather than clarity.
To seek answers and opinions from Heather Du Plessis Alan concerning public trust in media is akin to asking the poacher whether the gatekeeper is fair in attempting to put him out of business. You're never going to get an answer of any relevance or insight since she, along with many others, has been part of the problem.
News and its dissemination has become theatre. Each actor determined to be better than the last in asking inane questions, seeking out the best 'gotcha' moments. Political commentary has descended to farce with individual oppinion and reckons that say more about the speaker than the item they are mentioning.
I welcome with open arms the thought that many of our so called news outlets are being cut. They have become self serving liars for a New Zealand that exists only in their minds.
Over the last eighteen months the media has systematically failed to inform the public of just how well a Labour government steered the country through Covid, have fueled a hatred for a female Prime Minister that is a mystery to the rest of the world. A media that has promoted a new male Prime Minister whose economic policies were non-existent, along with most other portfolio policies, who is thoroughly disliked by most Kiwis and now is a puppet for two extreme right wing minor parties that have completely stolen the narrative in propelling NZ to a 'Me' society that will blame the poor and disenfranchised for the governments inability to provide massive tax cuts to the already rich.
There's a great essay by journalist Uri Berliner up on the Free Press at the mo.
Sounds rather like our media outfits.
“There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line.”
I realised in 2001 that the world media had an agenda after attending a peaceful protest in central London only for the news that night to show the few idiots who attended to cause trouble but didn't show or mention that we were detained illegally for more than 5 hours..... Ever since I have questioned the media's stance and read more widely which, in my opinion, has shown the NZ MSM to follow its own agenda rather than being the fourth estate. Under Labour this accelerated and the media became their mouthpiece. No matter what anyone says about PIJF there were requirements attached to gaining funding which meant the media could not be classed as truly independent once they accessed the funding.
As for stuff being more left wing than the spinoff.......wow, there are some people out there that have no idea what left or right is on that basis. I did see an interesting article a couple of years ago that people based their perception of a media outlets sympathies based on their own political stance and that was quite enlightening to understand that what I see as a left wing rag, others see as centrist.
Yes, I think many people judge bias according to their own stance. During the election campaign, some of my right-wing contacts accused the media of being biased towards the left-wing parties, and some of my left-wing contacts accused them of being biased the other way. But I think more of a problem is people's tendency not to investigate critically media sites new to them. Lots of stuff being shared on social media can easily be identified as crackpot or extreme, but many don't check the credentials of the sources.
That's true but it's not too hard to apply objectivity.
I was analyzing the NZ Herald cartoons, for example, and it was clear there is a massive bias when comparing the present and former government's depiction. It doesn't matter how partisan you are, a 10 to one bias isn't balance by any stretch
When Jenna Lynch is married to the Act party president and Jesica mutch McKay gets a Job at ANZ post election and is heard saying we have to get the people to know Luxon and when the political editor at the heralds brother and father where mps for the national party its hard to trust that they aren't delivering news without bias
Much has been made about so-called journalist bias, but little has been reported about editorial bias – that of editors, editorial writers and chief executives (such as former TVNZ CEO and former Nat MP Simon Powers) all swayed by the big money filters of advertising and media ownership. Journalists (and even editors) self-censor to keep their job and retain hope for promotions
Very good points David!
Thanks Bryce. Very important study and no surprises. I guess individuals media needs and perceptions will differ according to their interests. One stand out theme for me is our largest media outlets (especially RNZ and TVNZ) coverage of international affairs and geopolitical trends. Their complete lack of diversity of opinion is Orwellian - exemplified no more overtly than the hysteria over RNZ subeditor Mick Hall’s miniscule effort to nudge coverage a couple of degrees towards greater balance. Our state broadcasters rendering of the momentous challenges and changes happening within the world economy and geopolitics, and their willingness to simply regurgitate obvious propaganda is particularly shameful. For curious minds there is excellent historical and contemporary context and analysis available but not within our state media and seldom within our corporate media. NZ is the poorer for it.
Mick Hall's version of what happened to him is worth a read:
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/10/07/new-zealands-russian-edits-scandal-how-a-national-broadcaster-demonized-the-truth/
Wow!
So people have strong opinions about, and are concerned about the quality of, the news they aren't watching/reading?
Many people strain out "MSM" gnats and swallow "independent" camels.
News they used to watch/read and stopped doing so because of the obvious bias and negativity. Can't stand this 'Aotearoa' business either; when were we asked if we wanted to change the name of our country?
After reading Herman and Chomsky's writing on propaganda and the media since the 80’s, it has been amusing to see their findings recently distorted and co-opted by the populist far right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M&ab_channel=AlJazeeraEnglish It is a bit like that famous story of the pickpocket when caught with his hands in someone’s pocket, yelling “thief, thief!” to distract attention from his crime- the MAGA crowd (and their NZ counterparts complaining about ‘”Fake News”. And these far right wing propagandists have been the pioneers of disinformation -also with the deepest pockets for the internet flac while honing and proliferating misinformation and right-wing cliches. The anti-vaccine campaign by the far right was enormously successful. It has morphed into anti-climate science and exaggerated anit wokeism
.
That goes a long way toward explaining the public’s misperception of a “left media”. Although over 20 years old and in the USA, a thorough study of journalists’ sentiment was illuminating. They may have been leftish on social issues but were generally right of center on economic issues.
https://fair.org/press-release/examining-the-quotliberal-mediaquot-claim/ Here, they pushed the center line even further right so that discussing capital gains tax or a wealth tax is almost too radical to tackle ..even though all other developed nations has one or both.
Much has been made about so-called journalist bias, but little has been reported about editorial bias – that of editors, editorial writers (right wingers Jenna Lynch, married to the Act party president and Jesica Mutch McKay), and chief executives (such as former TVNZ CEO and former Nat MP Simon Powers). All are swayed by the big money filters of advertising and media ownership, not to mention other power structures.
For example, we had illegal signs by the National Party around the nation up to 5 months before the election in Hastings, Whanganui and likely other districts that clearly were voiding their own bylaws and overlooked by their Tory council members. Several media organizations began to file reports on these infringements but suddenly and without reasonable explanation buried those reports.
Journalists (and even editors) self-censor to keep their jobs and retain hope for promotions. History is littered with those who failed to obey, Raymond Bonner of the NYT being one of the most famous
Is anyone else looking at that graph of the political orientations of newsrooms (heavily left biased), and plotting a normal standard deviation curve over the top of it, tracing out all the empty space on the right. I read something similar around the election about how this lack of trust in msm is much stronger on the right. No wonder people of that political persuasion seem to be much more inclined to go jumping down rabbit holes. We are all much poorer for it. Because Trump comes out the other side. Doesn't matter what side of the spectrum the anti-democracy populist figure emerges from, we all lose.
Once the dissemination of events, particularly of a political or social nature, descends into opinion, reckons and 'gotcha' moments and the outlets for such dissemination are owned by private national or international interests that want a return on their invested dollar then the narrative is controlled to engineer these outcomes.
Leaving aside shock jock radio (of the NewsZB variety where impartial critiquing of events died a long time ago) we are left with main TV journalism and whatever 'reputable(?)' newspaper outlets still manage to carve a living in the modern age of instant social media information.
It is here that it is possible to discover the most pernicious nature of journalism in Aotearoa New Zealand. I believe that political aspirations can be largely defined by those who espouse either 'we' or 'me' outcomes as broad banners to operate under. Another broad trait of difference is the readiness to be upfront and informative or to obfuscate when called to explain manifestos and modus operandi.
If the fourth estate has a duty it is to dispassionately critique unfolding events of national/international importance in such a way that the onlooker is able to make their own minds up about where a 'truth' may exist. It is not the place of the forth estate to create a narrative that engineers 'their truth'
The most recent example of failing to present a comprehensive accurate and informed explanation for the public to make their own minds up relates to the '3 Waters' debacle.
From the start the narrative presented via the media was one of fear that Maori were to benefit disproportionately via the proposed legislation rather than to focus on how financially important it was for all New Zealanders share the costs of such a massive infrastructure upgrade via a national taxation system.
In this instance the narrative written by the fourth estate was one of 'me' not 'we' one of obfuscation rather than clarity.
To seek answers and opinions from Heather Du Plessis Alan concerning public trust in media is akin to asking the poacher whether the gatekeeper is fair in attempting to put him out of business. You're never going to get an answer of any relevance or insight since she, along with many others, has been part of the problem.
News and its dissemination has become theatre. Each actor determined to be better than the last in asking inane questions, seeking out the best 'gotcha' moments. Political commentary has descended to farce with individual oppinion and reckons that say more about the speaker than the item they are mentioning.
I welcome with open arms the thought that many of our so called news outlets are being cut. They have become self serving liars for a New Zealand that exists only in their minds.
Over the last eighteen months the media has systematically failed to inform the public of just how well a Labour government steered the country through Covid, have fueled a hatred for a female Prime Minister that is a mystery to the rest of the world. A media that has promoted a new male Prime Minister whose economic policies were non-existent, along with most other portfolio policies, who is thoroughly disliked by most Kiwis and now is a puppet for two extreme right wing minor parties that have completely stolen the narrative in propelling NZ to a 'Me' society that will blame the poor and disenfranchised for the governments inability to provide massive tax cuts to the already rich.
Thanks Bryce
"Real soul-searching should mean the media reflects on how it has allowed itself to be perceived as distant, elitist, and conformist."
Mike McRoberts: "People have their opinions. They're wrong"
There's a great essay by journalist Uri Berliner up on the Free Press at the mo.
Sounds rather like our media outfits.
“There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust
Excellent summing up paragraph at the end Bryce!
Willingly committing to a predetermined agenda is a strange way to engender trust.
Our legacy media have done just that: Rainbow Tick, Covering Climate Now and the PIJF all have a propaganda requirement.
Do they think no one will notice?
I realised in 2001 that the world media had an agenda after attending a peaceful protest in central London only for the news that night to show the few idiots who attended to cause trouble but didn't show or mention that we were detained illegally for more than 5 hours..... Ever since I have questioned the media's stance and read more widely which, in my opinion, has shown the NZ MSM to follow its own agenda rather than being the fourth estate. Under Labour this accelerated and the media became their mouthpiece. No matter what anyone says about PIJF there were requirements attached to gaining funding which meant the media could not be classed as truly independent once they accessed the funding.
As for stuff being more left wing than the spinoff.......wow, there are some people out there that have no idea what left or right is on that basis. I did see an interesting article a couple of years ago that people based their perception of a media outlets sympathies based on their own political stance and that was quite enlightening to understand that what I see as a left wing rag, others see as centrist.
Yes, I think many people judge bias according to their own stance. During the election campaign, some of my right-wing contacts accused the media of being biased towards the left-wing parties, and some of my left-wing contacts accused them of being biased the other way. But I think more of a problem is people's tendency not to investigate critically media sites new to them. Lots of stuff being shared on social media can easily be identified as crackpot or extreme, but many don't check the credentials of the sources.
"people judge bias according to their own stance"
That's true but it's not too hard to apply objectivity.
I was analyzing the NZ Herald cartoons, for example, and it was clear there is a massive bias when comparing the present and former government's depiction. It doesn't matter how partisan you are, a 10 to one bias isn't balance by any stretch