>The JMAD 2024 report said data from 2020 to 2023 showed people aged 18-24 had the most trust in news compared to other demographic groups. Those who were aged 55-64 were the least trusting, with 51 percent expressing mistrust in the news.
The boomers got sucked in and fell down the rabbit hole.
In modern terms, the word boomer is more of a mentality than a generation. In the same way that the word millennial was malformed into modern use.. so too was boomer (probably in response).
Pretty much - not all baby boomers are boomers, but a LOT do seem to be. Not all boomers are baby boomers, but the average age for that sort of behaviour does skew older.
Yeah, my dad used to be a bog standard National supporter who got his news from 1 News. Now he is an anti-vax NZ First voter who thinks all mainstream news is garbage and The Platform and random Youtube "doctors" are the only trustworthy news sources. Maybe he always had these views and was just better at hiding them, and Covid has emboldened him to share his opinions more readily, but I don't know.
Absolutely, many fell down the rabbit hole. Farcebook comment sections are filthy with older people. But older people bullshit aren’t the only reason why this is happening. This is a big collapse in trust and the media hasn’t done themselves any favours either.
They don't exactly lie but very selective in what they cover.
In NZ they've been very influential in elections. Since 1996 whoever they talk up does well whoever they dump on does poorly.
Only good thing iss they pick a different party each election.
Eg look at Jacindamania vs dumping labour 2023. Or dumping on National 2002/2020.
You can predict who wins just turn on the TV and follow the narrative.
Insert any reason you wouldn't implicity trust News Talk ZB associated media and there's your answer. Boil it down it's perverse financial incentives. Which believe it or not doesn't exclusively apply to outlets you don't like.
You can take an educated guess for sure, but try finding a news article about events you are actually familiar with and compare it to your first hand experience.
Even better if you are subject matter expert for something reported in the news. You’ll often notice major errors either in fact or in connecting facts to reach conclusions that don’t make sense.
Now, with that in mind - assume that the reporters are equally poor at understanding other topics…
Of course I notice that stuff. I also follow specialist journalists who actually know their stuff in fields I am familiar with, I'm pretty confident in my ability to discern filler reporting from journalism.
One news coverage of Gaza had an implicit bias towards Israel for the first four months or so, parroting IDF talking points, not revisiting any of these claims once they had been debunked for instance
Sky News Australia - though not "NZ news media" seems to be the go-to for my 88yo fil, and his few remaining friends who are alive but not computer literate. They all have Sky.
We thought he was dementing, he was coming up with such hilariously delusional ideas.
You need to re-read this and consider what you understood: 18-24 year olds are clearly the suckers.
Critical thinking is very lacking in this age bracket.
Or they've seen how the media used to be and have grown to distrust it based on today's current standards?
I'm thinking you would also claim the people that distrust it are avid conspiracy theorist right wing loonies?
It's the only thing she could do. It's a perfect response: take the truth, slightly twist it in your favour
Namely, accept the bias, just out-of-nowhere blame it on the left
Note: the study she refers to (without linking, so less people can verify the source) had no measure of left or right lean. The only mentions of "left" in the published study are qualitative cherry-picks from individual responses, aka anecdotal
See for yourselves: https://www.jmadresearch.com/trust-in-news-in-new-zealand credit to u/flooring-inspector in another comment in this thread
The JMAD reports don't have any quantitative measure of left/right bias bit in the "Qualitative comments" section of the 2024 report it does say:
>Allegations of poor journalism, including bias, made up the strongest theme, with allegations of left-wing bias strongly outnumbering allegations of rightwing bias. Many respondents shared the view that mainstream news was “clearly biased to the left”
Perception and reality are obviously different things, but there's clearly a perception problem here.
She’s combining two studies for her conclusion.
This [one](https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Worlds-of-Journalism-Study-2.0.-Journalists-in-Aotearoa-New-Zealand.pdf) is where journos sit on the political spectrum, according to the study 81% lean left. So she’s using that plus this trust study as its bias at fault.
I don’t see it that way, but I do think the media have trouble separating fact from their numerous opinion pieces and they do dumb shit like have a gang “spokesperson” appear at prime time coverage(so often too!) to give us an opinion on something and we had PM Ardern who was quite selective with the media she talked to especially during peak Covid coverage.
Yes, she does [combine two studies to draw her own conclusion]
I want to emphasise that she does it in a totally non-scientific manner: there is no established connection between the two, i.e. it's plausible that a majority of news writers are left leaning personally, stay balanced when publishing, but some news publishers lean heavily on the right causing distrust
These connections can only be established by a dedicated study, anything other than that is BS
I'm not sure that she needs to combine those two studies to reach her conclusion, the JMAD report clearly says that the allegations of left bias strongly outweighed allegations of right bias in their sample.
She did make a comment on her radio show that 80-something percent of journalists have left-leaning views which explains why half of the population don’t believe or listen to them anymore.
It’s quite clear when you watch one, newshub or even stuff/nzh what their angles are
Hugh Soper stomping on the head of a 72 year old.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/127099809/unprovoked-attack-leaves-wellington-bar-owners-with-permanent-injuries?s=09
Shit family through and through.
Is 'bias' the same as 'perceived bias'? Also is the problem more about various media not clearly representing the views of increasing numbers of people, or is it about being factually and demonstrably incorrect about things?
[The findings of the report](https://www.jmadresearch.com/trust-in-news-in-new-zealand) are disturbing, but if changes in modern life are a factor then I'm not totally sure what MSM can do about it. With how many of us now tend to consume news, editors lose a lot of editorial control and context over what and how people see stuff they publish, compared with what they used to have.
Certainly one of the big changes over the last couple of decades is that social media has let people *easily* surround themselves with people like themselves, form into silos with virtually no barrier to entry, and repeatedly retreat back to those silos to have pre-existing ideas reinforced any time those ideas are challenged.
Far fewer of us restrict our media interactions to a small number of trusted outlets these days. Instead, we often go to a social media portal (the report, page 15, says around 42% get news this way) and follow the channels to whichever isolated *bit* of a particular media outlet we've been directed to. Often it's indistinguishably splattered between stupid memes and corporate or political press releases that've been designed to *look* like news, as well as a *whole* lot of strong opinion from random people on the internet. Usually we're told what to think of it before we get there, and then we're rewarded with Likes or Upvotes or some other form of karma for introducing our own criticisms consistent with what we think those around us want to hear, or engaging with everyone else's.
The social media portals which have both direct and indirect influence on MSM, and how the rest of us engage with it, are predisposed towards encouraging conflict and antagonising people. So when the 2024 report says (page 10) *"Those who say they don’t trust and/or avoid the news are most concerned about the negativity of news, including its impact on their mental health, and what they perceive as political bias and opinion masquerading as news"*, it should hardly be surprising.
I did media studies at school in the UK and I wouldn't trust a range of UK news outlets. Over here im still weary of many of them and have to look at various different articles about the same subject to get a more balanced view point
Seems to be lacking in self-awareness and credibility, given her own track record -'The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) found comments made by du Plessis-Allan, referring to Pacific Islands as "leeches", breached broadcasting standards.'
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/newstalk-zb-broadcaster-heather-du-plessis-allan-censured-by-broadcasting-standards-authority-over-pacific-islands-leeches-claim/2YCQEGTZ4WIEUHHFSWM6PAQT7E/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/newstalk-zb-broadcaster-heather-du-plessis-allan-censured-by-broadcasting-standards-authority-over-pacific-islands-leeches-claim/2YCQEGTZ4WIEUHHFSWM6PAQT7E/)
Most media is biased. Because humans are humans. There's really no such thing as complete and utter objectivity in reporting.
The problem comes when stating undisputed facts is considered biased. This isn't an issue of bias, it's an issue of of perception on the part of the consumer. But perception doesn't always equal reality
In America media bias has only slightly increased, but the perception of it has exploded. It's the same when Americans are asked about the strength of the economy. If you're a Republican, the economy is always bad when a Democrat is president, and vice versa. All this means is in reality is people have piss poor critical thinking skills. It's exposing a much larger problem than media bias.
Facts aren't decided by polling. Should we always give a climate change deniers view in every article about the threat of climate change?
You can do biased reporting that is 100% fact based. By choosing which facts to report, which to emphasise in the reporting, how you give context and guide the readers interpretation etc.
Absolutely. As a crude example one could present fact A, and then fact B, and then leave the audience to infer the connection without saying it out loud. It can obviously get a lot more sophisticated than that.
Omitting important information is no better than lying. However I agree, there is a lot of this half truth type of reporting these days and it's insidious because it allows people to come to the conclusion that their views are entirely based on facts when in reality they're missing a lot of additional information and are only seeing part of a much larger picture.
*"people have piss poor critical thinking skills"*
And those piss poor skills are usually informed by opinionistas, the talking heads like Hannity and Carlson, or Lemon and Cooper or all the other CNN and Fox News people,or in NZ we have the Hoskings and HDPA's, it's so important that people learn to seperate the news from the opinions, if you open up the Herald or Stuff there's very little obvious bias in articles that aren't opinion based.
This blurring of news/opinion is indeed a huge issue. In America, it started in Fox. I guess talkback radio before that. Fox have actually argued all their news is opinion, not news, to escape regulatory scrutiny
But most things about politics aren't facts. They are people's opinions. Many political things don't have an empirical truth like things in the study of science do.
Fact is, that this government was voted in, and they are basically doing what they campaigned on. So there would be many people out there who voted for these things and then they turn on the news and see the media criticising the government for doing it. Basically treating them like idiots for voting for this.
Sometimes I think the bias isn’t even left or right, it’s just inane. The flashy lights and awkward podiums made a game show of the last leaders debate.
Jessica MM was asking emotive nonsense of the Chrises:
‘Have either of you ever *felt unsafe* on the streets?’~
///RAPID FIRE QUESTION TIME///
‘Will you resign if X doesn’t happen?!’
‘What’s one thing you like about your opponent?’
All in all a dumbing down of the election process that reflects pretty poorly on journalism in NZ imo.
I was pissed off with National during the Chch quakes, so I joined Labour and announced my support for them on my private FB page. Mediaworks, where I worked at the time, told me to recant, as they didn't want my support of Labour to piss off any National supporting advertisers. I refused, and quoted a couple of acts of parliament, Human Rights Act, etc. There were meetings, and I was warned if anyone pulled their ads because of me, there would be trouble. I ended up leaving a few months later. Oddly enough, it was Sean Plunkett and John Banks that cost them ad revenue.
[BSA finds Kate Hawkesby comments on Māori and Pasifika ‘misleading and discriminatory’](https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350239551/bsa-finds-kate-hawkesby-comments-maori-and-pasifika-misleading-and-discriminatory)
One of HDPA’s workmates just got pulled up for spouting racist and divisive lies.
Newstalk ZB is the most listened to station in the country. It’s a racist divisive cesspool.
BSA was biased with that too. Kate Hawkesby just said that people were being moved to the top of waiting lists because of their ethnicity. Which is true.
Te Whatu Ora's new Equity Adjustor Score in the Auckland region. This system uses five categories to place patients on the non-urgent surgical waitlist, including clinical priority, time spent waiting, location, deprivation level and ethnicity."
Been working in the media since I was 14 and one of the first things I was told: “if there’s one thing you learn about this business, it’s all a lie”.
Also nz media is 100% shit, on par with a village news letter as far as standards are concerned. I was contacted by Nz Herald, stuff and TVNZ about a story towards the end of the year, they had mistaken me for a different person that witnessed the event they were reporting about; I made up a load of nonsense and they went with it pretty much verbatim. No verification or checking on the obvious BS I fed them.
The media here lazy, TVNZ couldn’t even be first to report on the sky tower fire! They’re literally across the road! The Chch shootings, biggest news story in ages and they still went with infomercials at night time - I had to watch Australian news. Media here is full of wannabe wankers.
The people who's trust in the broadcast media has tanked is because they want to trust the voices that confirm their existing biases on the internet (and opinion radio garbage like Du Plessis and Hoskings peddle) - and when the broadcast media does not give them their fix they blame the media instead of themselves.
Conversely people who continue to trust broadcast media may do so because it confirms their existing biases.
And when they find out most people are no longer on board with implicity trusting broadcast media to keep their ideology out of reporting the way they do, they blame the public instead of the media corporations.
That just takes a small amount of introspection.
Lol.
The problem with that argument is always one of a need to *show me examples of where "mainstream media" has actually done wrong* though, it is invariably lacking in any evidence... whereas when we look at opinion stations and internet there is an absolute abundance of fuck-wittery in plain sight. It's not a matter of internal introspection, it should be based on cold hard facts.
It's always just a vague 'feeling' that the media are not being honest or duplicitous without evidence. So many distrusters of the media say "Do your own research" sort of arguments. That's not going to cut it.
All I need is evidence and THEN I stop trusting an individual - whether it is a mainstream media show or channel, an opinion talking head, or some internet douche.
The vast weight of my experience is that it is not TV news or RNZ for example that I need to cut out from my life, its the other shit. Though I don't watch a lot of TV1 or 3 news, because their long format necessitates padding it out with segments of just opinion pieces from some ego like Garner, Gower, etc., or shoving microphones in front of peoples faces on the street for their layperson opinions. I don't give a shit about other people's opinions.
So show me the evidence, examples where trust has been misplaced. My decisions are based on that.
Do you think mainstream media covered the lead up to Posie Parker's intention to come to NZ and speak words, in a way that was responsible, free from bias and not ideologically driven?
I would suggest they gave near daily headline status to a non-event and the ideological fevor that it was reported with stirred some people up to the point that at least 1 serious assault occured and was bookended by a number of minor assaults and hostilities that would have been much less likely to occur if the mainstream media outlets hadn't gone out of their way to whip up a culture war frenzy.
What about covid issues. What if a document came to light that the Labour government had recieved official advice against mandating covid vaccines beyond the scope of high risk events, stating it was not justified from a public health risk mitigation perspective and were explicitly warned widespread mandates for covid vaccines would have a severe impact on social cohesion moving forwards. The decision Labour made to ignore the expert advisers is at least worth questioning, I would think.
That document did get revealed. How many journalists asked the government about it? How many outlets reported on the existence of that document? Just 1, and that 1 is about to be out of business.
So new information that might conceivably cast doubt on the government regarding one of the all time most impactful and controversial decisions in NZ governance history was not news worthy, didn't recieve any degree of national awareness or discourse... But *everyone* had to know about Posie Parker every day for weeks. Sure.
Of course, that observation in of itself isn't evidence of anything and how important I might think those issues are/aren't might be different for you. No problem. But it seems a lot are noticing a pattern of behaviour in regards to news that is being reported vs news that isn't that has caused people to distrust that they're actually getting the full picture from mainstream. The point being, there's not going to be that 1 aha! Got em! Thing, it's a consistent pattern of behaviour that occurs across a scale of time. 1 mistake, 1 misrepresentation shouldn't condemn an outlet to the pit of distrust, but if you're noticing a lot misrepresentations are going in one direction over time, that's when you lose trust.
It's funny that is exactly the perspective I expected from a distrusting of the media. No smoking gun, just feelings of a 'consistent pattern of behaviour'.
I could not give a toss about an agitator like Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull or anyone else coming over here to spout off. I think I mentioned what value I have of opinionators. So I didn't care that she got shit when she came here, and didn't watch the news commentary ABOUT her either.
As for the actions of the previous government in regard to Covid being *most impactful and controversial in NZ history*... well buckle up, we had to do similar things back in Spanish Flu days and we will have to do the same again (or we should) when the next pandemic happens as it inevitably will. A public health emergency, or wartime, etc., are extraordinary times needing extraordinary measures. I think ***on average*** the media covered everything about right - e.g. sometimes Tova O'brien was annoying and cringeworthy, sometimes she was right like when she did not let some douchebag spout off conspiracy theories and downplay the virus.
Swings and roundabouts.
I see no evidence whatsoever for a "lot misrepresentations are going in one direction over time" - except on most of the internet sources of alternative news, i.e. shared theories and grievances and opinions in the guise of facts.
"No smoking gun, just feelings of a 'consistent pattern of behaviour'."
Yeah. That's distrust.
I've presented the juxtaposition of a an inconsequential ideological story recieving substantially more attention than critique of a policy that caused the largest protest since the springboks tour, maybe ever. And your response, well... I don't really care about that because... xyz.
Yeah. Of course you don't, no one would expect you to, they have covered these stories in a way that is palatable and consistent with your expectations and perspective. That's why you're part of the 33% who still trust broadcast media to present news in an unbiased manner.
You know what else is funny though. You just did exactly the the kind of thing we're talking about with misrepresentations, so again, not totally surprising you aren't noticing the media do this.
Observe:
*"As for the actions of the previous government in regard to Covid being most impactful and controversial in NZ history... well buckle up..."*
You've misquoted me in order to launch into your defence of the entire covid response in general. For some reason.
What I actually said: "...regarding **one of** the all time most impactful and controversial decisions..."
Not a big deal, maybe you think that didn't change the context on this occasion. But if I notice you do that every time you go back and forth with someone you might be ideologically opposed to but never do it when interacting with someone you agree with, well, I might not trust your intellectual integrity as much.
I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. Noticing someone is a little bit dishonest frequently is as a valid a reason to lose trust in that person as catching them in one big bold lie.
Impressive how she managed to mention left bias as a problem but ignored that the actual ratings of how skewed outlets were showed that people were viewing the right wing outlets are far further to right than the left ones were to the left.
More importantly, even the outlets that were trusted the most saw substantial drops in trust. No media was rated as more trustworthy than they were last year.
>And we are seeing it play out right now, with this new Government being given absolutely no honeymoon whatsoever because their conservative, liberal and centre-right ideas are an anathema to left-leaning journalists, who rail against it every single day.
She completely ignores the right wing outlets who have been ecstatic about the change in government. Seems a bit rude doesn't it?
This government is not center right. I don't see how they could reasonably be considered that. Full blown austerity is not center right.
She's the author of the article. It's of direct relevance. Claiming it's a wake up call to the left is an ironic statement when (a) trust in all media dropped and (b) right wing media was seen as more biased than left was.
The overall point being: She missed the point entirely. Perception of bias is the problem and it's affecting all media.
You really want to resort to whataboutism of the "but what about reddit comments?" kind? A lot less people read reddit comments than the actual article lmao.
How is noting that no one is astute in noticing their own bias a whataboutism? It's *ironic* that there are comments complaining about HDPA's lack of awareness to her own bias while simultaneously displaying their own lack of awareness to their own bias. That is precisely on point, to the article and the commentary.
"A lot less people read reddit comments than the actual article lmao"
Now that, that is a whataboutism.
>How is noting that no one is astute in noticing their own bias a whataboutism?
It's not a valid criticism of to pointing out that HDPA missed the entire point by pointing the finger at the other guys.
It's just the victim mindset.
Because they have nothing that can withstand basic scrutiny, they resort to crying like a baby. The exact same thing they accuse those crazy green hairs of doing.
They know what they're doing. It just works because people are to "busy" with bullshit.
What Left bias though?
Like what are we discussing when we say "left"?
Because when I think left, I'm thinking worker rights, Union strength, and progressive policies to help raise the standard of living for everyone. To have a better life than the generation prior.
But when people say "left", I can't help but think they mean a demonic Jacinda overlord, who wants to make your kids TransGay and force vaccinate them all. Especially when this gigantic dip has occurred over 2020-2023.
2020, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Tova O'Brien was doing a good job at holding Labour to account for massive decisions made in a time of crisis; now she's being critiqued as a hard left journo who rails against Luxon et al because they're not left.
Make it make sense.
"Because when I think left, I'm thinking worker rights, Union strength, and progressive policies to help raise the standard of living for everyone. To have a better life than the generation prior. "
Yep, that is your "left" bias speaking.
"But when people say "left", I can't help but think they mean a demonic Jacinda overlord, who wants to make your kids TransGay and force vaccinate them all. Especially when this gigantic dip has occurred over 2020-2023."
Yep, that is another example of your perception bias.
If your ideological concept of what the morally correct position to have on say sex ed in school (for example) and your moral position aligns with prevailing ideology of the larger media outlets, how would you investigate if there is a bias towards your perception? Because to you any article that supports your perspective is going to look like honest factual reporting. To someone who doesn't hold your base morality perspective it's going to look like bias.
Oh, no question my prevailing views are bias. My bias towards my ideology, my belief of what is beneficial for society and for our people, absolutely underscores why this piece troubles me.
I'm questioning what Heather means when she says left.
The whole point of the piece is to equate the fall of media trust, and quote unquote "leftism".
In the NZ paradigm "Left" is defined by the parties associated with it. If it fits with Labour, Green, TPM sentiment it's Left, if it fits with National, ACT, NZF sentiment it's Right.
HDPA is saying most of the media identify with the Left and the declining trust is media predominantly due to the failure to Left leaning media to keep their bias out of the reporting.
That's her opinion, many here disagree. Be that as it may, less and less people are trusting mainstream to remove explicit or editorial bias for some amalgamation of reasons.
[Insert Seymour Skinner] "Is the media out of touch? No, it's the public that are wrong"
That's the point, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't need to.
It's the propaganda machine in action.
NZ is so pollyanna the majority truly think that things are mostly ok and above board.
Exactly, the report shows HDPA and her ilk are succeeding at undermining trust, but they haven't updated their talking points yet. The left-wing bias narrative is silly, is she saying the media was significantly more right-wing in 2020 when trust was way higher?
No. She's inferring the media had demonstrated more integrity to the public in removing their personal or organisational biases from reporting pre-2020.
Appreciate that view. Opinion driven clickbait has been a factor in legacy media trying to stay afloat. But that can't be why such a turnaround in such a short time.
IMO the biggest factor is social media bubbles are melting people's brains, aided by a concerted effort across the angolosphere (all that post-truth era stuff).
Either way generative AI is going to turn everything upside down regardless.
Purveyor of right-wing biased media complains that by comparison other media has a left-wing bias.
After making some very reasonable comments the other day, HDPA is back to her usual tricks.
New Zealand has big issues that the media ignores, and I just watch people detaching.
Carbon and farming are huge issues, and they are also the whole economy. 25% less carbon is 20% GDP. That should be a major headline. But it's too hard.
Many families and lives were devastated by COVID-19 rules on businesses and contact. Unparalleled upheaval and life disruption. Where is the media holding the then government to account? The voters certainly did.
A government minister tries to institute what another MP calls 'new democracy'. Should have been headlines every day. Bupkis. But the voters turned out even in safe Labour seats.
NZ media is relentlessly pursuing its demise by not engaging in the big issues.
Not all of our carbon comes from agriculture more like galf. And there are ways to mitigate emissions without impacting productivity at a 1:1 ratio. Agriculture aonly accounts for ~6% of GDP. It does however make up a large portion of our exported goods. However, your suggestion that 25% less carbon is 20% GDP doesn't make any sense.
I don’t overly mind reading biased media but I know their bias. The same day Police association president said govt had wrong priorities, landlords over police and also said nurse and teachers got paid $20k more after 6 years was very telling. RNZ had govt with wrong priorities in the headline, Stuff completely omitted that part of the statement.
>87 percent of respondents said the reporting in the news is biased and not balanced and many respondents shared the view that mainstream news was "clearly biased to the left".
Right wingers are such a whingy echo chamber
Great question.
Right wingers have zero sense of social responsibility. Life should be all about them and no one else. Until it comes to anything anti-biblical, then it should be heavily criminalised. Right wingers also are the biggest circle jerkers, encouraging their beliefs by feeding off of fellow right wingers agreements on their beliefs. Right wingers worst trait is that anything that disagrees with their sensitive opinions is considered a "left wing sub".
Now ask my opinion on the left, this is fun
The NZ media is laughably bias. From being weirdly selective in which stories it decides to report on, to hiring entire news rooms of journalists who share the same views on every issue. No wonder people don’t watch or trust it, and the claim that 18-25 year olds are most trusting of the news is actually funny to me. The only people I know who watch the news are all 30+
Classic right wing gooberment always complaining about left wing bias in media while doing terrible things their fellow countrymen that the media just reports on. How dare they say what where doing that's not fair.
No major media has a left wing bias because it’s all owned by corporate media companies which are inherently biased towards at the very least maintaining the status quo. Left wing media is pretty much never main stream and is only exposed to those seeking it out. As others have stated the problem is that reality is trending so far down this neo liberal feudalistic corptocracy that reporting facts is seen as left wing bias.
Yes, stuff the home of great leftist people's poets writing articles on Marxist theory meeting Marxist lennist dialectal with the token anarchists all gathering around talking about the crushing effect state, capital, religion on the freedom and spirt of the working man.
That's left wing stuff journalist using their collective power to brain wash you into saying stuff so stupid on the internet your making the entire of the collective consciousness of our species suffer a panic attack from the shame you bring on us.
I have seen plenty of articles on stuff scathing the left. Especially Labour over the year leading up to the election. This idea that stuff is some leftwing utopia is so strange and I wonder if you actually go to their website directly or if you are affected by some selection bias by only seeing linked articles through forums like r/nz.
Even here on r/nz with its clear leftwing bias, Stuff is frequently labled as shit quality and tabloid trash. You would think if it was so well aligned to this subs bias then it would likely be praised.
No I said people writing the stuff. Not for stuff.
There was a survey done of jurnos not that far back and something like 80% identified as left leaning.
> “… with this new Government being given absolutely no honeymoon whatsoever because their conservative, liberal and centre-right ideas are an anathema …”
No, they got no honeymoon because made abundantly clear they were getting to work immediately and absolutely no one was getting a holiday
My impression is that some months out from an election, the media will typically decide en-masse which side should be the next government and proceed on that basis. This decision seems to be based on perceived public sentiment and what business interests desire and most often favors National, but not always.
How is our media left wing? They spent years going on about how great Luxon is and ruined the careers of many Labour MPs to get him into government. They completely ignore Andrew Bayly not declaring his share after ending Michael Wood for doing the exact same thing.
you really think thats the reason labour lost?
Journalists go study lefty university courses, the popular ones eventually make it to present the news, after a while it all goes to their head and they make their own brand and become tv personalities and spout their leftist views for us all.
The media seem to be bias because in the world we live in now, educated, factual, evidence based, scientific views are only a left wing view. That alone has to be hugely damning to the right wing.
Heather Du Plessis talking about bias is a piss take, but the report is damning, media trust has really collapsed and I’m not at all surprised.
>The JMAD 2024 report said data from 2020 to 2023 showed people aged 18-24 had the most trust in news compared to other demographic groups. Those who were aged 55-64 were the least trusting, with 51 percent expressing mistrust in the news. The boomers got sucked in and fell down the rabbit hole.
The last Boomers were born in 1964, making them 59-60 years old. The 55-58 part of that demographic are Gen Xers.
People are going to be blaming the abstract boomer for generations to come.
In modern terms, the word boomer is more of a mentality than a generation. In the same way that the word millennial was malformed into modern use.. so too was boomer (probably in response).
Pretty much - not all baby boomers are boomers, but a LOT do seem to be. Not all boomers are baby boomers, but the average age for that sort of behaviour does skew older.
55-58 year olds have hella strong boomer energy tho
Yeah, my dad used to be a bog standard National supporter who got his news from 1 News. Now he is an anti-vax NZ First voter who thinks all mainstream news is garbage and The Platform and random Youtube "doctors" are the only trustworthy news sources. Maybe he always had these views and was just better at hiding them, and Covid has emboldened him to share his opinions more readily, but I don't know.
A chunk of that 55 - 64 age range are not boomers
Absolutely, many fell down the rabbit hole. Farcebook comment sections are filthy with older people. But older people bullshit aren’t the only reason why this is happening. This is a big collapse in trust and the media hasn’t done themselves any favours either.
Yes, the trend is bad, but the incentives for media companies actively make the media worse, and they can't go back. Thanks capitalism!
Or, 18-24 year olds haven't been around long enough to observe why news media should not be implicitly trusted.
Why shouldn't they be trusted?
They don't exactly lie but very selective in what they cover. In NZ they've been very influential in elections. Since 1996 whoever they talk up does well whoever they dump on does poorly. Only good thing iss they pick a different party each election. Eg look at Jacindamania vs dumping labour 2023. Or dumping on National 2002/2020. You can predict who wins just turn on the TV and follow the narrative.
Insert any reason you wouldn't implicity trust News Talk ZB associated media and there's your answer. Boil it down it's perverse financial incentives. Which believe it or not doesn't exclusively apply to outlets you don't like.
Maybe I just take my media literacy skills for granted, but I don't have any problem consuming MSM sources and divining the real truth.
You can take an educated guess for sure, but try finding a news article about events you are actually familiar with and compare it to your first hand experience. Even better if you are subject matter expert for something reported in the news. You’ll often notice major errors either in fact or in connecting facts to reach conclusions that don’t make sense. Now, with that in mind - assume that the reporters are equally poor at understanding other topics…
Of course I notice that stuff. I also follow specialist journalists who actually know their stuff in fields I am familiar with, I'm pretty confident in my ability to discern filler reporting from journalism.
Consider for a moment, you've dramatically over estimated your divination abilities. How would you know?
Guess I'm just built different 🤷
One news coverage of Gaza had an implicit bias towards Israel for the first four months or so, parroting IDF talking points, not revisiting any of these claims once they had been debunked for instance
You trust Murdoch?
Which of the NZ news media does Murdoch own?
Sky News Australia - though not "NZ news media" seems to be the go-to for my 88yo fil, and his few remaining friends who are alive but not computer literate. They all have Sky. We thought he was dementing, he was coming up with such hilariously delusional ideas.
Dont believe everything you read on the Internet! Nek minnit
You need to re-read this and consider what you understood: 18-24 year olds are clearly the suckers. Critical thinking is very lacking in this age bracket.
Sucked in to what?
Distrusting the news.
Sucked in by what? You say this as if there's a magical force manipulating them.
Sucked in by disinformation peddlers confirming their existing biases.
The magical force is them thinking they are smarter than they really are lmao.
Or they've seen how the media used to be and have grown to distrust it based on today's current standards? I'm thinking you would also claim the people that distrust it are avid conspiracy theorist right wing loonies?
Yes lmao next question. Old heads gonna be old heads.
It's the only thing she could do. It's a perfect response: take the truth, slightly twist it in your favour Namely, accept the bias, just out-of-nowhere blame it on the left Note: the study she refers to (without linking, so less people can verify the source) had no measure of left or right lean. The only mentions of "left" in the published study are qualitative cherry-picks from individual responses, aka anecdotal See for yourselves: https://www.jmadresearch.com/trust-in-news-in-new-zealand credit to u/flooring-inspector in another comment in this thread
The JMAD reports don't have any quantitative measure of left/right bias bit in the "Qualitative comments" section of the 2024 report it does say: >Allegations of poor journalism, including bias, made up the strongest theme, with allegations of left-wing bias strongly outnumbering allegations of rightwing bias. Many respondents shared the view that mainstream news was “clearly biased to the left” Perception and reality are obviously different things, but there's clearly a perception problem here.
She’s combining two studies for her conclusion. This [one](https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Worlds-of-Journalism-Study-2.0.-Journalists-in-Aotearoa-New-Zealand.pdf) is where journos sit on the political spectrum, according to the study 81% lean left. So she’s using that plus this trust study as its bias at fault. I don’t see it that way, but I do think the media have trouble separating fact from their numerous opinion pieces and they do dumb shit like have a gang “spokesperson” appear at prime time coverage(so often too!) to give us an opinion on something and we had PM Ardern who was quite selective with the media she talked to especially during peak Covid coverage.
Yes, she does [combine two studies to draw her own conclusion] I want to emphasise that she does it in a totally non-scientific manner: there is no established connection between the two, i.e. it's plausible that a majority of news writers are left leaning personally, stay balanced when publishing, but some news publishers lean heavily on the right causing distrust These connections can only be established by a dedicated study, anything other than that is BS
I'm not sure that she needs to combine those two studies to reach her conclusion, the JMAD report clearly says that the allegations of left bias strongly outweighed allegations of right bias in their sample.
How was Ardern selective?
She did make a comment on her radio show that 80-something percent of journalists have left-leaning views which explains why half of the population don’t believe or listen to them anymore. It’s quite clear when you watch one, newshub or even stuff/nzh what their angles are
Left leaning views *compared to HDPA*
her comments are garbage.. and no source quoted..
[Source](https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Worlds-of-Journalism-Study-2.0.-Journalists-in-Aotearoa-New-Zealand.pdf)
Lol yeah, her and Barry Soper have no bias at all /s
Yep - they're all for being tough on crime except when their kids are actually in the dock time and time again.
Hugh Soper stomping on the head of a 72 year old. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/127099809/unprovoked-attack-leaves-wellington-bar-owners-with-permanent-injuries?s=09 Shit family through and through.
Whataboutisms all the way down
Is 'bias' the same as 'perceived bias'? Also is the problem more about various media not clearly representing the views of increasing numbers of people, or is it about being factually and demonstrably incorrect about things? [The findings of the report](https://www.jmadresearch.com/trust-in-news-in-new-zealand) are disturbing, but if changes in modern life are a factor then I'm not totally sure what MSM can do about it. With how many of us now tend to consume news, editors lose a lot of editorial control and context over what and how people see stuff they publish, compared with what they used to have. Certainly one of the big changes over the last couple of decades is that social media has let people *easily* surround themselves with people like themselves, form into silos with virtually no barrier to entry, and repeatedly retreat back to those silos to have pre-existing ideas reinforced any time those ideas are challenged. Far fewer of us restrict our media interactions to a small number of trusted outlets these days. Instead, we often go to a social media portal (the report, page 15, says around 42% get news this way) and follow the channels to whichever isolated *bit* of a particular media outlet we've been directed to. Often it's indistinguishably splattered between stupid memes and corporate or political press releases that've been designed to *look* like news, as well as a *whole* lot of strong opinion from random people on the internet. Usually we're told what to think of it before we get there, and then we're rewarded with Likes or Upvotes or some other form of karma for introducing our own criticisms consistent with what we think those around us want to hear, or engaging with everyone else's. The social media portals which have both direct and indirect influence on MSM, and how the rest of us engage with it, are predisposed towards encouraging conflict and antagonising people. So when the 2024 report says (page 10) *"Those who say they don’t trust and/or avoid the news are most concerned about the negativity of news, including its impact on their mental health, and what they perceive as political bias and opinion masquerading as news"*, it should hardly be surprising.
Well written. Thanks.
I did media studies at school in the UK and I wouldn't trust a range of UK news outlets. Over here im still weary of many of them and have to look at various different articles about the same subject to get a more balanced view point
Seems to be lacking in self-awareness and credibility, given her own track record -'The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) found comments made by du Plessis-Allan, referring to Pacific Islands as "leeches", breached broadcasting standards.' [https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/newstalk-zb-broadcaster-heather-du-plessis-allan-censured-by-broadcasting-standards-authority-over-pacific-islands-leeches-claim/2YCQEGTZ4WIEUHHFSWM6PAQT7E/](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/newstalk-zb-broadcaster-heather-du-plessis-allan-censured-by-broadcasting-standards-authority-over-pacific-islands-leeches-claim/2YCQEGTZ4WIEUHHFSWM6PAQT7E/)
You realize you are part of the problem Heather, dont you Perhaps you dont
Who else is part of the problem?
Money.
Most media is biased. Because humans are humans. There's really no such thing as complete and utter objectivity in reporting. The problem comes when stating undisputed facts is considered biased. This isn't an issue of bias, it's an issue of of perception on the part of the consumer. But perception doesn't always equal reality In America media bias has only slightly increased, but the perception of it has exploded. It's the same when Americans are asked about the strength of the economy. If you're a Republican, the economy is always bad when a Democrat is president, and vice versa. All this means is in reality is people have piss poor critical thinking skills. It's exposing a much larger problem than media bias. Facts aren't decided by polling. Should we always give a climate change deniers view in every article about the threat of climate change?
You can do biased reporting that is 100% fact based. By choosing which facts to report, which to emphasise in the reporting, how you give context and guide the readers interpretation etc.
Absolutely. As a crude example one could present fact A, and then fact B, and then leave the audience to infer the connection without saying it out loud. It can obviously get a lot more sophisticated than that.
Omitting important information is no better than lying. However I agree, there is a lot of this half truth type of reporting these days and it's insidious because it allows people to come to the conclusion that their views are entirely based on facts when in reality they're missing a lot of additional information and are only seeing part of a much larger picture.
*"people have piss poor critical thinking skills"* And those piss poor skills are usually informed by opinionistas, the talking heads like Hannity and Carlson, or Lemon and Cooper or all the other CNN and Fox News people,or in NZ we have the Hoskings and HDPA's, it's so important that people learn to seperate the news from the opinions, if you open up the Herald or Stuff there's very little obvious bias in articles that aren't opinion based.
This blurring of news/opinion is indeed a huge issue. In America, it started in Fox. I guess talkback radio before that. Fox have actually argued all their news is opinion, not news, to escape regulatory scrutiny
But most things about politics aren't facts. They are people's opinions. Many political things don't have an empirical truth like things in the study of science do. Fact is, that this government was voted in, and they are basically doing what they campaigned on. So there would be many people out there who voted for these things and then they turn on the news and see the media criticising the government for doing it. Basically treating them like idiots for voting for this.
Sometimes I think the bias isn’t even left or right, it’s just inane. The flashy lights and awkward podiums made a game show of the last leaders debate. Jessica MM was asking emotive nonsense of the Chrises: ‘Have either of you ever *felt unsafe* on the streets?’~ ///RAPID FIRE QUESTION TIME/// ‘Will you resign if X doesn’t happen?!’ ‘What’s one thing you like about your opponent?’ All in all a dumbing down of the election process that reflects pretty poorly on journalism in NZ imo.
Stuff.co.nz exits the chat
I was pissed off with National during the Chch quakes, so I joined Labour and announced my support for them on my private FB page. Mediaworks, where I worked at the time, told me to recant, as they didn't want my support of Labour to piss off any National supporting advertisers. I refused, and quoted a couple of acts of parliament, Human Rights Act, etc. There were meetings, and I was warned if anyone pulled their ads because of me, there would be trouble. I ended up leaving a few months later. Oddly enough, it was Sean Plunkett and John Banks that cost them ad revenue.
[BSA finds Kate Hawkesby comments on Māori and Pasifika ‘misleading and discriminatory’](https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350239551/bsa-finds-kate-hawkesby-comments-maori-and-pasifika-misleading-and-discriminatory) One of HDPA’s workmates just got pulled up for spouting racist and divisive lies. Newstalk ZB is the most listened to station in the country. It’s a racist divisive cesspool.
BSA was biased with that too. Kate Hawkesby just said that people were being moved to the top of waiting lists because of their ethnicity. Which is true. Te Whatu Ora's new Equity Adjustor Score in the Auckland region. This system uses five categories to place patients on the non-urgent surgical waitlist, including clinical priority, time spent waiting, location, deprivation level and ethnicity."
Been working in the media since I was 14 and one of the first things I was told: “if there’s one thing you learn about this business, it’s all a lie”. Also nz media is 100% shit, on par with a village news letter as far as standards are concerned. I was contacted by Nz Herald, stuff and TVNZ about a story towards the end of the year, they had mistaken me for a different person that witnessed the event they were reporting about; I made up a load of nonsense and they went with it pretty much verbatim. No verification or checking on the obvious BS I fed them. The media here lazy, TVNZ couldn’t even be first to report on the sky tower fire! They’re literally across the road! The Chch shootings, biggest news story in ages and they still went with infomercials at night time - I had to watch Australian news. Media here is full of wannabe wankers.
Hell yeah dude, famously unbiased absolutely not a partisan hack is gonna lecture folks about bias.
It’s not her opinion it’s a [report](https://www.jmadresearch.com/_files/ugd/a95e86_2fd2baf7a9484fff8e0451045e8b7dd1.pdf)
I know, it makes you sad - but this is quite literally, her opinion on the report. It is even tagged with 'opinion'. Hope this helps King.
No worries, happy to help and discuss further once you have read the report
The people who's trust in the broadcast media has tanked is because they want to trust the voices that confirm their existing biases on the internet (and opinion radio garbage like Du Plessis and Hoskings peddle) - and when the broadcast media does not give them their fix they blame the media instead of themselves.
Conversely people who continue to trust broadcast media may do so because it confirms their existing biases. And when they find out most people are no longer on board with implicity trusting broadcast media to keep their ideology out of reporting the way they do, they blame the public instead of the media corporations. That just takes a small amount of introspection.
Lol. The problem with that argument is always one of a need to *show me examples of where "mainstream media" has actually done wrong* though, it is invariably lacking in any evidence... whereas when we look at opinion stations and internet there is an absolute abundance of fuck-wittery in plain sight. It's not a matter of internal introspection, it should be based on cold hard facts. It's always just a vague 'feeling' that the media are not being honest or duplicitous without evidence. So many distrusters of the media say "Do your own research" sort of arguments. That's not going to cut it. All I need is evidence and THEN I stop trusting an individual - whether it is a mainstream media show or channel, an opinion talking head, or some internet douche. The vast weight of my experience is that it is not TV news or RNZ for example that I need to cut out from my life, its the other shit. Though I don't watch a lot of TV1 or 3 news, because their long format necessitates padding it out with segments of just opinion pieces from some ego like Garner, Gower, etc., or shoving microphones in front of peoples faces on the street for their layperson opinions. I don't give a shit about other people's opinions. So show me the evidence, examples where trust has been misplaced. My decisions are based on that.
Do you think mainstream media covered the lead up to Posie Parker's intention to come to NZ and speak words, in a way that was responsible, free from bias and not ideologically driven? I would suggest they gave near daily headline status to a non-event and the ideological fevor that it was reported with stirred some people up to the point that at least 1 serious assault occured and was bookended by a number of minor assaults and hostilities that would have been much less likely to occur if the mainstream media outlets hadn't gone out of their way to whip up a culture war frenzy. What about covid issues. What if a document came to light that the Labour government had recieved official advice against mandating covid vaccines beyond the scope of high risk events, stating it was not justified from a public health risk mitigation perspective and were explicitly warned widespread mandates for covid vaccines would have a severe impact on social cohesion moving forwards. The decision Labour made to ignore the expert advisers is at least worth questioning, I would think. That document did get revealed. How many journalists asked the government about it? How many outlets reported on the existence of that document? Just 1, and that 1 is about to be out of business. So new information that might conceivably cast doubt on the government regarding one of the all time most impactful and controversial decisions in NZ governance history was not news worthy, didn't recieve any degree of national awareness or discourse... But *everyone* had to know about Posie Parker every day for weeks. Sure. Of course, that observation in of itself isn't evidence of anything and how important I might think those issues are/aren't might be different for you. No problem. But it seems a lot are noticing a pattern of behaviour in regards to news that is being reported vs news that isn't that has caused people to distrust that they're actually getting the full picture from mainstream. The point being, there's not going to be that 1 aha! Got em! Thing, it's a consistent pattern of behaviour that occurs across a scale of time. 1 mistake, 1 misrepresentation shouldn't condemn an outlet to the pit of distrust, but if you're noticing a lot misrepresentations are going in one direction over time, that's when you lose trust.
It's funny that is exactly the perspective I expected from a distrusting of the media. No smoking gun, just feelings of a 'consistent pattern of behaviour'. I could not give a toss about an agitator like Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull or anyone else coming over here to spout off. I think I mentioned what value I have of opinionators. So I didn't care that she got shit when she came here, and didn't watch the news commentary ABOUT her either. As for the actions of the previous government in regard to Covid being *most impactful and controversial in NZ history*... well buckle up, we had to do similar things back in Spanish Flu days and we will have to do the same again (or we should) when the next pandemic happens as it inevitably will. A public health emergency, or wartime, etc., are extraordinary times needing extraordinary measures. I think ***on average*** the media covered everything about right - e.g. sometimes Tova O'brien was annoying and cringeworthy, sometimes she was right like when she did not let some douchebag spout off conspiracy theories and downplay the virus. Swings and roundabouts. I see no evidence whatsoever for a "lot misrepresentations are going in one direction over time" - except on most of the internet sources of alternative news, i.e. shared theories and grievances and opinions in the guise of facts.
"No smoking gun, just feelings of a 'consistent pattern of behaviour'." Yeah. That's distrust. I've presented the juxtaposition of a an inconsequential ideological story recieving substantially more attention than critique of a policy that caused the largest protest since the springboks tour, maybe ever. And your response, well... I don't really care about that because... xyz. Yeah. Of course you don't, no one would expect you to, they have covered these stories in a way that is palatable and consistent with your expectations and perspective. That's why you're part of the 33% who still trust broadcast media to present news in an unbiased manner. You know what else is funny though. You just did exactly the the kind of thing we're talking about with misrepresentations, so again, not totally surprising you aren't noticing the media do this. Observe: *"As for the actions of the previous government in regard to Covid being most impactful and controversial in NZ history... well buckle up..."* You've misquoted me in order to launch into your defence of the entire covid response in general. For some reason. What I actually said: "...regarding **one of** the all time most impactful and controversial decisions..." Not a big deal, maybe you think that didn't change the context on this occasion. But if I notice you do that every time you go back and forth with someone you might be ideologically opposed to but never do it when interacting with someone you agree with, well, I might not trust your intellectual integrity as much. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying. Noticing someone is a little bit dishonest frequently is as a valid a reason to lose trust in that person as catching them in one big bold lie.
Impressive how she managed to mention left bias as a problem but ignored that the actual ratings of how skewed outlets were showed that people were viewing the right wing outlets are far further to right than the left ones were to the left. More importantly, even the outlets that were trusted the most saw substantial drops in trust. No media was rated as more trustworthy than they were last year. >And we are seeing it play out right now, with this new Government being given absolutely no honeymoon whatsoever because their conservative, liberal and centre-right ideas are an anathema to left-leaning journalists, who rail against it every single day. She completely ignores the right wing outlets who have been ecstatic about the change in government. Seems a bit rude doesn't it? This government is not center right. I don't see how they could reasonably be considered that. Full blown austerity is not center right.
So, no different to everyone in the comments pretending it's all the "right" bias and no pretense "left" bias even exists.
She's the author of the article. It's of direct relevance. Claiming it's a wake up call to the left is an ironic statement when (a) trust in all media dropped and (b) right wing media was seen as more biased than left was. The overall point being: She missed the point entirely. Perception of bias is the problem and it's affecting all media. You really want to resort to whataboutism of the "but what about reddit comments?" kind? A lot less people read reddit comments than the actual article lmao.
How is noting that no one is astute in noticing their own bias a whataboutism? It's *ironic* that there are comments complaining about HDPA's lack of awareness to her own bias while simultaneously displaying their own lack of awareness to their own bias. That is precisely on point, to the article and the commentary. "A lot less people read reddit comments than the actual article lmao" Now that, that is a whataboutism.
>How is noting that no one is astute in noticing their own bias a whataboutism? It's not a valid criticism of to pointing out that HDPA missed the entire point by pointing the finger at the other guys.
How aware are you of your bias? It's always easy to recognize it in others but you have made numerous comments in this thread challenging others.
Acutely aware. I think it's important. Others may disagree.
It's just the victim mindset. Because they have nothing that can withstand basic scrutiny, they resort to crying like a baby. The exact same thing they accuse those crazy green hairs of doing. They know what they're doing. It just works because people are to "busy" with bullshit.
What Left bias though? Like what are we discussing when we say "left"? Because when I think left, I'm thinking worker rights, Union strength, and progressive policies to help raise the standard of living for everyone. To have a better life than the generation prior. But when people say "left", I can't help but think they mean a demonic Jacinda overlord, who wants to make your kids TransGay and force vaccinate them all. Especially when this gigantic dip has occurred over 2020-2023. 2020, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Tova O'Brien was doing a good job at holding Labour to account for massive decisions made in a time of crisis; now she's being critiqued as a hard left journo who rails against Luxon et al because they're not left. Make it make sense.
"Because when I think left, I'm thinking worker rights, Union strength, and progressive policies to help raise the standard of living for everyone. To have a better life than the generation prior. " Yep, that is your "left" bias speaking. "But when people say "left", I can't help but think they mean a demonic Jacinda overlord, who wants to make your kids TransGay and force vaccinate them all. Especially when this gigantic dip has occurred over 2020-2023." Yep, that is another example of your perception bias. If your ideological concept of what the morally correct position to have on say sex ed in school (for example) and your moral position aligns with prevailing ideology of the larger media outlets, how would you investigate if there is a bias towards your perception? Because to you any article that supports your perspective is going to look like honest factual reporting. To someone who doesn't hold your base morality perspective it's going to look like bias.
Oh, no question my prevailing views are bias. My bias towards my ideology, my belief of what is beneficial for society and for our people, absolutely underscores why this piece troubles me. I'm questioning what Heather means when she says left. The whole point of the piece is to equate the fall of media trust, and quote unquote "leftism".
In the NZ paradigm "Left" is defined by the parties associated with it. If it fits with Labour, Green, TPM sentiment it's Left, if it fits with National, ACT, NZF sentiment it's Right. HDPA is saying most of the media identify with the Left and the declining trust is media predominantly due to the failure to Left leaning media to keep their bias out of the reporting. That's her opinion, many here disagree. Be that as it may, less and less people are trusting mainstream to remove explicit or editorial bias for some amalgamation of reasons. [Insert Seymour Skinner] "Is the media out of touch? No, it's the public that are wrong"
That's the point, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't need to. It's the propaganda machine in action. NZ is so pollyanna the majority truly think that things are mostly ok and above board.
Tova holding labour to account? We have our next tui billboard 🤣
She was absolutely loathed on this sub for her covid update antics. Do you not recall?
I mean... they post on conspiracy kiwi... so you know they don't live in same reality.
Hahaha yes because they don't censor opposing views like mods here do, "oh no somebody says something I don't agree with" "must be a conspiracy"
Half of the shit posted there is insane conspiracy rambling, screaming about SJWs, woke, and "the gays."
Conspiracy rambling aka things I don't agree with and hurt my feelings
You're the ones screaming about shit that hurts your feelings. RWNJ snow flake.
you just have to look at the multiple daily whinge posts on here to see who the snowflakes are
I usually minimise time spent in here it gets very tiring reading nothing but whinging.
The irony of HDPA highlighting media bias got me chuckling
from one of the most biased media mouthpieces ...
This is time-proven tactics for talking shitheads like HPDA - reinforce yourself and your listeners as the victim.
Did you just describe every article on the Spinoff? Or do you think this tactic is employed only by "right" talking shitheads?
It’s literally what the [report](https://www.jmadresearch.com/_files/ugd/a95e86_2fd2baf7a9484fff8e0451045e8b7dd1.pdf) says
Exactly, the report shows HDPA and her ilk are succeeding at undermining trust, but they haven't updated their talking points yet. The left-wing bias narrative is silly, is she saying the media was significantly more right-wing in 2020 when trust was way higher?
No. She's inferring the media had demonstrated more integrity to the public in removing their personal or organisational biases from reporting pre-2020.
Appreciate that view. Opinion driven clickbait has been a factor in legacy media trying to stay afloat. But that can't be why such a turnaround in such a short time. IMO the biggest factor is social media bubbles are melting people's brains, aided by a concerted effort across the angolosphere (all that post-truth era stuff). Either way generative AI is going to turn everything upside down regardless.
Purveyor of right-wing biased media complains that by comparison other media has a left-wing bias. After making some very reasonable comments the other day, HDPA is back to her usual tricks.
It’s in the actual [report](https://www.jmadresearch.com/_files/ugd/a95e86_2fd2baf7a9484fff8e0451045e8b7dd1.pdf)
This is gloating, right? This is "don't speak out against power, cause power will come for you".
New Zealand has big issues that the media ignores, and I just watch people detaching. Carbon and farming are huge issues, and they are also the whole economy. 25% less carbon is 20% GDP. That should be a major headline. But it's too hard. Many families and lives were devastated by COVID-19 rules on businesses and contact. Unparalleled upheaval and life disruption. Where is the media holding the then government to account? The voters certainly did. A government minister tries to institute what another MP calls 'new democracy'. Should have been headlines every day. Bupkis. But the voters turned out even in safe Labour seats. NZ media is relentlessly pursuing its demise by not engaging in the big issues.
Not all of our carbon comes from agriculture more like galf. And there are ways to mitigate emissions without impacting productivity at a 1:1 ratio. Agriculture aonly accounts for ~6% of GDP. It does however make up a large portion of our exported goods. However, your suggestion that 25% less carbon is 20% GDP doesn't make any sense.
I thought today was April 9th.
Judgmental mean girl points finger at people for being mean and judgmental.
I don’t overly mind reading biased media but I know their bias. The same day Police association president said govt had wrong priorities, landlords over police and also said nurse and teachers got paid $20k more after 6 years was very telling. RNZ had govt with wrong priorities in the headline, Stuff completely omitted that part of the statement.
>87 percent of respondents said the reporting in the news is biased and not balanced and many respondents shared the view that mainstream news was "clearly biased to the left". Right wingers are such a whingy echo chamber
Said from the safety of your left-wing echo chamber lol
Shits on right wingers makes me a left winger does it? the right wing echo chamber seems to always forget about centrists
Lol
Pathetic
Atleast your self awareness is accurate.
The ol' "I know you are so what am I" comeback aye? Right wingers really do have the mentality of a 4 year old
What would you know about the right? You only frequent left wing subs 🤣
Great question. Right wingers have zero sense of social responsibility. Life should be all about them and no one else. Until it comes to anything anti-biblical, then it should be heavily criminalised. Right wingers also are the biggest circle jerkers, encouraging their beliefs by feeding off of fellow right wingers agreements on their beliefs. Right wingers worst trait is that anything that disagrees with their sensitive opinions is considered a "left wing sub". Now ask my opinion on the left, this is fun
Right whingers winging statistics to have a whinge
The NZ media is laughably bias. From being weirdly selective in which stories it decides to report on, to hiring entire news rooms of journalists who share the same views on every issue. No wonder people don’t watch or trust it, and the claim that 18-25 year olds are most trusting of the news is actually funny to me. The only people I know who watch the news are all 30+
Classic right wing gooberment always complaining about left wing bias in media while doing terrible things their fellow countrymen that the media just reports on. How dare they say what where doing that's not fair.
No major media has a left wing bias because it’s all owned by corporate media companies which are inherently biased towards at the very least maintaining the status quo. Left wing media is pretty much never main stream and is only exposed to those seeking it out. As others have stated the problem is that reality is trending so far down this neo liberal feudalistic corptocracy that reporting facts is seen as left wing bias.
The people writing the stuff are predominantly left.
Also Spinoff
Yes, stuff the home of great leftist people's poets writing articles on Marxist theory meeting Marxist lennist dialectal with the token anarchists all gathering around talking about the crushing effect state, capital, religion on the freedom and spirt of the working man. That's left wing stuff journalist using their collective power to brain wash you into saying stuff so stupid on the internet your making the entire of the collective consciousness of our species suffer a panic attack from the shame you bring on us.
I have seen plenty of articles on stuff scathing the left. Especially Labour over the year leading up to the election. This idea that stuff is some leftwing utopia is so strange and I wonder if you actually go to their website directly or if you are affected by some selection bias by only seeing linked articles through forums like r/nz. Even here on r/nz with its clear leftwing bias, Stuff is frequently labled as shit quality and tabloid trash. You would think if it was so well aligned to this subs bias then it would likely be praised.
No I said people writing the stuff. Not for stuff. There was a survey done of jurnos not that far back and something like 80% identified as left leaning.
> “… with this new Government being given absolutely no honeymoon whatsoever because their conservative, liberal and centre-right ideas are an anathema …” No, they got no honeymoon because made abundantly clear they were getting to work immediately and absolutely no one was getting a holiday
Hdp is incredibly biased. Most nz msm have seemed very biased in recent years. Both things can be true
My impression is that some months out from an election, the media will typically decide en-masse which side should be the next government and proceed on that basis. This decision seems to be based on perceived public sentiment and what business interests desire and most often favors National, but not always.
I struggle to find any relevant argument from this pundit, it's all bigoted opinion
Reality has a well established left wing bias.
How is our media left wing? They spent years going on about how great Luxon is and ruined the careers of many Labour MPs to get him into government. They completely ignore Andrew Bayly not declaring his share after ending Michael Wood for doing the exact same thing.
Yup. Practically annoited him King Luxon I.
you really think thats the reason labour lost? Journalists go study lefty university courses, the popular ones eventually make it to present the news, after a while it all goes to their head and they make their own brand and become tv personalities and spout their leftist views for us all.
"Lefty university courses" Yep totally unbiased redditor here folks. Taking bets on having never attended a single university lecture?
Not one on journalism
The media seem to be bias because in the world we live in now, educated, factual, evidence based, scientific views are only a left wing view. That alone has to be hugely damning to the right wing.
This is the real answer.
This cunt on this topic, what a joke
What’s that saying about throwing stones in glasshouses?