Pointless, that is, unless the objective was to discredit Luxon by presenting him as a reciter of repetitive, predictable and boring election-year rhetoric – or worse, as an unscrupulous dog-whistler trying to exploit public anxieties.
In fact, RNZ’s research findings confirm that Luxon is doing what all opposition leaders do and have always done: namely, zeroing in on areas where the government is perceived as vulnerable. Quelle surprise!
RNZ journalists Farah Hancock and Guyon Espiner trawled through 28 hours of interviews from between July 2022 and May 2023. They breathlessly inform us that Luxon used the word “tax” 233 times – about three times as often as Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins over the same period.
Conclusion: Luxon thinks talking about tax might be to National’s advantage while Labour leaders tend to avoid the subject because it’s not in their interests to draw attention to it. Astonishing!
But wait, there’s more. Luxon said “spending” 179 times – nearly five times more than his opponents. He used the word “crisis” 91 times whereas Ardern used it only 11 times as prime minister and Hipkins hasn’t mentioned it at all.
Luxon also referred to the cost of living 86 times and on 49 occasions described it as a “cost of living crisis”. A key theme, Hancock and Espiner concluded, is “Luxon’s relentless use of words associated with basic economics”. Shame!
Presumably we're supposed to be surprised - perhaps even shocked - that the leader of the opposition is hammering issues that polls reveal to be uppermost in the minds of voters.
Hang on – it gets worse. Luxon brought up words like “health”, "hospitals”, “education” and “teacher” far more often than Ardern or Hipkins. Who’d have thought? What gives Luxon the right to emphasise policy areas where he thinks the government’s record is weak? Off with his head!
In another “Eureka!” moment, RNZ’s incisive investigative journalists noted that the National leader was happier talking about farming than Ardern or Hipkins, who used the word only eight times between them (to Luxon's 114). Hancock and Espiner and Hancock described it as “startling” that the Labour leaders avoided talking about farmers and farming. But startling to whom? Of course Ardern and Hipkins don’t want to talk about farming, and with very good reason. Why risk drawing attention to the fact that farmers, who generate most of this country’s wealth, regard the government as hostile?
RNZ doesn’t explain why it decided to embark on the complicated and unprecedented (its own word) exercise of analysing more than 200 interviews and breaking its findings down into multiple charts likely to be interest only to political obsessives. More important, neither does it explain why Luxon appears to have been chosen as the focus of the investigation rather than Ardern and Hipkins, who - as the people in power - are the politicians whose actions and statements call for closest critical scrutiny.
Of course RNZ can (and probably will) argue that this was a legitimate journalistic project aimed at analysing political rhetoric in a totally neutral and objective way without seeking to influence how we think about our political leaders.
Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s likely to be seen. Rather, it will be widely perceived as a heavy-handed and unsubtle hit job on Luxon.
That impression is reinforced by the opinions of the “experts” RNZ invited to comment on the findings. Josie Pagani, who has historically been associated with Labour, rather disdainfully dismissed Luxon’s apparent preoccupations as “National’s classic hits”.
Pagani pointed out that Luxon rarely used terms like “inequality” or “working-class”. But someone who has made a career of following politics, as Pagani has, would know that those words are not part of the vocabulary of the National Party. Almost by definition, anyone who uses them is likely to be on the left of politics. No blinding insights there, then.
RNZ also went to media trainer Janet Wilson, who has worked for the National Party but couldn’t, judging by her newspaper columns, be described as a National supporter. She took a swipe at Luxon for using corporate jargon such as “outcomes” and “going forward”. But given that these terms are routinely used by public servants, academics and politicians of all shades, it seemed a carping criticism. Yes, Luxon does speak the bloodless language of the Koru Club, but voters are likely to have noted that for themselves.
Question: was RNZ unable to find a single “expert” who was prepared to point out the obvious – namely, that Luxon is doing what all politicians do, which is highlight opponents’ weaknesses and by so doing, present themselves as offering a better alternative?
Whether intentionally or not, the story was presented in such a way as make Luxon look bad. The implication seemed to be that he was seeking to manipulate public opinion by the repeated use of key phrases (RNZ used the emotive term “carpet-bombing”, which is loaded with negative connotations), as if this was somehow underhand and improper. In fact it’s just politics as normal. They all do it.
On a day when RNZ’s reputation is, by its own admission, damaged by the revelation that stories on the Russian invasion of Ukraine were tampered with, apparently by a rogue employee, the Hancock-Espiner project was an additional hit to its credibility that was entirely self-inflicted. If there were an award for Non-Exposé of the Year, RNZ would have it in the bag.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
RNZ journalists Farah Hancock and Guyon Espiner trawled through 28 hours of interviews from between July 2022 and May 2023. They breathlessly inform us that Luxon used the word “tax” 233 times – about three times as often as Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins over the same period.
Conclusion: Luxon thinks talking about tax might be to National’s advantage while Labour leaders tend to avoid the subject because it’s not in their interests to draw attention to it. Astonishing!
But wait, there’s more. Luxon said “spending” 179 times – nearly five times more than his opponents. He used the word “crisis” 91 times whereas Ardern used it only 11 times as prime minister and Hipkins hasn’t mentioned it at all.
Luxon also referred to the cost of living 86 times and on 49 occasions described it as a “cost of living crisis”. A key theme, Hancock and Espiner concluded, is “Luxon’s relentless use of words associated with basic economics”. Shame!
Presumably we're supposed to be surprised - perhaps even shocked - that the leader of the opposition is hammering issues that polls reveal to be uppermost in the minds of voters.
Hang on – it gets worse. Luxon brought up words like “health”, "hospitals”, “education” and “teacher” far more often than Ardern or Hipkins. Who’d have thought? What gives Luxon the right to emphasise policy areas where he thinks the government’s record is weak? Off with his head!
In another “Eureka!” moment, RNZ’s incisive investigative journalists noted that the National leader was happier talking about farming than Ardern or Hipkins, who used the word only eight times between them (to Luxon's 114). Hancock and Espiner and Hancock described it as “startling” that the Labour leaders avoided talking about farmers and farming. But startling to whom? Of course Ardern and Hipkins don’t want to talk about farming, and with very good reason. Why risk drawing attention to the fact that farmers, who generate most of this country’s wealth, regard the government as hostile?
RNZ doesn’t explain why it decided to embark on the complicated and unprecedented (its own word) exercise of analysing more than 200 interviews and breaking its findings down into multiple charts likely to be interest only to political obsessives. More important, neither does it explain why Luxon appears to have been chosen as the focus of the investigation rather than Ardern and Hipkins, who - as the people in power - are the politicians whose actions and statements call for closest critical scrutiny.
Of course RNZ can (and probably will) argue that this was a legitimate journalistic project aimed at analysing political rhetoric in a totally neutral and objective way without seeking to influence how we think about our political leaders.
Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s likely to be seen. Rather, it will be widely perceived as a heavy-handed and unsubtle hit job on Luxon.
That impression is reinforced by the opinions of the “experts” RNZ invited to comment on the findings. Josie Pagani, who has historically been associated with Labour, rather disdainfully dismissed Luxon’s apparent preoccupations as “National’s classic hits”.
Pagani pointed out that Luxon rarely used terms like “inequality” or “working-class”. But someone who has made a career of following politics, as Pagani has, would know that those words are not part of the vocabulary of the National Party. Almost by definition, anyone who uses them is likely to be on the left of politics. No blinding insights there, then.
RNZ also went to media trainer Janet Wilson, who has worked for the National Party but couldn’t, judging by her newspaper columns, be described as a National supporter. She took a swipe at Luxon for using corporate jargon such as “outcomes” and “going forward”. But given that these terms are routinely used by public servants, academics and politicians of all shades, it seemed a carping criticism. Yes, Luxon does speak the bloodless language of the Koru Club, but voters are likely to have noted that for themselves.
Question: was RNZ unable to find a single “expert” who was prepared to point out the obvious – namely, that Luxon is doing what all politicians do, which is highlight opponents’ weaknesses and by so doing, present themselves as offering a better alternative?
Whether intentionally or not, the story was presented in such a way as make Luxon look bad. The implication seemed to be that he was seeking to manipulate public opinion by the repeated use of key phrases (RNZ used the emotive term “carpet-bombing”, which is loaded with negative connotations), as if this was somehow underhand and improper. In fact it’s just politics as normal. They all do it.
On a day when RNZ’s reputation is, by its own admission, damaged by the revelation that stories on the Russian invasion of Ukraine were tampered with, apparently by a rogue employee, the Hancock-Espiner project was an additional hit to its credibility that was entirely self-inflicted. If there were an award for Non-Exposé of the Year, RNZ would have it in the bag.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
11 comments:
RNZ obviously believe that people care about this tripe above the real story of RNZ manipulating press releases to promote pro Russia views. It’s a leftist joke of a radio station and way off beam.
It’s anti National propaganda will only isolate it even further when Labour get booted out at the next election
All this from an organisation that altered numerous Reuter reports over a lengthy period of time.
Their credibility and objectivity suck.
If one could be bothered to survey 'the NZ media' in a similar way, the resultant findings would be summed up as petty and pathetic contributing absolutely... nothing.
The fact that Hancock and Espinerwould classify their occupation as 'journalists' is in itself a classic case of misinformation!
Perhaps Radio NZ needs to take a closer look at itself with regard to choice of words. Their own CEO seems to think so when it comes to the Ukraine Russia war. Pot? Kettle? Black?
How childish and petty can you get? Why don't they get a real job that actually does something constructive like shooting possums, growing food for a food bank or cleaning up the beach or reading "Breaking Views' and learning about real issues and proper journalistic research.
I am more interested in how often they refer to maori race based favouritism and financial assistance, maori control via co governance, strong maori influence in near everything, the continued inefficent and confusing adoption of maori words and names, the grossly inefficent education time spent on maori language and the resultant essential remedial teaching etc.
The following statement (as quoted) has been taken from another article posted on this website - " How are they spending (or mis-spending) our taxes: Health Minister Ayesha Verrall announced an initial $10m investment to expand Wellington Regional Hospital’s Emergency Department".
I post this in context to the Author (Karl du Fresne) article, on the RNZ 'reviewing the words', as uttered by Chris Luxon on matters financial - read the article and absorb. Why my posted quote (above), well when Wellington Hospital was being reviewed (many years ago) - to upgrade all buildings & amenities, to what they have now, that upgrade was supposed "to future proof" the Hospital & A&E going forward.
So we now have our current Govt, going to "spend $10 million" on an expansion - will the 2 staffers at RNZ - Farah Handcock & Guyon Espiner now spend quality time reviewing Wellington Hospital past expenditure, and the what the proposed "going forward $ spend", is going to cover?
Also can we ask same two RNZ staffers to "review the money, currently being wasted, by our "new" Health Authority" (an organization set up by the current Govt) which might be of more interesting to the Public at large, than "with political bias" trying to undermine a Leader of a Political Party heading toward a General Election.
Also, the 2 staffers, should also be reminded, as to "who recently donated large $$ to the RNZ coffers, following a "failed merger" - or was that a recompense to cover "hurty feelings"?
With NZ MSM, we see "a copy cat approach to news" the same that is applied to Donald Trump in America, that is "let us find dirt, print the scandal, and hope it will undermine the Person, hoping that no one will know the difference".
ANON, I reside in New Zealand.
Journalist are of the mistaken belief they know more than what we do.
As for Janet Wilson, she has a problem writing plain English. Her bitterness towards National (her former employer) is very evident.
These same 'reporters' should count the number of times Hipkins says 'um' and then admits he doesn't have the required information at hand when interviewed by Hosking. Then make the comparison with Luxon.
In addition, hearing Hipkins repeatably whining that he wasn't prepared for Hosking's questions this Tuesday morning was simply embarrassing. His lack of awareness of the real issues facing NZ is astonishing.
RNZ seem to have dug their own grave. The revelations seem to just get worse and worse. All par for the course when you become a Labour Party poodle.
They will never be regarded as a trusted news source ever again.
The only surprising thing is why do the Herald keep re publishing articles from RNZ on its news website?
One trash news source feeding another.
Post a Comment