Why the relentless bias? A 1News Verian Poll, in which the exact survey question was not made available, got reported as follows by OneNews, "Poll: More New Zealanders oppose than support Treaty Principles Bill. The poll, which surveyed 1006 eligible voters .. found 23% supported the bill while 36% were opposed. A slightly larger group - 39% - said they didn't know enough about the bill, and 2% preferred not to say".
At the bottom of the article One News stated that the question asked, "Do you support, or oppose, the bill; not know enough to say; or prefer not to say" . Where to start? Survey questions and responses are one of my fields in economics. First, the survey question could not have asked, "Do you support or oppose the bill or not know enough to say?" because that line doesn't reference which bill. Each word matters in survey questions, so what exactly did it ask?
Second, I do not interpret the survey results in such a way that, "more NZers oppose than support the Treaty Principles Bill". How on earth can one draw that conclusion when 41% of respondents replied saying they either want to know more about the debate, or prefer not to say? If you add that number to the 23% who are opposed, then who knows how many Kiwis are falling on the side of support - or opposition - to the Bill. Potentially 64% may turn out supporting the Bill (=23 % + 41%) should those who want to learn more about it end up in support. Indeed, the entire point of the debate ACT Leader Seymour has started is to persuade that 41% of undecided folks they should throw their support behind his Bill.
Second, I do not interpret the survey results in such a way that, "more NZers oppose than support the Treaty Principles Bill". How on earth can one draw that conclusion when 41% of respondents replied saying they either want to know more about the debate, or prefer not to say? If you add that number to the 23% who are opposed, then who knows how many Kiwis are falling on the side of support - or opposition - to the Bill. Potentially 64% may turn out supporting the Bill (=23 % + 41%) should those who want to learn more about it end up in support. Indeed, the entire point of the debate ACT Leader Seymour has started is to persuade that 41% of undecided folks they should throw their support behind his Bill.
Why can't our State Media just report the news, rather than putting their stupid anti-right spin on every story, in this case that Kiwis are lining up against ACT's bill in majority numbers, when there is no proof? Just report the actual goddam survey question & actual goddam answers next time, and leave the interpretation to the readers, rather than assuming we are all dumb.
Sources:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/12/10/poll-more-nzers-oppose-than-support-treaty-principles-bill/
Sources:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/12/10/poll-more-nzers-oppose-than-support-treaty-principles-bill/
Professor Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University. He has previously worked at the Reserve Bank, Oxford University, and the London School of Economics. He runs the blog Down to Earth Kiwi from where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
No surprises there. "News" items should begin with the words, "This is a party political broadcast on behalf of Te Pati Maori".
But then look who is running TVNZ. The chairman is Alistair Carruthers, a personal friend of Jacinda, who helped prepare her wedding. She, and Willie Jackson put him in charge of all sorts of boards including Creative NZ (who defunded Shakespeare because it's supposedly not relevant, while paying over $100,000.00 for Rap poems fantasizing about brown women stabbing whites). He was on the board of NZ On Air, (who funded Fire and Fury and other woke propaganda) and the NZ Film Commission (who funded the Jacinda documentary). The conflicts of interest are apparent to everyone apart from Willie and Jacinda. Deputy Chairman of TVNZ is Maori radical, Ripeka Evans, who has been a long time member of the Maori equivalent of the Polynesian Panthers, and has spent lengthy periods in Cuba. A number of other directors come from the Institute of Directors diversity program. The executive editor of TVNZ is Phil O'Sullivan, formerly of CNN.
In sum, they do it because they are both stupid and corrupt. Just like Stuff, the sooner they no longer receive any taxpayer support, the better.
Yup, it is their natural inclination, just like the scorpion. In their nature.
Post a Comment