Click to view
Public scepticism is increasingly driven by perceptions of political bias, sensationalism, and the blurring of opinion and fact in reporting.
A majority of respondents cited concerns about misleading headlines and biased journalism.
Many New Zealanders are also actively avoiding news due to emotional fatigue, distrust, and a belief that media serves ideological or commercial interests rather than informing the public.
Focus groups echoed these concerns, with both younger and older participants expressing strong dissatisfaction with the quality, tone, and relevance of domestic news.
The full report can be downloaded here.
Highlights of the report included the following feedback:
A majority of respondents cited concerns about misleading headlines and biased journalism.
Many New Zealanders are also actively avoiding news due to emotional fatigue, distrust, and a belief that media serves ideological or commercial interests rather than informing the public.
Focus groups echoed these concerns, with both younger and older participants expressing strong dissatisfaction with the quality, tone, and relevance of domestic news.
The full report can be downloaded here.
Highlights of the report included the following feedback:
- “Unfortunately the articles in most traditional news sources have become opinion pieces pushing a specific ideology or agenda rather than good solid unbiased journalism that just presents the facts.” – Male, NZ European/Pākehā, 35–44 years
- “I miss the days when news was balanced.” – Male, NZ European/Pākehā, 55–64 years
- “I actively avoid a lot these days as it is full of opinion pieces and not a lot of factual well-researched unbiased news.” – Female, NZ European/Pākehā, 65–74 years
- “Because it’s corrupt and dishonest. They are far left and just nasty.” – Female, 25–34 years, Māori, ACT voter
- “The reporters never seem to research anything and let the politicians just make stuff up with no challenge and they have a right-wing bias.” – Female, NZ European/Pākehā, 45–54 years, Labour voter
- “It’s all sensationalist and designed to trigger anger or disgust. It’s also opinions presented as fact.” – Male, Other, 25–34 years
- “Emotive reporting. Left wing bias in political news. Clickbait headlines. Narrow range of viewpoints on contestable subjects. Advocacy disguised as journalism.” – Male, NZ European, 45–54 years
- “They’re not reflecting reality. It’s talking for themselves and the elites, but not for us plebs … [it’s] politically and socially biased.” – Male, NZ European/Pākehā, 75+ years
- “Because the quality of journalism is poor. Newsrooms lean mostly left and I prefer unbiased news that isn’t opinion driven.” – Male, NZ European, 45–54 years
Daily Telegraph New Zealand (DTNZ) is an independent news website, first published in October 2021. - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Yet I saw an article in one of the rags crowing about how it was all good news because the level of trust has stopped falling.
Could add "relentlessly pro maori with no critical appraisal of".
The question of "trust" is very vague and needs the expanded responses to make views clear.
The idea touted by some that NZME and Herald are neutral and balanced is debatable. The Herald's hierarchy are pro the previous govt and do not hide that in their editorials. Or cartoons. Columnists who tread on the correct Maori narrative have long been excluded. It seems to allow some National Party type views but the Nats are just the other side of the uniparty backside. Hosking can promote the Nats. But when it comes to coverage of treaty matters the weight of columns and articles seems tilted one way. They can't ignore Seymour entirely though. But one way is to extensively cover negative reaction to his comments and spin articles that way.
On international matters they are all on board with ''correct narratives''.
Newstalk ZB has some hosts who seem sympathetic to Nats and mainstream ''correct think'' centrists (Nats ) but that hardly makes them right wing . They do not buck the bad treaty bill line. They do have hosts who are quite the opposite of ''right wing'' at different slots. The Herald's reaction to any influence by ''right wingers'' who will threaten its ''independence'' is interesting. Independence from what? The Guardian is ''independent'' but openly woke fake liberal left and the Mail is blatantly ra ra ra the other way. But as far as I know they do not get handouts from the taxpayer through a ''journalism fund.''
Independence does not mean unbiased or ''balanced''. There is no such thing as ''unbiased'' media. The evening daily I was with in the 70s and 80s was firmly National and further right on some issues in its editorials, a policy set by the editor. There were no columns to the contrary but at least the ''bias'' was kept to the editorials, not worked into new stories with spins and colourful use of adjectives by ''reporters'' and subs.
We did run articles from the Daily Express, obviously low cost, hailing the Contras in Nicaragua as ''freedom fighters'' etc and in praise of Reagan. They fitted editorial policy. Bias obvious.
The default position now is Left/Green/DEI CRT etc is ''progressive'' and good and questioning any of it is not good.
Stuff, TV 1 and 3 and RNZ are esentially party newsletters for the opposition and associated agendas.
Post a Comment