Stuff, the publisher, defended Vance’s use of the word as being appropriate in the circumstances, noting that the column formed part of a spectrum of views on the issue. However, the backlash highlights a deeper issue: the erosion of trust that occurs when language becomes inflammatory and unmoored from reasoned argument.
The incident brings to mind George Orwell’s seminal 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language. Orwell argued that sloppy, vague, or manipulative language reflects and perpetuates muddled thinking, particularly in political discourse. The English language, Orwell wrote, “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
Vance’s column, while passionate, illustrates Orwell’s warning: inflammatory terms like the C-word and pejorative phrases like “girl-math,” obscure substantive critique and alienate readers. Her approach risks what Orwell called a “contagion” of unclear prose, undermining trust in journalism by prioritising shock over clarity. Orwell’s contention was that by consciously choosing precise, honest language, writers can reverse this decline, fostering trust and rigorous thought.
The incident brings to mind George Orwell’s seminal 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language. Orwell argued that sloppy, vague, or manipulative language reflects and perpetuates muddled thinking, particularly in political discourse. The English language, Orwell wrote, “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
Vance’s column, while passionate, illustrates Orwell’s warning: inflammatory terms like the C-word and pejorative phrases like “girl-math,” obscure substantive critique and alienate readers. Her approach risks what Orwell called a “contagion” of unclear prose, undermining trust in journalism by prioritising shock over clarity. Orwell’s contention was that by consciously choosing precise, honest language, writers can reverse this decline, fostering trust and rigorous thought.
Click image to view - My copy of the Auckland Star in-house Style Guide, 1981
In an era when trust in media has declined to shockingly low levels, journalists face the challenge of delivering content that is credible, insightful, and accessible within ever shorter newsroom deadlines.
As I have begun to write more broadly, I’ve loosely identified six rules that have helped to guide my writing. These principles are not intended to be universal or exhaustive but they have served me well as a personal framework for producing writing that engages a discerning readership. No doubt they will continue to evolve and expand but for now they are as follows; and for me, they are my Six Golden Rules.
1. Curate Stories with Appropriate Prominence
Resist editorial gatekeeping that prioritises low-quality or trivial news over matters of significant public importance. Advocate for balanced coverage that reflects the weight and relevance of issues to serve readers effectively. This requires adequate newsroom resources, as complex topics demand experienced journalists who can distil core issues and present them clearly. Without sufficient resource, important stories can go uncovered. A newspaper, however, is not just a single story but a curated collection, in which each story should be assigned prominence which is proportional to its significance. This curation requires ongoing editorial vigilance.
2. Write for Your Most Discerning Readers
You should always aim to write for your most discerning readers and assume that that group includes subject-matter experts and individuals with actual knowledge of the issue or event that you are writing about. That requires you to be accurate with the facts, acknowledge your limitations and restrained when drawing conclusions or making judgments. Whilst you will not be more knowledgeable than this group, you can gain their trust and respect by being accurate, cautious and restrained. This is where a writer’s reputation is won or lost.
3. Present Facts Objectively
Gather accurate, relevant facts and present them clearly. Allow the reader to draw their own conclusions without editorialising or assigning undue weight to the information. Each reader will have a different view on any given set of facts but it is better to let your readers determine the true relevance of a story than to immediately start declaring it to be the latest national scandal.
4. Provide New Insights
News is a service and at its core you must provide the reader with something for them to take away. It’s not sufficient to point out that water is wet or the sun is hot. Strive to include at least one new fact, interesting insight, or evidence-based angle in every article, even if it is a small but meaningful detail. Provide your reader with a gift and they will return.
5. Communicate with Clarity
Convey complex ideas in plain, concise language, balancing simplicity with depth to ensure accessibility while preserving substance. Avoid jargon or over-complication to reach both expert and general readers effectively.
6. Uphold Professional Integrity
Avoid gratuitous criticism, loaded language, or sensationalist headlines unless evidence and context strongly justify their use. Engage counter-arguments respectfully to uphold fairness and intellectual honesty. Whilst it can be very tempting to attack a public figure in an article, these swipes are rarely advisable, and cumulatively, they can become corrosive to the value of the masthead over time. Instead, address individuals respectfully, using titles and honorifics, and focus on their arguments. Reserve personal jabs for satirists and columnists who can write with flair and humour.
The great challenge is, of course, to ensure that the business model and the journalism are aligned. For this alignment to succeed, publications must define their vision and readership clearly in order to foster journalism that upholds trust and excellence.
I’ve received a lot of positive feedback to my last article although some journalists consider my views ‘old-fashioned’, ‘idealistic’ and ‘out-of-touch with modern-day journalism’. If that’s the case, then I can only blame George Orwell.
Lawyer and writer Philip Crump explores political, legal and cultural issues facing New Zealand. Sometimes known as Thomas Cranmer. This article was published HERE
5 comments:
After around 70 years of buying and reading Wellington's newspapers, I am of the opinion that 'The Post' as it fancies itself, meets very few, if any of the sensible journalistic principles you so clearly outlined. It has moved a very long way from the admired journalism of its antecedents such as the Dominion and Evening Post. In fact, it is a travesty of biased reporting and editorialising, with the occasional sign of ignorance of the English language thrown in. Don't get me going on the bottom-rung position of the Sunday (far from Star) Times; a combination Labour manifesto and women's magazine.
To reclaim the New Zealand Herald as a newspaper of record, rather than a platform for ideological performance is not about just editing a paper. It is about confronting a newsroom culture where activism has too often supplanted journalism, and where opinion too frequently masquerades as fact.
This is not merely a personnel issue. It is a structural and philosophical battle. Many young reporters entering the field today are trained not in the rigours of verification, fairness, and clarity, but in the performative moralism of social media — where narrative matters more than nuance, and applause is often louder than accuracy. In such a climate, the old values of proportion, context, and honest doubt can seem antiquated, even subversive.
The task, then, is nothing short of a restoration — not a regression to the past, but a principled return to journalism’s first obligation: to tell the truth as fully and fairly as one can find it.
That means resisting the fashionable certainties of activist framing, and instead fostering habits of curiosity, scrutiny, and independence.
It will not be easy. In many newsrooms — and the Herald (and Stuff, tvnz and rnz) is no exception — orthodoxy is enforced not from the top down, but through cultural consensus and peer pressure. Editors may lead, but it is reporters who shape the tone, and too few today seem to recognise that advocacy is not the same as accountability.
Can it be done? Not quickly. The culture he seeks to reshape was not built overnight, and it will not be unbuilt in a single news cycle. But if the editorial board Crump envisions is prepared to prize depth over speed, rigour over rhetoric, and truth over trend, they may yet prove that journalism in New Zealand still has a spine — and a future.
This is no short-term project. It is trench warfare— a long, slow work of principled resistance to the corrosion of public trust.
It is work worth doing.
Can you imagine what Bob Jones would have said about Andrea Vance’s column.
It wouldn’t be pretty.
There is only one - it has to be totally independent of the corporate state. A non- corporate, locally grown, non-partisan independent TRUSTED news source for the people.
This is what Philip is up against:
Little pledges to ‘save’ Wellington’s public facilities ‘under constant threat’
Amy Ridout
Andrew Little touts his Wellingtonian-ness as mayoral campaign begins
Andrew Little has promised to act on what Wellingtonians want: saving Begonia House and Khandallah Pool and complete the Karori Event Centre.
On Saturday afternoon, Little launched himself into the mayoral race. at the packed Wharewaka Function Centre, on Wellington’s waterfront. The guests packed into the Wharewaka Function Centre included former Prime Minster Jeffrey Palmer, former mayor Justin Lester, and mayoral candidate Ray Chung.
Reporters and subs (if any) who can’t spell a former prime minister’s name correctly. Jefferey?!!! Palmer?
Also goes on to repeat with no substantiation that little is a favorite. To win’
Post a Comment