The NZ Herald has that policy. It’s a rather arrogant policy if letters sent in for publication are reasonable, not offensive or contrary to law. A media outlet that claims to have influence and status might relish a healthy debate, a robust challenge or comments that reflect widely held opinions in the community.
I send in occasional letters and have a very low hit rate because many of the points made are about the lack of scientific and accurate evidence of catastrophic global warming. I seek to be accurate, supported by evidence and reasoned. The Herald clearly believes it can sell more advertising and copies by pushing the narrative that we are doomed if we keep increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
An example of such a letter that failed to get printed:
An example of such a letter that failed to get printed:
“In a world where horrifying disasters seem more common and where they are beamed onto our devices in seconds it was comforting to learn that the first six months of 2025 were probably the safest in human history in terms of weather-related deaths. As anxiety levels grow, especially among our young people, it is a relief to learn from two recognised authorities – the Aon Global Catastrophe Recap and the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters’ Report that deaths due to natural disasters were well below the average of any first half of a year in this century.
At least 7,700 people were killed due to natural disasters during the first half of 2025, which is well below the 21st-century average of 37,250. The majority of the deaths (5,456) occurred as a result of the earthquake in Myanmar. That means that 2,200 people worldwide died in catastrophes related to extreme weather events during the first six months of the year. Any such death is a tragedy but human ingenuity and less extreme weather have combined to produce a surprisingly assuring result”.
That letter was factual, was referenced, and one would think would be a mature way the Herald could help reduce the levels of anxiety that persist in the community especially among our young people. Such anxiety levels are a huge, growing health problem.
Which raises the question as to what precisely is the Editor’s motive. If the Editor was ever to be transparent and engage in a meaningful debate around the subject what on earth would be a rationale for refusing to help lower anxiety and fear when that fear is based on misinformation and is utterly groundless?
Does some level of community responsibility, when holding such a position of influence, not require a more balanced and mature position?
We should be grateful for efforts of Kiwiblog, RCR, NZCPR, Bassett Hide Brash and others that allow a more balanced output.
Former MP.Owen Jennings, a former Member of Parliament and President of Federated Farmers, maintains a keen interest in ensuring agricultural policies are sensible and fit for purpose. This article was sourced HERE
3 comments:
What’s equally as galling is when the likes of a local council or lefty politician have all the negative social media comments removed- leaving a small stream of sycophantic likes - at least parties on the right leave the lefty trolls to it and allow them to air their idiot opinions against common sense.
The Herald is not the only offender; The Post is also weak-kneed when it comes to accepting letters that go against the prevailing view that climate cycles apparently are the result of human activities, wind turbines and solar panels are the only energy systems we need, electric cars, cycle lanes and maoris are wonderful, put the boot into farmers, and the Greens and Labour are comprised of duplicitous morons. Write some anodyne nonsense in praise of the above and you'll get top-billing. Journalists no longer have pride and in the main seem very poorly educated in matters of science, politics and the English language.
Absolutely correct , Allen.
Stuff digital under ‘editor in chief’ Keith Lynch, has plumbed the depths of editorial sleight of hand.
One doesn’t have to do a ‘deep dive’ as the modern tired cliche goes. It smacks you square in the eyeballs.
Let’s start:
Lynch, wants to hear from New Zealanders. Not about potholes, rising crime, or race-based constitutional overhaul—don’t be silly. No, this is about Gaza. That small, weaponised strip that by editorial decree now monopolises the full moral bandwidth of the South Pacific.
Lynch’s pitch: the world is on fire, but this particular fire demands your voice. And your tears. Just don’t offer the wrong kind of voice.
“We won’t be publishing Op‑eds defending bombing civilians or taking hostages,” he warns, with the kind of pre‑emptive generosity you’d expect from someone handing out compasses in a minefield.
It’s not censorship. It’s curation.
It’s not impartiality. It’s an editorial vibe check.
Lynch is a product of New Zealand’s institutional media system—where feeling deeply and tweeting tastefully now pass for moral intelligence. His Gaza series is less about illuminating Middle Eastern politics than about centring himself in the emotional economy of global outrage.
And if you’re wondering why conflicts like:
• Russia’s siege of Ukrainian cities,
• ISIS’s genocide of Yazidis,
• Assad’s chemical bombing,
• Civil wars in Yemen, Tigray, Myanmar, the Congo
don’t get this treatment—it’s because they’re too messy. Too morally inconvenient. Too resistant to the neat headline act of “occupier vs oppressed.”
What we have here is not a commitment to truth—it’s selective emotional narcotics.
Gaza delivers the perfect moral dopamine hit: daily images, sorrow with a hashtag, grief that fits the narrative. Other conflicts might be worse—but they don’t sell the story Stuff wants to tell.
But some of the stories lynch wants to tell, those go into clickbait territory as he tries to get more eyeball traffic onto his faltering news site.
Enter stage left, a clique of so called journos whose chief pastime is scraping the net to uplift stories generated by overseas news publications. Not even formula one is immune.
While fair use is fair game in journalism, Stuff pushes past the point of what was once considered ethical journalism by putting their reporters’ bylines on top and using a stuff credit line to put a semblance of proprietary rights over the story. In between, only a whisker of credit to the originator publication or writer.
This is not fair use by any measure when a host of paragraphs and quotes are lifted nearly word-for-word and there has been minimal transformation from stories around the world by one person. There’s little to no added context, critique, or new reporting.
And this new wave journalism is happening under Lynch’s watch.
Here’s hoping Phillip Crump’s attempt to straighten out nz herald journalism does not fail.
Post a Comment