So TVNZ has commissioned an “independent” review to check whether TVNZ is biased. And guess what? After a whole seven days of peeking at their own material, they’ve come back and announced—drum roll, please “No systemic bias here, folks!” You couldn’t make it up. This is the broadcasting equivalent of marking your own exam and giving yourself an A+.
The review, led by former Aussie public broadcaster Alan Sunderland (hardly the kind of fire-breathing outsider likely to shake the state-media tree), concluded TVNZ was squeaky clean. Minor “editorial issues,” sure, but nothing to worry about. Move along. Trust us. And conveniently, the full report won’t be released just a carefully worded summary. Translation: “We’ll let you see the fluff but keep the inconvenient details under wraps.”
Let’s not pretend we don’t notice the patterns. When ACT, NZ First, or National propose policies, TVNZ reporters often frame the coverage around “potential harm,” “criticism,” or “controversy.” Yet when the Greens or Labour announce something, it’s packaged with soft lighting and heart warming vox pops. Remember the gushing treatment of co-governance debates, where critics were branded “divisive” before they’d even spoken? Or the reverential tones whenever climate policy or Māori privilege is mentioned, as though disagreement is immoral rather than debatable?
And what about the “balance” we’re told exists? During election season, anyone to the right of centre was grilled like a suspect under interrogation, while left-wing candidates got interviews resembling therapy sessions. But apparently, according to TVNZ’s very own self-certification, that’s not bias it’s just “journalistic rigour.”
The public isn’t buying it. People already know TVNZ tilts left; they see it nightly. That’s why the refusal to release the full Sunderland Review is so telling. If you’re genuinely impartial, why hide the evidence? Unless, of course, the “minor issues” were more than minor, and the public might spot the bias that the insiders would rather keep tucked away.
At the end of the day, this isn’t journalism it’s theatre. And it’s theatre we’re forced to bankroll. TVNZ can commission as many friendly reviews as it likes, but the audience already knows the script: one set of rules for the Right, another for the Left, and a smug anchor signing off with “And that’s impartial reporting.”
Recent Cases & Complaints
1. BSA Upheld Accuracy Complaint — “Minto / Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa”
In April 2025, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) upheld a complaint against TVNZ / 1News over a report about violence in Amsterdam involving Israeli fans.
The issue: TVNZ used footage in a trailer and introduction that portrayed Israeli fans being attacked, when in fact later corrections (from Reuters etc.) showed violence in which Israeli fans also were aggressors. The framing omitted this, creating a misleading impression.
The BSA said TVNZ should have issued a correction when the error became clear.
2. Imbalance / Public Complaints over Poll Coverage — Maiki Sherman / 1News- Verian poll
In 2024, a 1News story by political editor Maiki Sherman covering a poll showing the coalition Government losing support drew 309 formal complaints. Critics claimed the coverage was sensationalist, using metaphors & alarming language (“nightmare poll”, “rock the entire Parliament”, “buckle up, brace for impact”) instead of neutral reporting.
TVNZ’s complaints committee rejected all the complaints, saying they did not breach BSA standards.
3. Complaints and Petitions Regarding Gaza / Palestine Coverage
The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) lodged complaints that TVNZ / 1News failed to properly balance reports about Israeli actions vs claims from Palestinians. For example, in a story on 1 June 2025 (“aid station” near Rafah), the presenter and report cited Palestinian claims of Israeli fire, with Israeli denial, but PSNA criticised the framing, saying TVNZ repeatedly uses labels like “Hamas-led health authority” while avoiding similarly indicating political affiliation of Israeli institutions, implying an asymmetry in tone. The PSNA claim is that this kind of reportage underplays or undermines Palestinian perspectives.
An earlier complaint was also upheld by the BSA around mischaracterisation in reporting (e.g. about antisemitic violence in Amsterdam as above).
4. Media Bias Fact Check Rating
The site Media Bias / Fact Check rates 1News (TVNZ) as having a Left-Center bias based on story selection and editorial positions that moderately favor liberal causes. It says factual reporting is generally high, but that emotional / loaded language and framing tend to tilt leftwards.
Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.
13 comments:
Let’s not forget the constant leftie associations of anything on the right being aligned to nazism.
This is why anything right is bad and evil.
Whereas it’s pretty obvious that it’s the trans, rainbow, and maori and environmental and generally left extremists who have more in common with nazis and the brown shirts of the 1930s.
Even the Māori plants enforcing Maoridom across all government departments are from the stasi playbook.
And have you noticed recently that sports is starting to invade the general news section
TVNZ: rock bottom. Neither integrity nor credibility for thinking NZers.
Tvnz is a far left channel. They have now taken to calling people 'far right', but they never label their favorites ' far left'. Shame on their findings, I guess the panel, involved neutrals like Ardern, Robertson and Swarbrick ?
One of our 'Unknown' commentators submitted a lengthy piece entitled "Skinny Privilege and the Soft-Serve News Cycle". This is obviously a cut-and-paste job so please acknowledge its source when resubmitting.
MODERATOR
Hi moderator. Hi wrote that piece and left a headline on it. But it was my original work. No cut and paste there. Cheers
Stuff has done it again — publishing a taxpayer-funded promo as though it were journalism. This week’s offering, by John Boynton, repackages The Hui’s feature on Dr Jamie-Lee Rahiri, a surgical registrar whose PhD explored bariatric (weight-loss) surgery among Māori and Pasifika. Rahiri claims that “skinny privilege” pervades New Zealand health care. It’s a powerful-sounding accusation — but the article offers no data, no counter-voices and no context. Instead, readers get a long lifestyle profile about Rahiri’s awards, children, hometown, and heroic work ethic.
For readers unfamiliar with the term, “skinny privilege” originated in online fat-acceptance forums and activist circles. It’s meant to describe the social and institutional advantages thinner people supposedly enjoy: being assumed healthy, disciplined, employable and worthy of respect, while heavier people are stereotyped or dismissed. In a medical context, it claims heavier patients receive less sympathy and more bias from health workers. In other words, “skinny privilege” takes the real phenomenon of weight stigma and reframes it as a form of systemic oppression, borrowing the language of race politics.
That’s not inherently illegitimate as a research hypothesis — weight stigma exists and should be studied. But used as a headline claim without supporting evidence, “skinny privilege” functions as a buzzword. It imports grievance framing, implies structural oppression, and discourages factual debate. Without clear data it tells us more about the politics of the newsroom than about health outcomes.
And that’s exactly what Boynton’s piece does. Readers are told that Māori and Pasifika bariatric patients are “amplifying” discrimination but are shown no comparative figures on surgery rates, waiting times or clinical outcomes. We aren’t told how public health or obesity funding works, whether there are universal BMI cut-offs, or whether socioeconomic factors (not “privilege”) explain differences. Not a single counter-expert appears. Yet we’re invited to see Rahiri not just as a clinician and researcher but also as a victim of a biased system — the “brown, big and poor” who battles on against injustice. To lend authenticity to this framing, she discloses in passing that she too has “battled weight issues,” a personal anecdote that substitutes for evidence but strengthens the vibes-heavy narrative.
It’s part of a wider media trend. Joseph Los’e recently wrote a glowing NZ Herald piece about Sky TV’s plan to bake more te reo into sports coverage. Different topic, same pattern: a corporate or publicly funded entity wraps itself in virtue or grievance and the press runs the promo as if it’s hard news. In both cases the public gets vibes instead of evidence and journalism morphs into amplification.
Real reporting on Rahiri’s work could have been valuable. We need to know whether heavier patients face measurable discrimination, whether bariatric surgery is equitably available, and whether public health policies are working. But we won’t get that from a lifestyle-magazine profile padded with inspirational backstory.
When the media stops interrogating buzzwords like “skinny privilege” and starts retailing them as facts, it’s not equity that’s being advanced — it’s credulity. Readers deserve better than taxpayer-subsidised fairytales. They deserve facts, comparisons and context. Until they get that, trust in the media will keep going the same way as its copy quality: down.
Good piece anon 1034.
Any thoughts why we are constantly bombarded with false stories on state or societal discrimination against Maori?
Replying to 11.02am:
It’s an ecosystem. Editorial leadership at Stuff, NZH, TVNZ and RNZ have decided that Maori perspectives are the default lens, not just one voice among many. Add in taxpayer-funded content from Te Māngai Pāho — which bankrolls Māori-language and Māori-content broadcasting such as The Hui — and initiatives such as the Te Rito internship system, which trains Maori in media and newsroom roles, and you’ve got a constant stream of grievance-framed pieces masquerading as news.
Regulators like the BSA and Media Council lean progressive, so complaints about bias rarely stick. The incentive for journalists and editors is to keep feeding the same ideological narrative. Orwell warned that political language can make lies sound truthful; in New Zealand, it’s vibes dressed as virtue. Terms like “equity” or “skinny privilege” transform ordinary policy or medical debate into moral emergencies.
Part of the same ecosystem is the selective amplification of voices. Groups like the Taxpayers’ Union, Family First, Hobson’s Pledge, and the NZ Initiative are routinely sidelined or dismissed in mainstream outlets, while left-leaning academic and activist platforms — The Conversation, for example — are boosted and treated as authoritative. The effect is twofold: conservative or sceptical perspectives are muted, and progressive narratives are constantly reinforced, giving the public the impression that grievance and equity framing are uncontested truths rather than one side of a debate.
Unlike the Guardian, which at least has strong prose and experienced sub-editors, NZ outlets import the ideology without the craft — producing under-sourced, over-spun stories that erode trust. The public sees constant claims of state or societal discrimination against Maori, but context, evidence, and balance are all missing. That’s why scepticism grows, even when the headlines shout moral urgency.
Much the same applies to the recent review of RNZ. The program continues blatantly pro maori especially on Saturday. Kim Hill specialised in loquacious American homosexuals. At least they had considered rational opinions.The parade of insignificant platatudinous maori much more tedious. How many listeners were interested in the funeral coverage bore of Mapua on 27th. Comments, reflections and trademark Wilcox hyenic goggling of relavance and interest only to a tiny few maori in on the upper echelons of maori politics.
TVNZ is another fine example of "white anting" - an Australian term for an organization rotting from the inside out , because it allows a small number of pests to infiltrate and destroy.
Just like every other government organization, and many private companies who have intimated, and indoctrinated.
Very interesting and to the point comments. Can I add 2 other issues related to TVNZ -
1.- how many people "who watch the news" take note when an International story is presented, it is always a TVNZ news person who does the "voice over". What is wrong with the commentary that would normally come with such news clips.
2. - Seven Sharp - the Nations " Social media" news, and when a specific comment is required - how many times does an Academic from AUT appear on the screen?
I would also add, that much of the news about Gaza, is from one source - The BBC, who have been "outed" as having obtained recorded images from the Hamas News group (who have obviously had some professional training in this domain) - to present a specific issue - that Hamas knows will be picked up by other media and be used as " a specific report to highlight an issue - e.g. food distribution"- which Hamas know full well that it will cause "angst" amid Western Nations
with " finger pointing" at Israel.
Sadly Al Jazeera - a News Agency out of UAE also "parrots" Hamas scripted news (mostly seen on YouTube) - thankfully none has been shown on TVNZ news.
So yup - bias - very much on display - " Truth be dammed"!
Won't watch it. Don't watch it. Won't read it. Don't read it. Get more information from internet and overseas media. Sad! But true!
I now only watch Country Calendar. How the pro maori Board and management have allowed this celebration of colonist abilty to continue is a mystery. The industry, resourcefulness, energy, business daring and acumen, technical ability of many, is very humbling. Then there are ideal family relations, very able, energetic, slim wives, clearly loved children. And a love of and care for the land. Many maori must find such energy and application very puzzling, daunting and dispiriting.
It is a wonder the programme has not been pulled to avoid discomfort.
Post a Comment