Pages

Thursday, October 16, 2025

Centrist: How much is framing versus misinformation fuelling media distrust?



Is it really about trust, or is it about framing?

Each year, surveys show media trust falling. Commentators blame social media or disinformation. But perhaps the public isn’t rejecting facts. Maybe they’re rejecting how those facts are framed.

“Framing” is the editorial layer added to facts. Which details are spotlighted, which are buried, and what tone guides interpretation? Readers know who the prime minister is. What drives disengagement is the slant: whether stories are cast as triumphs, failures, or excuses.

Tone is the giveaway. Saying “Chris Luxon is the Prime Minister” delivers a fact. Saying “Chris Luxon is the amazing Prime Minister” or “Chris Luxon is the damn Prime Minister” adds a signal. The more the signal annoys you, the more likely you are to tune out.

Media bias by the numbers

AUT’s 2024 survey found just 32% of New Zealanders trust news in general, down from 53% in 2020. Nearly three-quarters now actively avoid it, a figure worse than the global average of 40%.

When asked why, the answer is clear: they think the media is biased and unbalanced. A 2022 Massey study found 65% of journalists identify as left-wing, 12% as right-wing, and 23% as centrist. Readers can see the tilt in coverage.

One standard for some, another for others

Somewhere along the way, audiences have begun to notice that legacy media no longer present the world as it is. They present it as they wish it to be.

When Green MP Benjamin Doyle was embroiled in controversy over a sexualised Instagram post, the NZ Herald ran a 4,000-word explainer titled “Anatomy of a scandal”, portraying Doyle as embattled.

By contrast, earlier this year, when National MP Hamish Campbell was linked to a religious group under FBI scrutiny, the same paper ran a 1,300-word piece headlined “Deeply embedded in religious group under investigation”. This framing implied guilt by association. The inconsistency is obvious. Same outlet. A similar type of story, but with a different treatment.

The same pattern played out with Labour’s 2023 IRD wealth report, which claimed the richest New Zealanders paid just 9.4% tax. Media outlets echoed the framing that the rich weren’t paying their fair share, with practically no investigation. Yet the report’s own numbers, once examined, showed the conclusion was built on questionable assumptions. The “fact” was accepted, but the frame was partisan.

It’s happening across the board

On climate, critics of emissions targets are ignored. On gender, activist jargon is often adopted as fact. On race, Pākehā New Zealanders are cast as the problem, and Māori grievance is presented as the unquestionable centre.

The net effect on audiences due to framing is that what should be a conversation comes off as a sermon, and it’s off-putting. The data suggests that advocacy journalism has backfired. Is it “the louder the sermon, the more people tune out?”

The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.

No comments: