I argued that the dwindling number of New Zealanders who listen to the state radio station are in fact doubly privileged. Not only are they able to hear taxpayer-funded content that’s carefully curated so as not to offend their sensibilities or challenge their cosy assumptions, but they are spared the indignity of being bombarded with crass, intrusive advertising. That wretched fate is reserved for the proles who choose to tune into commercial radio (which, in this context, essentially means NewstalkZB).
I also noted that despite this disincentive, NewstalkZB’s audience keeps growing at the expense of RNZ. You’d think someone at the top of RNZ might have noticed this and started asking the obvious question – namely, why are listeners abandoning us? But even if they’re asking that question, the evidence suggests that they can’t bring themselves to answer it honestly.
As if to prove this, when my old colleague (and former broadcasting journalist) Barrie Saunders linked to my blog post on Facebook, RNZ board member Jane Wrightson sneeringly responded: “Oh good grief!” In doing so, she obligingly illustrated the problem.
I suspect that Wrightson, who has had a glittering career at the heart of the Wellington public service, inhabits an insular world that is largely deaf to critical outside scrutiny. They can’t see anything wrong, therefore there’s no problem. Wrightson apparently doesn’t pause to wonder why people like me no longer listen to RNZ.
For decades my radio was permanently tuned to the state broadcaster. I habitually listened to it at home and in the car. I should be RNZ’s target audience.
I miss some RNZ programmes and would gladly become a loyal listener again, because it still does some things well. I miss Jim Mora and I still sneakily listen to Phil O’Brien when no one’s around. But for me the entire organisation is fatally contaminated by the naked, systemic bias inherent in critical areas of its programming – most notably in its choice of presenters and in the way it deals with touchy political and ideological issues such as race, climate change and gender.
RNZ’s partisanship in favour of what are smugly and misleadingly labelled “progressive” values is evident not just in the issues it chooses to cover and how it deals with them, but just as critically in the issues it prefers to ignore and the people it refuses to engage with.
The parallels with the beleaguered BBC, currently grappling with the reverberations from a damning report exposing embedded biases on issues such as Gaza, crime and immigration, are obvious.
As a board member, Wrightson should be asking why RNZ has lost so many listeners like me (and you can be sure there are countless others. Not only do the audience figures bear that out, but I meet them all the time). But she prefers to dismiss criticism with an airy wave of the hand. “How tedious”, she seemed to be saying. It was what you might call a Marie Antoinette response.
But RNZ is hardly the only media organisation whose editorial priorities scream of privilege. If you want to know what privilege looks like in 2025, just read Stuff.
The Post’s Saturday magazine Your Weekend, in particular, wallows in privilege. I have no doubt that its editor and staff sincerely see themselves as champions of the marginalised. But this sits awkwardly with their choice of content, which invariably reflects the interests and preoccupations of a narrow demographic group consisting largely of affluent, young, educated, left-leaning, middle-class Pakeha women.
This highlights a besetting fault that pervades much of the New Zealand media. Editorial agendas are too often determined by journalists writing for and about people like themselves; people with the same interests, priorities, values and tastes. This is not a formula for success, since it ignores the rather substantial part of the community that doesn’t fit that profile.
Every time I look at Your Weekend (which I do quite often, because there are few things more satisfying than having one’s prejudices confirmed), I’m struck by the incongruity of editorial content that vacillates between earnestly woke on one hand and breathtakingly puerile, trite and self-indulgent on the other. YW appears unable to decide whether it’s a progressive socio-political pamphlet or an adolescent fanzine, slavishly pandering to elitist, designer-label consumerism.
A flick through a couple of recent editions reveals a preoccupation with actors, writers and artists (oh, and a burlesque queen last weekend and the weekend before that, a social media “influencer” and a food forager). In other words, a snapshot of an effete metropolitan café society that enjoys a lifestyle shared by a privileged few.
Nowhere is that privilege better encapsulated than in the sections devoted to subjects such as fashion, makeup and wine. Here you might see a pair of women’s shorts that costs $550, shoes priced at $595 and a handbag with a tag of $430. In the wine column I rarely see anything priced at less than $30, and often much more. I wonder, how many Your Weekend readers can afford the prohibitively expensive stuff the magazine promotes?
I accept that YW is targeted at a particular demographic group, but I would argue that it doesn’t even reflect the broad interests of that target market; merely a carefully selected subset of it.
A similar self-centred blindness to real-world interests and concerns seems to permeate the entire Stuff universe. Last Saturday’s Post, for example, included a wordy review of an esoteric Te Papa exhibition, a half-page by the same writer devoted to the woke podcaster Toby Manhire, another half-page about an obscure Australian musician (ah yes, obscure, but a close associate of Nick Cave, darling of the rock music cognoscenti - say no more), and an interview with the director of a Wellington food festival in which she listed all her favourite places in the city – mostly trendy bars and cafes, but with a sauna venue and a dance-fitness studio thrown in.
That last-mentioned item was a quintessential reflection of Wellington as it’s experienced by a well-paid, hedonistic, apartment-dwelling elite. I wait in vain for one of these regular “My Wellington” pieces to feature a checkout operator or a bus driver. Perhaps the Post assumes such people couldn’t possibly have anything interesting to say.
This type of non-journalism set a new bar earlier this year with a series of Post articles called “The Yummy Mummy”, in which a Stuff journalist who’s also a first-time mother visited various Wellington cafes with her baby to assess their suitability for “Mums and their pint-sized partners”. This was peak self-indulgence, speaking to a tiny minority of readers who share the Stuff editors’ strange ideas about what’s relevant, important and interesting.
As someone who recalls when the Post’s precursor papers, the Evening Postand the Dominion, were stuffed full of actual news stories – stories about court proceedings, council meetings, car accidents, crime, parliamentary debates, business and the economy, cats up trees – I naturally couldn’t help thinking how many such stories could have been accommodated in the hectares of space lavished on these overwritten and often pointless articles.
Of course it’s true that newsrooms have been hollowed out and that papers no longer have the resources to cover the stories they used to. Nonetheless we can draw our own conclusions from the fact Stuff chooses to squander its limited editorial resources pandering to a segment of the market that doesn’t reflect New Zealand society at large.
There’s a word for this: privilege.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He occasionally blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.com where this article was sourced.
As if to prove this, when my old colleague (and former broadcasting journalist) Barrie Saunders linked to my blog post on Facebook, RNZ board member Jane Wrightson sneeringly responded: “Oh good grief!” In doing so, she obligingly illustrated the problem.
I suspect that Wrightson, who has had a glittering career at the heart of the Wellington public service, inhabits an insular world that is largely deaf to critical outside scrutiny. They can’t see anything wrong, therefore there’s no problem. Wrightson apparently doesn’t pause to wonder why people like me no longer listen to RNZ.
For decades my radio was permanently tuned to the state broadcaster. I habitually listened to it at home and in the car. I should be RNZ’s target audience.
I miss some RNZ programmes and would gladly become a loyal listener again, because it still does some things well. I miss Jim Mora and I still sneakily listen to Phil O’Brien when no one’s around. But for me the entire organisation is fatally contaminated by the naked, systemic bias inherent in critical areas of its programming – most notably in its choice of presenters and in the way it deals with touchy political and ideological issues such as race, climate change and gender.
RNZ’s partisanship in favour of what are smugly and misleadingly labelled “progressive” values is evident not just in the issues it chooses to cover and how it deals with them, but just as critically in the issues it prefers to ignore and the people it refuses to engage with.
The parallels with the beleaguered BBC, currently grappling with the reverberations from a damning report exposing embedded biases on issues such as Gaza, crime and immigration, are obvious.
As a board member, Wrightson should be asking why RNZ has lost so many listeners like me (and you can be sure there are countless others. Not only do the audience figures bear that out, but I meet them all the time). But she prefers to dismiss criticism with an airy wave of the hand. “How tedious”, she seemed to be saying. It was what you might call a Marie Antoinette response.
But RNZ is hardly the only media organisation whose editorial priorities scream of privilege. If you want to know what privilege looks like in 2025, just read Stuff.
The Post’s Saturday magazine Your Weekend, in particular, wallows in privilege. I have no doubt that its editor and staff sincerely see themselves as champions of the marginalised. But this sits awkwardly with their choice of content, which invariably reflects the interests and preoccupations of a narrow demographic group consisting largely of affluent, young, educated, left-leaning, middle-class Pakeha women.
This highlights a besetting fault that pervades much of the New Zealand media. Editorial agendas are too often determined by journalists writing for and about people like themselves; people with the same interests, priorities, values and tastes. This is not a formula for success, since it ignores the rather substantial part of the community that doesn’t fit that profile.
Every time I look at Your Weekend (which I do quite often, because there are few things more satisfying than having one’s prejudices confirmed), I’m struck by the incongruity of editorial content that vacillates between earnestly woke on one hand and breathtakingly puerile, trite and self-indulgent on the other. YW appears unable to decide whether it’s a progressive socio-political pamphlet or an adolescent fanzine, slavishly pandering to elitist, designer-label consumerism.
A flick through a couple of recent editions reveals a preoccupation with actors, writers and artists (oh, and a burlesque queen last weekend and the weekend before that, a social media “influencer” and a food forager). In other words, a snapshot of an effete metropolitan café society that enjoys a lifestyle shared by a privileged few.
Nowhere is that privilege better encapsulated than in the sections devoted to subjects such as fashion, makeup and wine. Here you might see a pair of women’s shorts that costs $550, shoes priced at $595 and a handbag with a tag of $430. In the wine column I rarely see anything priced at less than $30, and often much more. I wonder, how many Your Weekend readers can afford the prohibitively expensive stuff the magazine promotes?
I accept that YW is targeted at a particular demographic group, but I would argue that it doesn’t even reflect the broad interests of that target market; merely a carefully selected subset of it.
A similar self-centred blindness to real-world interests and concerns seems to permeate the entire Stuff universe. Last Saturday’s Post, for example, included a wordy review of an esoteric Te Papa exhibition, a half-page by the same writer devoted to the woke podcaster Toby Manhire, another half-page about an obscure Australian musician (ah yes, obscure, but a close associate of Nick Cave, darling of the rock music cognoscenti - say no more), and an interview with the director of a Wellington food festival in which she listed all her favourite places in the city – mostly trendy bars and cafes, but with a sauna venue and a dance-fitness studio thrown in.
That last-mentioned item was a quintessential reflection of Wellington as it’s experienced by a well-paid, hedonistic, apartment-dwelling elite. I wait in vain for one of these regular “My Wellington” pieces to feature a checkout operator or a bus driver. Perhaps the Post assumes such people couldn’t possibly have anything interesting to say.
This type of non-journalism set a new bar earlier this year with a series of Post articles called “The Yummy Mummy”, in which a Stuff journalist who’s also a first-time mother visited various Wellington cafes with her baby to assess their suitability for “Mums and their pint-sized partners”. This was peak self-indulgence, speaking to a tiny minority of readers who share the Stuff editors’ strange ideas about what’s relevant, important and interesting.
As someone who recalls when the Post’s precursor papers, the Evening Postand the Dominion, were stuffed full of actual news stories – stories about court proceedings, council meetings, car accidents, crime, parliamentary debates, business and the economy, cats up trees – I naturally couldn’t help thinking how many such stories could have been accommodated in the hectares of space lavished on these overwritten and often pointless articles.
Of course it’s true that newsrooms have been hollowed out and that papers no longer have the resources to cover the stories they used to. Nonetheless we can draw our own conclusions from the fact Stuff chooses to squander its limited editorial resources pandering to a segment of the market that doesn’t reflect New Zealand society at large.
There’s a word for this: privilege.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He occasionally blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.com where this article was sourced.
31 comments:
Aims at the mental level of those educated in the Treaty-indoctrinated NZ Education system ( before its reform). Zero interest in the world outside Aotearoa and devoted to its endless "faux" inequity grievance issues. Insular, boring and smug ..... hence a factor shaping the exodus. *The Guardian may still be a permitted read for the academics.
Karl didn’t need to prove that RNZ has become a citadel of ideological privilege. Board member Jane Wrightson did it for him.
All it took was two words — “Oh good grief!” — posted on Facebook in response to du Fresne’s critique. A seasoned insider, a Crown appointee, a lifetime tenant of Wellington’s cultural-policy penthouse, breaking protocol to sneer publicly at an inconvenient viewpoint. It was the most revealing editorial statement RNZ has made all year.
People in Wrightson’s position don’t normally react. They glide. They project calm inevitability. Invincibility.
They occupy roles where scrutiny is gentle, disagreement is managed, and the loudest debate concerns whether the subcommittee should meet this week or next. For someone of her bureaucratic seniority to lash out — even mildly — is the equivalent of a diplomat flipping a table. It doesn’t happen unless a nerve has been struck.
And that is exactly the point du Fresne makes. RNZ has become so culturally insulated, so convinced of its moral correctness, that any criticism from outside the Thorndon Beltway is treated as a category error. The response is not argument. It is not engagement. It is not even polite condescension. It is an impatient eye-roll from someone who has never had to justify her world to anyone not already inside it.
Wrightson’s career tells the story. NZ On Air. The Film & Video Labelling Body. Retirement Commissioner. RNZ board member. These are the soft-power nodes of Wellington’s public service matrix — places where the debates are refined, the sensibilities progressive, and the room overwhelmingly like-minded. You don’t encounter plumbers, dairy farmers or sole traders in these spaces. You encounter policy advisers, arts administrators, and people who use “lived experience” unironically.
In that environment, criticism of RNZ’s editorial worldview isn’t merely wrong; it’s incomprehensible. Why wouldn’t the country want more climate activism? More identity politics? More deference to the preferred narratives of the day? When you’re surrounded by people who share the same premises, disagreement begins to look like a personal failing in the dissenter.
So when Wrightson spotted du Fresne’s piece, her instinctive reaction was to dismiss with a puff of superiority. “Oh good grief!” — the Wellington equivalent of Marie Antoinette waving away the smell of the masses.
But that tiny outburst did something she didn’t intend: it confirmed that RNZ’s leadership class can no longer hear the people leaving the room. The station has shed listeners for years, and yet the question “Why?” never seems to reach the upper floors. Or if it does, it doesn’t survive the elevator ride.
Du Fresne speaks for thousands who once listened faithfully and now do not. People who don’t want their news filtered through an ideological catechism. People who don’t turn on the radio to be patronised or taught a lesson. People who value a public broadcaster but no longer recognise the one they’re paying for.
Wrightson, on the other hand, embodies the mindset that sees this exodus not as a crisis, but as a lack of sophistication among the departed. If they don’t appreciate RNZ’s worldview, that’s their problem. The peasants have talkback.
And that’s why her Facebook moan mattered. It wasn’t just a reaction. It was an admission: RNZ’s custodians are no longer listening. They don’t think they need to.
Yet according to GfK, Mike Hosking’s breakfast audience sits at 424,300, Morning Report at 332,000 — a gulf of 100,000 listeners that even RNZ’s optimism can’t hallucinate away.
Everything du Fresne wrote was true.
Wrightson simply provided the footnote.
—PB
Karl you are so right. As once a committed listerner, I have given up on RNZ the content drives me nuts. Once it was my preferred radio, mainly because of no ads but good interesting content, even if occasionsionally it strayed into areas of what we now call woke. Bearable. On a long drive home last weekend I turned on RNZ to catch the news at 9.00pm, expecting a quick overview of what was happening in the world. I got three items, two of world events, but the third was a piece on a maori academic heading to Oxford University and how he was following in the footsteps of the first Maori women to recieve a degree from Oxford and had visited her grave to show respect. All very nice, but news, you have to be joking. My case rests.
All very true Karl, but, in addition to all the overblown nonsense these weekend inserts publish, you have overlooked the heavy emphasis on all things maori, in addition to all things female that you noted. As for the Sunday papers, don't get me started!
Gidday. Down on the farm I retain my sanity. Things are still 'normal' and my bloke friends are non progressive.
After I read 'The Australian' and Quadrant online I feel I have climbed high above the Stuff and RNZ dribble and diatribe.
National Radio had been an integral part of my daily life for decades.
The generally mind numbing commercial stations have never had any interest apart from background noise at best.
I gave up all radio listening (not even Concert, which you really have to listen to) 5-10 years ago.
National Radio started to force feed me propaganda of the biased, racial kind that had not been their tradition.
I switched off.
So today, I could not name one (and I used to enjoy almost all of them) RNZ host, unless Jim Mora and Kim Hill are still on the payroll.
I believe their demise started with one of the most remarkable interviews I ever heard, Kim Hill interviewing Johnny Rotten, from memory.
Kim, in her usual delightful, slightly patronising BBC trained manner, was about 3 questions in when Johnny said 'get yered owt of yerass'.
Kim, for the first time in history, was temporarily speechless.
Ez kulchar innit?
RIP National Radio.
Bloody executive Philistines.
'What about the Country'?
Why have Luxon + Goldsmith ( Nat hold the media portfolio) allowed this biased coverage of the Coalition to continue since 2023? Do they want to fail?
An excellent article Karl which I found interesting despite never having listened to RNZ.
I used to be a virtual 24/7 consumer of adsquawkZB up until 2022 when I stopped because of the incessant ads. Which brings me to PB at 7.42am who states that the current Hosking audience is around 420k. I seem to recall Hosking, in full arrogance, stating that his numbers had passed 700k. Is my memory correct and, if so, is this a slide that NZME can afford? Like Karl, I do enjoy having my prejudices confirmed.
Either ring fence Wgtn city, rename it the sovereign state of Aotearoa (one way passports out only) and leave them to their self sufficiency, or...
MATFWBBTT - move all the effing Wgtn bloody bureaucracy to Taihape, with a similar, bracing climate, and they could mix with real people for the first time in their lives.
Could save billions in straight monetary terms alone.(Sincere and deepest apologies to Taihape - ok Waiouru then)
Ameni
I too was an avid listener to 9 to noon, Saturday Mornings and Checkpoint. Lisa Owen spouting long introductions to each topic in a language I don't understand really irritated me so I switched off about 3 years ago. I got tired of the wokeness, lack of content of opposing narratives. There were so many issues of crucial importance to this nation they wouldn't touch. And the name of this nation had become Aotearoa without any mandate from us, the people. Was this forced on the presenters from above or are they all so woke that it was a personal choice?
I was also a Stuff reader but stopped that as well.
I still listen to RNZ Concert for the music and put up with the occasional dialogue that irritates.
I agree entirely, Karl. You have quite a few years on me, but these days I too never tune into RNZ and, as for the term "progressive", it's always bemused me - for it's surely a word that's conveniently (for the left) got lost in translation. It's a near-homophone - as the correct term should be "pro-regressive", which I maintain aligns far more appropriately with the ideological thinking of those that invariably use the misleading, but admittedly more appealing, incorrect term.
As for 'Your Weekend' (headed with "Ra Whakata" - which in itself says it all, really?), the only thing of interest is usually the publicly submitted historical photograph. Oh, and as you've identified, while flicking through it in the moments before assigning it to the recycling bin, it only confirms how out of touch they are when you consider the likely reader demographic, not to mention the absurd prices on many of the less than attractive items of so-called "fashion".
Karl, next, do a critique of what privilege looks like on the pages of New Zealand (or should that be, Aotearoa) Geographic. The magazine that first published in 1989, and for a time had close to 40 thousand paying subscribers, but these days sits stubbornly at 10 thousand affluent, university educated, adherents who, like RNZ’s audience, prefer to be spoon fed appetising morsels of bias confirming content. I believe they have a content swap arrangement with RNZ and have relied upon NZ on Air funding to support their content creation- by leveraging off their website , giving plausibility that the magazine is a broadcaster. The magazine’s editor, in a previous life a Spinoff columnist, was recently quoted by its owner as questioning, “How much gloom, is too much gloom?” in respect to its reporting on environmental issues. Thus, it has become a progressive doomsday bible, adamant that it is a tireless free speech platform, with the exception that it will not tolerate any form of climate change skepticism on its pages. Privilege and hypocrisy appear to have no bounds.
To Ken S
Numbers always get questioned — especially when presenters inflate them for effect. GfK’s latest cumulative-audience survey shows Hosking at ~424k and Morning Report at 332k. The 700k being quoted, that was likely a peak or cumulative figure, not the weekly average. The slide is real enough, and for NZME it’s more than just optics; it’s market share. But for RNZ, the gap is what matters: 100,000 listeners and growing, not who can claim a bigger boast on air.
—PB
Maybe so they can change it ahead of the election to win votes?
Reading YW is like eating a plate of sickly sugared coloured cakes instead of a decent meal of steak and salad. Insubstantial ,lacking nutrition and leaving you feeling hyperactive, frustrated and unchallenged.
I liked Peter's definition of progressive as pro-regressive . Progressive in the educational area means not traditional or 'old school' .If you are not progressive you are really ,to progressives , a luddite . Stubbornly holding on to stupid , ridiculous and annoying traditions which should be replaced with modern , trendy and
seductive new ideas and things.
The originator in education of this progressivism was John Dewey , a failed teacher, socialist and aggressive atheist born late 19th century. His ideas are sacred to most educators and he has even been labelled the ' Patron Saint of Modern Education' .
We have as the result of adulation of this man a wrecked education system with the worst international academic achievement statistics along with worst classroom behaviour and highest youth suicide rate by far
Surely that is enough to get you back onto a diet of 3 vege and meat.so as to speak as we used to have way back there with the dinosaurs.
Gaynor
Julian Wilcox midday Saturday. Half an hour of polished maori speech style waffle from two who attended the Indigenous Climate meeting. Apart from a change of surroundings and social expereince what they achievd/learned unfathomable. A total bore even for maori., except those still mastering the art of waffle speechifying.
If you want to know what's going on in New Zealand, just listen to the Platform, RCR and The Anglo Saxon. Or read the Articles on this very site.
PS. Sean Plunket isn't so bad.
Jane Wrightson's picture on the RNZ website tells you exactly that she fits the profile.
And for good measure, here’s a breakdown of an rnz report: Māori Queen launches multi-million-dollar investment platform.
Rnz reporter tuwhenuaroa natanahira gives us the full pageant in awed undertones — the Queen, the tears, the “vision,” the global delegates, the sovereign wealth fund dignitaries, Greg Foran, Adrian Orr, the soaring rhetoric about “relationships,” “brilliance,” and “reimagining the possible.”
We get the Queen saying it is a "declaration" that Māori are ready to invest in "ourselves, in our brilliance and in the future we choose.
"It enables us to achieve the scale, to make meaningful change and to grow the $126 billion Māori economy. No matter how the wind shifts, our course will hold."
What we don’t get — conspicuously, studiously — is the only question that matters with a “multi-million-dollar Māori investment platform”:
Where is the money going, and how does any of it improve the actual lives of ordinary Māori?
Not a word. Not even a lazy gesture in the direction of outcomes.
Housing?
Health?
Education?
Child safety?
Reducing the disproportionate prison muster?
Preventing the next generation being pulled into gangs?
Nothing. Just scale, vision, trust, relationships, collectivisation, and “unlocking opportunities”.
We’re told Māori need to “invest in ourselves” and “grow the $126 billion Māori economy.” Wonderful.
But when iwi chairs start talking about “attracting international capital” and “coalescing into $3 billion organisations,” you can almost hear the slipstream as the conversation, powered by hot air, leaves the ground entirely.
There’s no sign the $100 million seed fund will be measured against reduced rheumatic fever, higher literacy, fewer children in state care.
Instead, we get the familiar corporate-marae dialect: trust, relationships, shared vision, scale, strategic alliances — the sort of language designed to glide elegantly past the uncomfortable fact that none of it explains how even one Māori family will be better off.
RNZ, of course, doesn’t ask. It simply reports the choreography as if it’s self-evidently virtuous. No follow-up. No scrutiny. No asking for a sense of potential tangible outcomes. Just reverence.
And that’s the problem. The economy can grow to $126 billion or $226 billion, but if all the benefits pool at the top tables — the very tables pictured in this article — then the only people truly “investing in themselves” are the ones already doing rather well.
A fund isn’t a strategy. A slogan isn’t an outcome. And a reporter who refuses to ask the most basic accountability question isn’t doing journalism — they’re doing ceremony.
—PB
And me - RNZ born and bred. Couldn't believe those good people could lose their integrity. I'm with The Platform daily now - honest as ! - and sometimes RCR. Thank God there are still thinking people in this country.
RNZ ccncert is still on shaky ground - H. Clark saved it under Labour when Jackson wanted to cancel it. (No doubt to be replaced by endless Kapa Haka items - to brainwash the population.)
We're did the seed money come from PB.
Of course, silly me.
Extorted from Kiwi tax payers in the form of treaty settlements over the last 50 years.
To Anon 30 Nov 12.11 pm: this is the puzzle. Certain changes have already been made: e.g. to the NZME Board (Steven Joyce), and to the NZ on Air Board (Philip Crump). But the impact has been negligible to date.
I am with you, Karl. ..!! Once an RNZ 'warrior". Now, I doubt I could find it on a radio dial - if I had a radio in New Zealand. If I spent much time in New Zealand. If I could be bothered battling through the left bais so evident last time I tried to listen. Thanks for saving me the necessity of checking that nothing has changed. As for Stuff ...!!!?? Stuff it.
You might be told none of our business because it is a sovereign ''Maori ''matter
Dear Anon @1:47PM 30 November.
"Loved" the radio report and the attached data to enrich the comment.
But sadly, good person, you missed a salient point - that being -
" How many of these new business are going to be listed under the NZ Charities Act, so that they 'do not' have to pay tax".
If Ngai Tahu & Waikato and the Northern tribe have done it, why not the next round.
If they get hold of Chris Finlayson, Lawyer for Ngai Tahu, based in Christchurch, former Attorney general under John key, he might be able to assist???
Welcome to Bubbleonia, inhabitants of which are the likes of (eg. Jane Wrightson), keeping themselves distant from the Real World, when they should instead be pro-activating changes that would restore some near-normality and credibility to the material being spouted.
To mudbayripper and anon @ 5:20. — good observations both!
The real issue is simple: the reporter didn’t do the job a reader could reasonably expect. No background, no follow-ups, no attempt to ask how this fund actually helps anyone. No news sense or writing for readers.
Just turning up, hitting ‘record’, and playing parrot with a press release.
But then again, it’s Rnz paying homage to treaty principles, isn’t it?
—PB.
I agree with anon 7:42. Wellington insiders a major problem. They rotate playing musical chairs giving each other jobs. They specialize in meetings and long lunches. Same in the university sector (just look at senior management teams). Very hard to break the cycle of averageness. Could really shake up the system by hiring outsider-immigrants....
I'm another one of the hundreds of thousands (that includes the huge numbers who have left NZ in disgust) who no longer listen the the RNZ propaganda.
So similar to Goebbels propaganda of the Third Reich.
Sadly, Luxon still allows this to go on without saying a single word about RNZs destructive agenda.
He knows exactly what he is doing, and must be rolled ASAP.
Between Ardern and Luxon they have deliberately destroyed any trust in the main stream media, and that will be written into the history books.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.