Pages

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

Karl du Fresne: What privilege sounds like in 2025


We hear a lot about privilege these days. We’re told it’s an economic and political weapon that an affluent, selfish, male-dominated white capitalist society uses to keep disadvantaged minority groups in their place.

Wrong. Privilege in New Zealand in 2025 is the phenomenon that enables a small, effete and highly politicised media elite, cushioned by public funding, to capture and monopolise a crucial organ of public opinion and seek to influence the course of public debate.

If you want to know what privilege sounds like, just listen to RNZ. Privilege is an ad-free radio network that panders to your prejudices and stokes your biases; that caters, in effect, to entrenched left-wing bigotry. RNZ and its shrinking audience embody this privilege.

As a publicly funded radio station, RNZ has an obligation to cater to the tastes, interests and opinions of all New Zealanders, not just to a pampered minority caste. RNZ makes no attempt to honour that principle; in fact, hasn’t done so for almost as long as I can remember.

I was amused to read a Stuff interview with RNZ CEO Paul Thompson a while ago in which he suggested RNZ needed to stop trying to be “all things to all people”.

That’s a joke. The truth is that RNZ means nothing to the vast majority of New Zealanders. It serves a steadily diminishing minority audience consisting largely of ageing listeners who hold what are misleadingly labelled as “progressive” political views. It rewards them with content that mirrors and reinforces their smugly virtuous world view.

Thompson has had innumerable opportunities to correct this but hasn’t. On the contrary, he continues to send signals that RNZ will continue down the same blind alley. Key appointments, such as that of Guyon Espiner to take over as host of Midday Report from January, serve as a contemptuous “up yours” to RNZ’s critics and the tens of thousands of listeners who have abandoned it.

RNZ has made itself so irrelevant to the majority of New Zealanders that many no longer realise it even exists. It has achieved this ignominious own-goal through decades of carefully refining its content so as to exclude virtually anyone whose opinions and interests are not consistent with those of its own employees.

Now it’s paying the price as its listeners fall away to the point where even RNZ’s bosses have to concede that the organisation has lost its way – something obvious for a long time to everyone except RNZ itself and its privileged supporters. Even in the midst of the anguished self-analysis prompted by tumbling ratings and a highly critical recent report written by one of its own former key executives, RNZ carefully avoided confronting the damning issue of its all-pervasive editorial bias and the harm this has done to its credibility.

It can hardly be coincidental that RNZ’s audience has declined over the same period that this bias has become steadily more overt and pronounced – something Thompson has seemed either unwilling or powerless to do anything about.

RNZ’s listeners are privileged in more ways than one. They not only enjoy a diet of information and entertainment that can be relied on not to challenge their entrenched perceptions (rather like a broadcast version of Britain’s achingly woke Guardian newspaper), but thanks to the involuntary largesse of the taxpayer they are spared the aural torture of having to listen to commercials. That wretched fate is reserved for the proles who listen to RNZ’s main competitor, NewstalkZB.

The fact that NewstalkZB has reversed the former dominance of the state broadcaster and now far out-performs it in the ratings, despite the deterrent effect of intrusive, wall-to-wall advertising, surely says something. But has anyone at Radio New Zealand House noticed?

Somewhere along the line it seems to have escaped the state broadcaster that a publicly funded radio station should try to reflect the interests, opinions and values of society at large. An alien tuning into a show such as Morning Report would never guess that New Zealanders historically have leaned more to the right than to the left. For 29 of the past 50 years they have elected National or National-led governments, including the present one. Does it occur to RNZ presenters and producers that their own values, opinions and preoccupations are way out of line with those of the people they ostensibly serve? Apparently not. They are blinded by their privilege.

Commercial radio is the flipside of the privilege enjoyed by RNZ and its listeners. NewstalkZB’s audience, which now represents the majority of New Zealand radio listeners (that is to say, those whom RNZ appears uninterested in catering for) have to endure a ceaseless barrage of intrusive and mostly inane commercial content. This is the reverse of privilege. These listeners are effectively an underclass, banished to a netherworld where they are condemned to aural torment.

I suspect the bosses of the old Radio New Zealand regarded it as a great relief when the state broadcasting network was broken up in the 1990s and the formerly government-owned commercial stations were flogged off to the private sector. This meant RNZ was freed from the obligation of catering to the hoi-polloi, with all their vulgarian tastes, and could concentrate on pandering to its preferred target market.

In the years since, a pervasive monoculture has evolved at RNZ. This is characteristic of publicly owned broadcasting organisations elsewhere in the world. Those at the top appoint like-thinking people to positions of influence with the result that the monoculture becomes self-perpetuating.

(Here I will insert my standard qualification that there are many employees at RNZ, including journalists, who do a conscientious, honourable job. It’s also true that not all RNZ programmes have a political spin. Nonetheless, a leftist groupthink permeates most of what RNZ does.)

None of this should be taken as suggesting that RNZ should change to reflect a conservative or right-wing agenda, which would simply trade one bias for another and leave us no better off. The only way for RNZ to restore editorial credibility is by reverting to a position of strict editorial balance, fairness and neutrality. This does not preclude taking a hard line with politicians and asking tough questions, but it does require that the approach should be consistent across the entire political spectrum regardless of producers’ and interviewers’ own prejudices.

In the meantime, listeners alienated by RNZ have the option of signing up for membership of a peculiar cult called the Mike Hosking Breakfast. They may not share the host’s fascination with strange things like Formula One racing and American football and they may not like the impression he conveys of never in his life having experienced a moment’s self-doubt. But at least they can get an alternative view of national and world affairs – one not available to them from the state broadcasting organisation that they pay for with the tax on their hard-earned wages.

Actually, quite a few listeners (I’m one of them) don’t want any spin from either the right or the left. They would rather be presented with straight, unfiltered information and left to make up their own minds. But even if some of Hosking’s listeners don’t agree with his conservative slant, they must concede that as the employee of a privately owned media outlet, he’s entitled to say whatever he likes, within legal limits.

That defence is not available to RNZ, which as a taxpayer-owned entity has a responsibility to ensure its coverage of news and current affairs is neutral, fair and balanced – an obligation that RNZ constantly disregards, with the obvious approval of its board and management. This is an abuse of power, pure and simple.

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.

13 comments:

Basil Walker said...

You missed the bias of the intolerant Broadcasting Standards Authority, commonly referred to as the BSA. NZ having an "authority " dominating the private and modern technology media is proper to the BSA ilk.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Coster, for head of RNZ, next.

Anonymous said...

Karl du Fresne is right about RNZ’s privilege, but the rot runs even deeper — beyond bias, beyond ideology, into something far more corrosive: the institutionalised avoidance of scrutiny.
RNZ doesn’t just preach to a shrinking congregation.
It has stopped using the tenets of journalism altogether. The boring stuff such as the ‘Ws’, balance, and facts over vibes.
Privilege in 2025 is the assurance that you can call yourself a “public broadcaster” while never once interrogating the people you favour, the language they use, or the contradictions they generate.
You can broadcast a political story packed with hui, kaupapa, wairua and never explain what any of it means — because you’re speaking to insiders, not the country. Precision is optional. English is negotiable. Accountability is impolite.
And you can allow MPs to vanish from Parliament — literally absent, missing in action — without a single reporter asking:
“Are you still being paid?”
“Who authorised your rest?”
“Why are elected representatives refusing interviews?” (Oniiri kaipara or Hana hyphen hyphen anyone?)
RNZ won’t ask.
Stuff won’t ask.
TVNZ won’t ask.
Newshub or nz herald won’t ask.
The entire political press gallery has been house-trained to accept the Māori Party’s internal chaos as an untouchable cultural zone rather than a public institution funded by taxpayers.
That’s not journalism.
That’s curated silence.
The New Zealand media’s real privilege is:
Not being expected to know anything.
Not being expected to question anything.
Not being expected to write clearly.
Not being expected to hold anyone accountable — provided the right flags and slogans are displayed.
Karl talks about ideological monoculture. Fair. But the bigger problem is linguistic monoculture — a dialect of political puffery, cultural boilerplate and soft-focus language that massages away the facts. It’s Gregor Paul prose transplanted into political reporting. Emotion over evidence. Mood over meaning. Vibes over verbs.
This is how you end up with reporters writing about:
– MPs “embarking on new chapters” or ‘resets’
– wildfires causing “devastation” that nature will burn over again next season and that it’s a sign that Maori should be given back said land.
– caucus implosions framed as whānau disputes
– absences framed as reflection or “rest”
It isn’t journalism.
It’s marketing copy for the national mood.
The irony?
RNZ tells itself it is speaking truth to power.
In reality, it is speaking comfort to privilege — its own.
RNZ pretends it’s a public service while serving only those who already agree with it.
RNZ’s greatest failing isn’t that it’s left-wing.
It’s that it’s lazy, incurious, and terrified of appearing unfashionable.
A public broadcaster captured not by ideology, but by fashionable cowardice.
That’s the real danger.

—PB

ihcpcoro said...

Is it just me, but as a Listener subscriber for many decades, it too has become what I call a 'flick' publication?
Flick through all pages until the (good) cryptic is reached with a stop, perhaps ironically, to read Jane Clifton, or the food and wine articles.
NZ has become, I am sad to say, a corrupt little shit hole.
The 'educators' have done well, the bastards.

Karl du Fresne said...

This comment is so on the mark that I wish I'd written it myself. But why won't PB identify him/herself? If I'd composed something as lucid and perceptive as this, I'd want to take credit for it. Does the choice of anonymity in itself tell us something? Do dissenters so fear denunciation that they feel they must hide in the shadows?

Allen Heath said...

I don't know who you are, but that was a bloody good rant; keep it up as it certainly paints an ugly portrait of RNZ. It's the lack of guts in these parts of the media to see NZ exactly as it is (and state what it is) that is so frustrating.

ihcpcoro said...

Unfortunately Karl, 'Amomymous' is hijacking this blog with increasing frequency methinks.
I agree - you have no idea which 'anonymous' is commenting and hence deducing anything consistent or logical? from a comment.
Maybe as a minimum, any ' anonymous' posting should require a suffix with your month/year of birth to add at least some credibility to a conversation.
Great to see you back on line - temporarily?

Robert Arthur said...

Over the last few months I must have heard 30 times about National's tax discount for landlords. No one ever reminded that it simply a return to the previous and standard business treatment. Willie Jackcon's maori promotion progamme has been instituted in full. Saturday morning to 1 pm is maori morning with extensive maori trivia and rambling reminiscing gossiping giggling nobodies. The music is abysmal, much cacophonic and/or plebeian in the extreme. Regular listeners would not know that light classical exists whereas it was a major draw in the past. Eccentric cacophony pervades. Much in the mornings is excellent but few have the time for such sustained serious listening. Evenings are now puerile chatter interspersed with infantile quizzes. They pay an industry person to ponder the station's problems. But when given considered feedback in submissions on the Charter and in emails, no one seems to read, and certainly not any that might chance to be outside the pro maori, pro Labour circle.
I must have heard the maori names for Hamilton, Christchurch and Dunedin localities a hundred times but still cannot distinguish. Apart from no relevance to the colonist made cities, the names are far too similar to ever catch on and constant repeat simply alienates listeners.

Anonymous said...

One problem in NZ is managerial mediocrity in almost every organization. There is a lack of real competition--so managers don't really understand competition. Take Air New Zealand. Basic simple changes to benefit consumers never happen. Just compare with competing airlines on, say, the competitive Auckland to USA leg. Now (high season) Air New Zealand competes with United, American Airlines, Delta. Is Air New Zealand's app better? Can customers easily choose seats? Can they easily change seats? Are check-in staff empowered to make decisions to help consumers?

David McLoughlin said...

I share your frustration, Karl, at both Moaning Retort and its Mike Hosking advert-laden alternative. A couple of months back I deliberately listened to Mike for a time to see why so many of our fellow journos despise him. Not just his politics; his success! My findings: https://schreibmaschinerblog.wordpress.com/2025/08/28/hosking/

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1434: Air NZ is a blissful, honeyed rise through gossamer clouds next to any American airline.
I welcome the competition but let’s not kid ourselves, those US airlines have to compete with government-subsided ones from many countries, including ours, and the service and price reflect the same.

Anonymous said...

PB covered it as well as I could, even on a good day. I have thought for some time now that the likes of RNZ and our so-called tv news channels are laughably shallow. It is excruciating indeed to have to endure the ads that dominate NewstalkZB but I still have that station running in the background most days. The music channels here just play the same commercial lists over and over, so I flick on to a streaming service if I want to enjoy something of quality, or just different. Poor NZ…forced into biased low level news cover, cheap entertainment and worse.

Gaynor said...

Well , I have never read so many interesting in depth articles in my life since all the alternatives sprung up -RCR , Centrist and of course BV and Waikanae Watch as a reaction to the tripe on RNZ. I have learnt so much .
Surely RNZ , Stuff , The Post etc realise they are driving people to alternatives If not why the hell not ? Isn't it obvious. ?
In the evenings I listen to BBC 3 and get a delightful serving of classical music - real pure Western culture with absolutely no te reo or waiata or karakias ever to assault my ears and put my blood pressure up.