David Harvey: A Saucerful of Secrets

TVNZ Obfuscates Balance and Bias

In July 2025 it was announced that TVNZ was commissioning an independent review of its news. The focus was mainly on balance and bias. Concerns had been expressed by the Government that TVNZ needed to improve its trust levels.

Former ABC and SBS executive Alan Sunderland was commissioned to undertake the report. The review of TVNZ’s news coverage took place over the course of a week. The review was conducted remotely and Sunderland did not approach editorial staff or TVNZ management “to seek input, advice or explanations for any editorial choices”. The review only considered and assessed the news content as published/broadcast, from the perspective of an average, reasonable viewer, listener or reader.

Clearly it was an “in-depth” study.

The review – commissioned by TVNZ - identified only “minor” issues - and “no evidence of systemic bias or lack of impartiality in 1News’ reporting”, according to a TVNZ summary of the report.

However, TVNZ refused to release the report either routinely or pursuant to the Official Information Act. One of the reasons was the old familiar one – to protect the privacy of people named in it. Apparently the review contains comments on specific TVNZ employees.

Other reasons for refusing to release the report were that release was not going to take place “maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions by members of an organisation in the course of their duty”.

This is another flavour of the privacy rationale.

Finally the report would not be released to allow TVNZ ”to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities”.

Clearly there is information in the report that TVNZ would rather the public did not see – information that it would like to keep to itself.

TVNZ initially provided its own summary of Sunderland’s report observing the purpose of the review “was to assess if TVNZ news adhered to its impartiality standards outlined in its editorial policies, with a view that the findings would inform a training programme for news teams”.

In addition in its executive summary it states “Sunderland’s review did not find evidence of systemic bias or lack of impartiality in 1News’ reporting”.

TVNZ has deigned to release three extracts from the report which it describes as key.

“The story selection and the treatment of those stories demonstrate sound news values and a firm commitment to the editorial principles of the organisation, including a commitment to impartiality. I identified no major stories run by other mainstream news organisations that were ignored, underplayed or overplayed by TVNZ in its coverage.

As a whole, the stories I reviewed were accurate and properly contextualised, and where the issues were controversial and/or of significant public importance, care was generally taken to ensure all relevant viewpoints were appropriately represented. I did not see evidence of any personal, sectional or organisational interests improperly influencing the news reporting, nor did I see any evidence of opinion and facts being confused with each other.

Finally, I did not consider that any particular perspectives in stories were favoured over others. Inevitably, when looking closely at a week’s coverage of a range of significant stories, I have identified some areas worthy of discussion. In some cases, those areas for discussion represent potential minor breaches, risk areas to note or suggestions for potential improvement. In other cases, they are simply matters to consider when looking at best practice in managing editorial performance and ensuring impartiality and diversity of perspectives.”

The NZ Herald wanted more information and complained to the Ombudsman. TVNZ agreed to release further details after discussions with the Ombudsman’s Office.

One must always wonder about the content of these “cozy chats” that take place in Wellington. How much better would it have been for the Ombudsman to have made a decision – hopefully that the report would be released.

But no. Apparently the Ombudsman thought otherwise but it was TVNZ who released the results of the Ombudsman’s inquiry.

TVNZ said that the Ombudsman agreed that there were privacy, commercial sensitivity and free and frank discussion withholding grounds, but TVNZ agreed with the Ombudsman to add five additional points into the executive summary.

As I said – cozy chats.

In an exercise that would make extracting a tooth with a pair of kitchen tongs appear easy, TVNZ has added five more points to its executive summary – the executive summary that it wrote itself. The phrase quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who will guard the guardians) comes to mind.

In summary the areas were these.

First, the reviewer identified two stories where he considered that TVNZ could have explored a wider diversity of views on the topic at issue.

No specific details of the content in question were revealed.

Secondly a matter considering the nature of TVNZ’s audience and that of the wider community when determining appropriate perspectives to ensure impartiality.TVNZ advised

“The reviewer identified one story where he would have liked to have seen TVNZ’s coverage examine the impact of the issue on different communities within New Zealand,”

Again the specific story was not identified.

Thirdly was the issue of missed opportunities for deeper coverage of issues.

“The reviewer identified that there were one or two stories across the course of the week which the reviewer described as ‘underdone in the circumstances’.

The reviewer noted that ‘this will always be the case in any week - big breaking news or competing editorial priorities will push issues down the daily agenda, and resources are inevitable [sic] limited, lead [sic] to tough choices’.

The reviewer discussed three stories where he considered there could have been deeper coverage.”

Yet again, TVNZ did not say what the stories were about.

Fourthly was the role of presenters and “ensuring impartiality and a clear distinction between fact and opinion”.

“The reviewer identified this as an issue for discussion rather than criticism. The reviewer noted that presenters should be aware of the impartiality standard if an issue is significant or controversial.

The reviewer noted that this issue did not arise in the shows reviewed but wanted to note it as something for TVNZ to keep in mind.”

The fifth point was a technical and timing issue, identifying the risks in carrying out a pre-recorded interview on a developing and significant story.

Given that the review followed Government concerns that TVNZ should play a stronger role as a national broadcaster, strengthening its own performance in earning trust, the approach by TVNZ to releasing the report is hardly designed to enhance trust and confidence in the organization.

I have written frequently about the importance of trust and confidence in institutions as important elements in the social compact.

The news media occupy a special position in the overall scheme of things. One of the duties of the Fourth Estate is to call the powerful to account. But more importantly than that it has a duty to report facts and to report the facts in an impartial and balanced way. That is an element of broadcasting that is embedded in the broadcasting codes developed by the Broadcasting Standards Authority and by the principles articulated by the New Zealand Media Council.

But TVNZ does itself no favours in commissioning its own review, with accompanying publicity, employing a reviewer who admittedly was independent of the organization, having a process of review that seems to have been so extraordinarily brief and carried out remotely that one can only conclude that either it was a cost cutting approach or alternatively, and being unfavourable to TVNZ, it was merely a lip service exercise.

Then, the review having been complete, it writes its own executive summary. There is a maxim in my game that apparently does not apply to the media which is nemo judex in causa sua – no one should be a judge in his own cause. I would have though that the reviewer would have written the executive summary – but no.

Following on that is the tooth extracting exercise of obtaining anything meaningful from the review. Bland generalisations, unsupported by examples is the order of the day as TVNZ fumbles and obfuscates, no doubt hoping that other arms of the media – such as the NZ Herald which has provided a useful source for much of the background material for this article – will give up and look into something else.

And of course with the summer shutdown looming they can rely on a dulled and blunted attention span and no doubt hope that another story will materialize.

Those of us who follow the media – especially broadcast media – are very familiar with tone, inflection, the snide smile (Benedict Collins, I have you in mind) the raised eyebrow, the self-righteous Moses-on-the-Mountain top delivery with accompanying advocacy journalism (John Campbell, I am thinking of you and I would rather not have to) to understand that there is bias in certain parts of the media. That is not to say that the media is riddled with bias and partiality. There are a number of excellent operators in the media space.

But it would be so refreshing if TVNZ had in fact released the whole report. Rather than resort to obfuscation and the language of uncertainty – about which I have written here – public trust and confidence would be enhanced if TVNZ had said something like this:

Yes, there have been mistakes. Yes, there have been examples of bias. And this is wrong. And we are going to correct those mistakes and do better in future. Because you, our public, deserve better. You need to be able to rely upon a top-shelf news service. And you are going to get it.

It is called “taking responsibility”.

But no. Avoidance, obfuscation, management speak, secrecy. Not a formula designed to enhance confidence.

David Harvey is a former District Court Judge and Mastermind champion, as well as an award winning writer who blogs at the substack site A Halflings View - Where this article was sourced.