A guest post from Owen Jennings on Kiwiblog:
Everyone seems to have an opinion on Christopher Luxon’s future. Why not? He is Prime Minster, after all. He has to be open to scrutiny.
But, is what we are encountering the normal, hurly burly of politics and strong media coverage? Or is there some other force at play? Some homework, using Artificial Intelligence, suggests there is and it’s something that should concern every New Zealand voter.
In a ChatGPT analysis of the Herald – the country’s leading print media and a self-determined, major opinion former – the results on opinion pieces showed:
Tone Luxon Hipkins
Negative 73% 50%
Positive 14% 30%
Luxon is three times more likely to receive a bad rap than Hipkins. He gets five negative articles to every positive one while Hipkins gets less than two. They have similar numbers of news items and similar numbers of opinion pieces. That is not just difference at the margins – it is heavyweight bias.
We know that opinion pieces are more prominently placed, more interpretive, more influential, and more memorable.
The Herald does not claim to be neutral, but it does state very clearly it provides balanced journalism. The numbers above show it fails woefully and dangerously. ‘Woefully’ because it doesn’t come anywhere close to a balance and ‘dangerously’ because it holds a highly responsible position as a leading media outlet. It is in danger of being interpreted as running a deliberate and planned campaign to oust Luxon and, with him, the current Coalition.
The mainstream media has lost a huge amount of credibility in the last few years. That is due, in no small measure, to its inability to get anywhere near balance in its output.
We are not the Third Reich nor are we expecting a banning of junior reporter’s attempt at writing opinion columns. But we have every right to a professional and more obvious adherence to the norms of balanced journalism.
Tone Luxon Hipkins
Negative 73% 50%
Positive 14% 30%
Luxon is three times more likely to receive a bad rap than Hipkins. He gets five negative articles to every positive one while Hipkins gets less than two. They have similar numbers of news items and similar numbers of opinion pieces. That is not just difference at the margins – it is heavyweight bias.
We know that opinion pieces are more prominently placed, more interpretive, more influential, and more memorable.
The Herald does not claim to be neutral, but it does state very clearly it provides balanced journalism. The numbers above show it fails woefully and dangerously. ‘Woefully’ because it doesn’t come anywhere close to a balance and ‘dangerously’ because it holds a highly responsible position as a leading media outlet. It is in danger of being interpreted as running a deliberate and planned campaign to oust Luxon and, with him, the current Coalition.
The mainstream media has lost a huge amount of credibility in the last few years. That is due, in no small measure, to its inability to get anywhere near balance in its output.
We are not the Third Reich nor are we expecting a banning of junior reporter’s attempt at writing opinion columns. But we have every right to a professional and more obvious adherence to the norms of balanced journalism.
1 comment:
Gosh, could it be because Luxon is not performing? Nah, it has to be bias! The man is pure gold, everything he says and does knocks it out of the park and he’s such a likeable kiwi everyman, to boot!
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.