Pages

Monday, May 18, 2026

Ashley Church: The stories RNZ doesn’t want you to hear


What will it take to get Goldsmith to act?

For some time now, I have argued that New Zealand needs an independent inquiry into the editorial culture, balance and conduct of its two state broadcasters, Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand.

Both of these Broadcasters have drifted from their traditional role as reporters of the news, into an extreme form of ideological bias which shapes the ways that news is selected, framed and prioritised.

This manifests itself as extreme bias in the way stories are presented; an almost total failure to platform serious alternative views that challenge that ideological narrative, and a category that now deserves attention of its own – the extraordinary inability of our public broadcasters to report fairly when the subject is Israel, Jews, Hamas or the wider Middle East.

However, my view does not appear to be shared by the Minister responsible. On 14 May, RNZ reported Media Minister Paul Goldsmith as saying that it is the RNZ board’s role to make decisions about management and that he “very much” supported RNZ and maintained confidence in its board.

That is an extraordinary position when set against what has been happening in plain sight. If the Minister responsible for public broadcasting “very much” supports RNZ and maintains confidence in its board, then the obvious question is: what level of imbalance, ideological selection or editorial blindness would actually concern him?

Let’s take the most recent and egregious example of this bias.

Last week, the Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children released one of the most disturbing reports to emerge from the Hamas-led massacre of October 7. The report, Silenced No More: Sexual Terror Unveiled, was not a blog post, a rumour or another passing claim from the fog of war. It was the product of a two-year investigation into sexual violence committed during the attacks and against hostages taken into Gaza, drawing on more than 430 testimonies and interviews, more than 10,000 visual records, and more than 1,800 hours of visual material.

Its findings are grotesque. The report goes much further than confirming that sexual violence occurred. It concludes that sexual and gender-based violence was systematic, widespread and integral to the Hamas attack and to the treatment of hostages in captivity. In plain English, this was not merely the opportunistic depravity of a few uncontrolled monsters. It was terror as method. Sexual violence as strategy. Humiliation as a weapon. The destruction of bodies, families and memory as part of the point.

Anyone with a functioning moral compass should have been horrified by that. Any serious media organisation should have understood the gravity of it. Any public broadcaster with a genuine commitment to truth, balance and moral seriousness should have known exactly what this story required.

But if you’re aware of the report in New Zealand you almost certainly heard about it through social media because no mainstream media outlet covered it!

Yep, you read that correctly. Hamas films its atrocities, glorifies its murderers, hides behind civilians, lies about casualties, exploits hospitals, schools and mosques, and then watches as much of the Western media launders its propaganda into headlines. Then, when presented with a comprehensive two-year investigation and the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses into the proven conduct of Hamas – NZ media decided that ‘it wasn’t a story’.

No one picked it up. Not Stuff. Not the Herald. Not 1News. And certainly not RNZ.

So perhaps it was a busy news week with no space for stories about Israel? Nope – over the same period during which RNZ completely ignored this groundbreaking report it found room for a parade of anti-Israel stories. It reported on a Cannes-winning writer railing against Hollywood over Gaza. It reported on Eurovision controversy surrounding Israel’s participation. It reported on Israel killing the son of a senior Hamas leader. It reported on the UN demanding the release of Gaza flotilla activists and on an Israeli court extending their detention, and it reported on calls for the New Zealand government to intervene over the flotilla and on claims that a New Zealander aboard had suffered concussion and a possible broken rib.

Let that sink in. A publicly funded broadcaster that routinely finds space for stories which place Israel under suspicion was unable to give comparable prominence to a major report documenting systematic sexual violence by Hamas. The same media that can elevate allegation after allegation against Israel appear strangely incurious when the victims are Israeli women, girls, families and hostages. When the evidence cuts against Hamas, the urgency vanishes.

That’s not balance – it’s ideological selection.

The Hamas atrocities of October 7 were not complicated. They were not morally ambiguous. They were not a tragic misunderstanding between two equally culpable sides. They were the deliberate acts of a terrorist movement that invaded Israel and committed barbarism against civilians. The Commission’s report does not create that truth. It documents it with a level of seriousness that should have demanded serious media attention.

Which brings us back to Paul Goldsmith.

If the Minister “very much” supports RNZ and maintains confidence in its board, then he needs to explain what level of imbalance would actually concern him. Radio New Zealand can find time for Eurovision, flotilla activists, Hollywood statements and routine allegations against Israel, but apparently not give proper prominence to a major report documenting systematic sexual violence by Hamas during the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That is not a minor editorial oversight. It is exactly the sort of failure that justifies an independent inquiry.

An inquiry would not be about politicians dictating editorial lines. It would be about asking whether our state broadcasters still meet the standards the public is entitled to expect from publicly owned media. It would ask whether stories are being selected and framed through a narrow ideological lens, whether serious alternative views are being excluded, and whether Israel and Jewish issues are being treated with anything approaching fairness.

Former National voters are abandoning that party in their droves precisely because of this sort of willful blindspotting. They did not elect a centre-right government so that publicly funded institutions could continue treating their worldview, their concerns and their moral instincts as something to be ignored, managed or quietly patronised.

The scandal is not only what RNZ and other NZ media failed to cover. The scandal is that the Minister responsible seems unable, or unwilling, to see why it matters.

Ashley Church is former CEO of the Property Institute of New Zealand and is an active social commentator. This article was sourced HERE

24 comments:

anonymous said...

The question might be: Who is giving Goldsmith his orders?

Janine said...

I totally agree it is the politicians failure to act that is the problem. The most recent media bias concerns the Unite The Kingdom rally over the weekend. RNZ and most MSM headlines called the rally "far right" or "extreme far right". In reality the UK citizens of all colours, shapes and walks of life had united to reclaim their identity.
The independent media reporters circulated in the crowd interviewing people, and thereby giving us an insight into their reasons for participating.
Starmer, like Goldsmith, Hipkins and most of our politicians here, was delusional as to the wishes and aspirations of ordinary citizens. Election time is looming.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the government has decided that the problem you raise is just one of many, all of which involve institutional capture and are now too big to handle? As John Raine discusses today, Stanford is addressing the past 2 decades of attacks on education — full marks there! But the near destruction of NZ universities is something that the govt appears to want to completely sidestep, and it gives the same non-answer that you complain of — the universities are autonomous, and, according the govt, interference is not appropriate. Is the overall problem too big? Is there some desire to preserve people’s jobs? I don’t know why RNZ and TVNZ and the universities are not considered urgent. Does the govt think addressing these will bring civil war?

Anonymous said...

Par for course with this particular Minister. Minister of the empty suit.

CXH said...

Ashley, you seem surprised that a minister is unable to either see, or doing something about the bias in taxpayer fund organizations, be they the public service, media or charities.

Where have you been for the last couple of decades?

Anonymous said...

Ashley, great article. we all know that our msm and tvnz broadcasters are very very far left. I want them defunded, but it seems I have to have my tax money prop them up. I do not consent to having my hard earned money given to a bunch of far left gutter rats who call for my destruction. All we ask is for balance....seems the left cant do that!

Rob Beechey said...

What a breathtakingly damning assessment of our corrupt MSM. Well done Ashley Church. How easy it has been for these charlatans to shape public opinion in Hobbitville. Goldsmith obviously approves of this public betrayal and should be relieved of his duties for being either totally ignorant or manipulative. 
This government has had two and a half years block these publicly funded propagandists from brainwashing the public, but chose to let it run and therefore complicit through their inaction. 

Anonymous said...

It's been a slow steady decline into being an activist propaganda machine at both RNZ and TVNZ.
Of course, Luxon can fix this - but he will not because he seems ok with it.
Listen to his massive push back on Hosking this morning regarding the Waitangi Tribunal.
Clearly the whole of the National team has been instructed to allow the radicalization of NZ to continue.

I'm another ex National supporter who will never vote for them while Luxon is there with his bully demands.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

My wife and I lived for 35 years in developing countries. Our lifeline to the world was the BBC shortwave service until that was slashed in 2008, then we got cable TV and watched the BBC and Euronews.
We don't have TV here (my wife is blind and gets much more out of the radio) and I find much news here to be a bit of a sick joke so I get my news from internet sources - BBC, Deutsche Welle and France 24 (the English service of the latter two). These news outlets also provide well-researched and balanced commentaries on global events. Readers who have had NZ 'news' providers to the back teeth might like to have a look at these.

Anonymous said...

To add to this article - NO NZ MSM outlet has reported on or even alluded to - the destruction of the Iranian People, particularly those who "even attempt" to stand against the (Male dominated) Regime.
To do means you will be either -
- shot, with out trial
- hung in a public place, after s 'show trial'
all of this recorded by Iran TV and shown across Iran TV sets - "AS a Warning".
Dear B.V - 'beware' the BBC, it has been proven that their biases are "not as pure as you may think" and would also recommend that you "do not tune into the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp) they are just as bad.
Also, your last statement, Kiwi's have tuned in to other MSM domains - did that when "dear Jacinda Ardern" become PM - we needed a "news source" not the "Podium of Truth".
You know, it would be interesting to ask Iosef Stalin what he thinks of modern MSM?

K said...

Doesn't anybody here read X?
Barend, you would be able to sift through it and get up to date. Plus variety you can't imagine.

Anonymous said...

The story that is standing out for me with limited coverage is trial related to the arson attacks on Sir Keir Starmer's property. The judge warned the jury the motive is irrelevant. It intrigues me that the NZ media are happy to pull back from reporting the case.

Ellen said...

I used to live in sync with RNZ - honestly thought they were wise good people . Have they changed or I ? Michael Laws is not as nice as Jim or Jesse, but gosh he tells it like it is.

Anonymous said...

Is this a news story about there not being a news story? If you really cared, you’d be talking about the substance. Anything else looks like politicking.

Anonymous said...

Someone, anyone, with higher up connections than I have, please a copy of Ashley's brilliant piece to the minister.

Allen Heath said...

With regard to Ellen's 5.11 comments I saw a piece by Michael Laws wherein he referred to people with a PhD who call themselves 'doctor' to be, in his terms, "wankers". I would like to hear what others think. His opinion was that only people with a medical degree (bachelor by the way) have a right to call themselves 'doctor'. His dismissive and very ignorant point of view does not make him a balanced commentator in my opinion. I have to admit to having a PhD and proud of the time (9years) and hard work entailed to attain that qualification.

Janine said...

Anonymous at 11.56. We would probably agree on many issues. The un-reporting or misrepresentation of the Iranian situation., the demise and woeness of the BBC and the fact the "source of all truth" was the absolute last straw.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

Re: Allen Heath
Until the mid-19thC, anyone studying natural or physical phenomena was called a 'philosopher' - it was Darwin's nickname while on 'The Beagle'. Then the word 'scientist' started being used and 'philosophy' as we understand the field today displaced 'philosopher' in the fields of 'natural philosophy' that now came to be known as 'science'. ('Science' before that referred to any systematic body of knowledge - as it still does in French.)
A Doctor of Philosophy in the old nomenclature was a man who had studied so long and hard that he could be appointed as a professor and teach students (the Latin word here translated as 'Doctor' actually alludes to teaching others.)
We are stuck with this archaic terminology and it's time a huge broom went through the entire university qualifications system. In the British system, as Allen points out, a medical doctor has Bachlor's-level quals (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery); the title 'Doctor' is a professional one, not an academic one. It takes 6 years. A PhD requires a preceding Bachelor's and (nearly always) Master's degree. In Aus and NZ this takes 8-9 years (4-year Bach OR 3-year Bach + Master's Qualifying Year, 2-year Master's [the old 1-year Master's is just about gone], and 3 years for the actual Doctorate). The classical British PhD contains no coursework, only a thesis which has to present original research and runs to 80,000+ words.
Comparing a PhD with an MBBS is comparing apples with oranges.
Michael Laws has an MA and should know better than to cast aspersions on the PhD and its associated Doctoral title (silly as that is). Hm, I wonder whether he got a 1-year Master's and didn't qualify for admission to PhD........

Allen Heath said...

Thank you Barend; useful comments, but if 'doctor' is not an appropriate title for someone with a PhD then Philosophia doctoris or Philosophia doctores should have no descriptive or categorical value.

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

For a humorous take on the issue of medical doctor versus PhD, read
https://gestion-des-risques-interculturels.com/pays/europe/france/the-absurd-complex-of-the-french-towards-the-doctorate/
Using a different abbreviation for the two 'doctor' titles would help...... maybe...........

Allen Heath said...

I must apologise moderator if this is dragging on a bit, but I would like to point out that some years ago veterinarians and dentists, both with bachelor degrees as with GPs etc., voted to use the honorific 'doctor'. The link Barend provided is very informative and illustrates that there is some degree of professional jealously (and, in the case of Michael Laws, profound qualification jealously ) when it comes to acknowledging an academic attainment.

Anonymous said...

When Trump effects regime change in Iran then the 3 puppets in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen will be starved of funds and weapons.
But there is also an easy fix for our state owned broadcasters. The Minister simply needs to send the Chairman of RNZ & TVNZ a large "For Sale" sign, to be hung on the office wall opposite their desks, for them to ponder. The message will leak through eventually.

Anonymous said...

Back in the 70, 80, and 90, I enjoyed my career as an announcer and then Manager for 18 years of the then RNZ commercial radio network. Then it was a trusted, unbiased, very professional organization. Both the RNZ co.mercial and RNZ Pubic arms were the essential providers of news, current affairs and entertainment. From the late 80s there was a huge change in audience numbers an listening habits with two major changes, the massive proliferation of new competitors and the internet.
The commercial RNZ network was sold leaving just the Public non commercial service simply called RNZ. This model is now not fit for purpose

Anonymous said...

In the 70s 80s and 90s I was employed as a RNZ announcer and eventually General Manager in its then commercial radio network. The public non commercial network was part of that organization.
Those were the days where there was no or little competition and no internet. We were well trained and prided ourselves in our unbiased quality news , current affairs and entertainment.
The RNZ commercial arm was sold off in the 90s leaving just the public radio version of RNZ.
The RNZ we hear today is more and more completely irreverent.
Courrupted by left wing, woke ideologies, costly to run and totally unnecessary with many freely available alternatives and continued smaller audiences.
RNZ and TVNZ need to be sold off asap.

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.