Stuff
The Post’s editorial last Friday showed Stuff at its worse. The previous day it had printed a full page advertisement from Hobson’s Pledge which was basically a cartoon wondering why Labour leader Chris Hipkins doesn’t rule out the racist Maori Party as a possible partner in a Labour-led coalition should they be able to form a government after the election. Editor Hooton conceded that the advert did not breach the law or advertising standards so Stuff decided to run it.
As expected, many readers were very angry that it appeared in full page glory and this reaction provided the Editor with the opportunity he wanted to denigrate Don Brash’s lobby group which advocates for democracy and ethnic equality in New Zealand.
The Maori Party’s election campaign is about promoting the interests of one ethnic group – part-Maori. The reality of the Party’s influence is that it only has parliamentary representation because there are seven special seats in which only voters on the Maori role can cast a ballot.
Hobson’s Pledge
This organization, despite Hooton’s protestations, is not racist unlike his editorial.
Don Brash’s Hobson’s Pledge is based around the 1840 statement of our first governor, William Hobson, at Waitangi: He iwi tahi tātou", ("we are now one people”). Fundamentally it supported the concept of equality for all New Zealand citizens under one law.
Today it campaigns against -
- race-based policies
- separate Māori seats in parliament
- co-governance models
- compelling working people to complete Maori courses.
Janet Dickson lost her case before the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal after refusing to complete Te Kākano, a compulsory course she believed conflicted with her Christian convictions. Janet was also clear that this training had nothing to do with selling property. The Tribunal has upheld the regulator's decision, placing Janet's licence and livelihood at risk. Hobson’s Pledge letter, 5 October 2026
In criticising the advertisement wondering why Hipkins doesn’t reject the idea of the Maori Party in government – Hooton is rejecting what many voters would regard as a fair question.
Before denigrating an organisation wedded to the principles democracy and equality, Matthew Hooton needs to look in the mirror.
The topics Stuff won’t cover
There is a raft of issues the publishing company won’t touch.
- What the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi) actually said.
- The farce of Freeman’s false and unauthorized “Treaty” which the Waitangi Tribunal likes.
- The English version of the Treaty – the Littlewood Treaty
- Whether the Waitangi Tribunal has kept to its original purpose, and is possibly past its used-by date.
- Examples of where the Tribunal has exceeded its legal functions.
- The undemocratic nature of the special Maori seats in parliament
One thing the editorial did get right was a summary of the groups who oppose Brash’s’s organisation - .. Maori activists, woke Pakeha liberal elites and a censorious left-wing media.
Hobson’s Pledge - We are now one people - is a statement which was used in 1840 and in variations since such as by Prime Minister Ardern after the 2019 Christchurch massacre.
Roger Childs is a writer and freelance journalist. He is a former history and geography teacher, who wrote or co-authored 10 school textbooks.
20 comments:
As a country we will never be able to move on without having an honest discussion about all these issues.
It is without a doubt costing the country, economically, we could be so much better.
It will take a strong leader to initiate that discussion, Winston and David come to mind. Definitely not Luxon - he is just as weak as Hooton.
Hooton came across as unbelievably biased in the true manner of the NZ media. His political and racist colours nailed firmly to a strongly left-leaning mast. What a venial buffoon he is; takes the money, probably advertising is the only thing keeping his rag afloat, and then goes all frothing at the mouth over an advertisement which is both funny and true in its implication.
Hooten got the job because he is on the opposition side but can be portrayed as supposedly being at one time ,,right,, wing. He never was, just a globalist more like a UK LidDem. People are supposed to think his appointment of a fake Nat shows balance.
There is another piece to the Stuff story that deserves attention:
Stuff did not simply change ownership when Sinead Boucher bought it for $1. She also chose a direction for the organisation.
In 2022 she took Stuff through certification as New Zealand’s first B Corp, signing up to a progressive buzz-words movement founded in the United States in 2006 to promote a broader idea of corporate responsibility — to workers, communities, customers and the environment, as well as shareholders.
B Lab, the force behind B Corp certification, says its mission is to transform the global economy into a “more inclusive, equitable and regenerative system” and to change the “behaviour, structure and culture of capitalism”. Its programme explicitly embraces justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, stakeholder governance and environmental action.
That might sound like something destined for the corporate foyer and a framed certificate.
It wasn’t. Stuff scored 83.4, and Boucher said B Corp principles fitted Stuff’s strategy of “making Aotearoa a better place” and giving everything it did a “tangible, positive impact”.
That is important context.
Because Stuff had already begun changing the way it saw its job.
There was the public apology over its historical treatment of Maori, the Pou Tiaki programme, the emphasis on te ao Maori and Treaty principles, and a declared determination to change the organisation’s culture.
B Corp did not create all of that. But Boucher chose to put Stuff firmly inside that broader philosophy and proudly attached the company to it.
So when you look at the way Stuff now approaches arguments about the Treaty, co-governance, Maori seats or race-based policy, it is reasonable to ask whether something more than ordinary editorial judgement is at work.
Readers notice these things without needing a policy document pinned to the wall. They notice which arguments get a sympathetic headline and which are introduced with a raised eyebrow. They notice who gets three paragraphs to explain themselves and who gets three lines. They notice when one side is treated as having concerns while the other is treated as having motives.
That is where the Hobson’s Pledge episode becomes interesting. The question is not whether Stuff is entitled to dislike the advertisement. Of course it is. The question is whether a newspaper that has consciously adopted a particular social philosophy can still give an unfashionable argument the same cold-eyed examination it would give one it already agrees with.
A newspaper is allowed to have values. It is even allowed to have opinions. But reporting becomes rather less useful when the values arrive in the newsroom before the facts do.
And this is why I think Boucher’s embrace of B Corp matters. She made a deliberate choice about what Stuff should be. We should therefore be entitled to ask what that choice has done to the journalism.
The danger is not that Stuff has values. The danger is that the values become the lens through which the news is selected, framed and explained — until some arguments are examined and others are merely processed.
A newspaper should open the door and let the reader look around.
It should not decide in advance which rooms the reader is allowed to enter.
B Lab says the B Corp badge can attract customers, employees and investors and strengthen brand credibility. But if Stuff’s entrenchment of those left-leaning principles makes readers doubt its impartiality, the badge may be doing the opposite of what it promises: eroding the trust and credibility on which a newspaper depends.
Apparently the expectation of equality as homosapiens is in fact racist.
Comments at 8.25 are spot on but Stuff readers , those who read it not to evaluate and question but to believe the narratives , are untroubled by bias.
As a former journalist and employee of what became Stuff (until 10 years ago) I know personally ex-Stuff and a few current Stuff staff and to a man, woman and whatever they are firmly of the belief they are not biased; they are a vanguard telling the ''truth''. They have the zeal of the true believer and are unswayed to the point where politics can no longer be discussed with them ( they are angry at dissent) on the rare times I now meet them. I avoid any group situation as they expound with fervour and I sit silent so for many years now I avoid such situations. They become unpleasant. Stuff is effectively an operating umbrella of a range of so-called progressive and racially correct advocates and sees itself like The Guardian. I recall that around 2016 when Trump was elected (like him or not) about 150 newspapers or organisations such as the NYT, Wapo, NZ Herald, The Guardian etc met and decided they would no longer handle the news the same way. In effect no more two sides to an issue (if they ever saw it that way). Reporting and columns became a campaign.
@Anon 8:25 thanks for this information. It is really useful to know.
As far as I know Stuff will not print anything challenging climate change alarmism.
It is easy to see why Stuff lost a big chunk of its readers. Like most biased and unbalanced media, rational thinking New Zealanders get their news ofrom more credital outlets
Anon@8.25: interesting. I hadn't known about that. Many years ago, we more or less gave up on the DomPost. By about 2019, I think, we were down to a Saturday copy only. It wasn't worth the money to keep a weekly subscription. Then after that ridiculous apology nonsense in 2020, I cancelled our subscription altogether. When the unfortunate young woman who took my call asked why, I told her bluntly. Unwisely, she attempted to defend Stuff. She got it between the eyes, both barrels, as the saying goes. My impression was that they'd already fielded a lot of cancellations.
Chuck Bird@11.13am: I believe that this is also correct. Nowadays, I see Stuff online only, and mostly I headline-hop. There's a lot of dross, even in the headlines, but anything to do with climate change appears to be exclusively of the alarmist variety.
NZers have since way back had the idea that their news media is basically unbiased as regards what is printed (except of course international politics, cold war etc but that was a given). Bias seemed to be confined to the editorial or a few (in those days) opinion pieces. In the UK people accept that their print media is biased (they used to believe the BBC almost without question): Mail rabid Tory, Mirror rapid Labour, The Guardian used to be worker but now elitist ''progressive'', Telegraph Tory, etc. They still believed the bias of their choice but they knew it was biased even if they pretended otherwise. NZ media has become more like that without the rabid or centre right media; it is all tilted ''progressive'' to varying degrees and carefully curates or blocks any alternative view. Hence Nat ''defectors'' like Hooten creep in and are billed as evidence of a range of views. In my circles (I am anon 8.50) most are unaware of anything we discuss on BV re the treaty, takeovers, people losing their jobs, enforced compliance with customs, religion etc because they follow only msm. The few who are aware are careful when, where and to whom they speak. There can be repercussions. For example, you are not speaking as a rep of your employer and you are in your own time but your comments can be reported . I know this happens from people first hand.
Donald Trump has Truth Social to disseminate the truth, the way and the life as he sees it. Sinead Boucher has Stuff to achieve the same end. Both are deeply flawed.
But at least Boucher made her intentions crystal clear when she acquired the business, thereby destroying any journalistic integrity she might otherwise have brought to the table. (Trump had none to start with).
So, read Stuff products at your own risk because there are never two sides to its stories particularly where Maori are concerned. And that requires the discerning reader to constantly apply their bullshit filters to what does emerge and, if necessary, challenge how Boucher presents her version of the way, the truth and the life.
But the real danger lies with the stories Stuff chooses NOT to publish because it's hard to challenge something that remains unarticulated. So, I treat Stuff as the last place to turn to when I want to know what is actually going on in the world.
Hooton's attack on Hobson's Pledge serves only to drive home the point that Stuff has no integrity.
Stuff is stuffed and I stopped looking at it years ago. Nothing like the days when Wellington had an actual newspaper. I am often horrified when my ex-pat friends overseas say that they still get stuff headlines and look at them from time to time. I warn them off and enlighten them as to how well 'Kindness' hasn't worked for NZ and that Jacinda now lives in coastal Australia.
Personally I dumped Stuff in early 2020. They sent me an invoice for the remaining copies because I cancelled the DD early. They then sent me several letters offering me discounts to return. I paid the invoice late and have not even been on their website since. They are to my mind nothing more than propagandists for every fake SJW cause going. They are not a new distributor they are rabid activists.
It was surprising and depressing to see the Hooson rant revealing the bias of the publication he edits so blatantly expressed. Describing Hobson's Pledge as "repulsive" is not the language one expects of a competent editor. And how a movement towards establishing equality of citizenship for everyone can be accused of "encouraging racism" escapes me.
As we now all know - Hooton is not fit for purpose. The Post is not fit for purpose. STUFF is not fit for purpose. And bureaucratic Wellington is certainly not fit for purpose!
Steve Ellis
Why didn’t Luxon sack Peters? Lack of a spine? He stands upright so it can’t be that. What is it about?
I don’t know about a concerted move featuring trump derangement syndrome among nz mass media but there is one on climate change - much like B Corp certification.
Author Nicky Hager has spent years mapping what he sees as a ‘right-wing’ network: organisations, donors, lobby groups, politicians and commentators connected by money, people, ideas and common purpose.
But here’s the question nobody seems terribly keen to ask: What if the same one-eyed focus was turned towards the progressive side?
Not a conspiracy. Not a room full of sinister people smoking cigars and dividing up New Zealand.
Something much more ordinary — and potentially more powerful.
A network of institutions, professional relationships, shared assumptions, common causes and people moving from one influential organisation to another.
Start with climate.
In 2019, Covering Climate Now brought hundreds of newsrooms into a global media coalition co-founded by the Columbia Journalism Review and The Nation, with the Guardian as lead media partner.
Its central premise was that human activity is driving global heating and journalism should reflect that scientific consensus rather than give climate scepticism equal billing.
New Zealand media climbed aboard.
Stuff, NZ Herald, TVNZ, Newshub, RNZ, Otago Daily Times, Newsroom and The Spinoff were among them.
But Stuff was already travelling in that direction.
In 2018, Patrick Crewdson, then Stuff editor-in-chief, declared that climate change was real and caused by human activity. Stuff would cover arguments over what should be done, but climate scepticism wasn’t getting a seat at the table.
Boucher was already stuff chief executive.
Crewdson is now RNZ’s first Director of AI Strategy and Implementation, operating within RNZ’s Treaty interpretation culture.
Then there is B Corp certification.
B Lab’s philosophy goes well beyond the old-fashioned business idea of making money. Workers, communities, customers, the environment and other stakeholders are part of the equation.
There are now 175 B Corps headquartered in New Zealand. Kiwibank. The Co-operative Bank. Sharesies. Synlait. ecostore. Pic’s. KMD Brands. Stuff according to the organisation.
Admittedly there is nothing inherently sinister about any of this.
That’s precisely the point.
The influence of an ideological network doesn’t depend on conspiracy. It works perfectly well through professional culture, institutional prestige, shared language, shared assumptions and people moving between organisations.
And B Corp brings another delicious little contradiction into the picture.
Stuff voluntarily signed up to a framework that places considerable weight on workers and stakeholders. It paid to have those values independently assessed and certified.
Meanwhile, the business has been restructuring, closing operations and cutting many, many jobs and shuttering community newspapers because the commercial arithmetic demands it.
The certificate says one thing.
The spreadsheet says another.
That doesn’t make every redundancy wrong. Businesses don’t survive on virtue. They survive on revenue no matter how sordid and filthy some progressives may view it.
But it does tell us something about the difference between values as an institutional badge and values when the bill arrives.
And that brings us back to Hager.
If it is legitimate to map connections between organisations on the political right and examine the common ideas, people and money flowing through them, why should the same exercise suddenly become improper when the network is progressive?
The Guardian. CJR. Covering Climate Now. Stuff. RNZ. B Corp. Treaty/maorification. People moving between institutions. Common causes. Common assumptions.
Nobody needs to be sitting in a smoke-filled room.
The network can be perfectly real without anyone ever drawing the network on a whiteboard.
Perhaps the more revealing question is not whether a progressive network exists.
It is why so many seem so much better at recognising a ‘conspiracy’ when Hager finds it on the right.
Well he’s right. It is repulsive.
Sinead Boucher bought Stuff in May 2020. Six months later came the grovelling apology to Maori. Readers never asked for an apology to be made.
Who is the cornerstone investor in Stuff? I would love to know.
And why is Stuff leaving Wellington? From now on most North Island newspapers will be printed in Christchurch, a Ngai Tahu town.
Again who is the cornerstone investor?
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.