Caleb Anderson: State media coverage of the 2026 election warrants scrutiny

It is now widely believed, by a significant portion of the population, that state media, in its current form, is incapable of moderating its left wing bias. It seems wedded to ideological positions that make neutrality near impossible, has even given up attempts at even the appearance of neutrality, and is happy to wear its bias on its sleeves. 

This bias is a statement.

It is ideological, deeply rooted, and long standing. It is tribal.

TVNZ and Radio NZ have become emboldened in the misplaced belief that they are the filter of what can and cannot be thought and said.

Politicians on the political right seem immovable in their reluctance to deal with our state media ... choosing instead, avoidance, and endless, and utterly pointless, overtures to curry media favour.

A favour they seldom extend.

In the 2023 election Mr Peters, in an interview with Jack Tame, made a fierce attack on media bias, seemingly signalling that things would change if he was elected. Mr Tame responded with something like "Is that a threat Mr Peters, to which Mr Peters responded "Wait and see".

The incessant, and inane, efforts of the media to manipulate thought, ignore counterargument, influence elections, and dispense their judgments, undermines democracy, discourages free thought, and feeds the excesses of those who already have too much limelight, and who desperately need counterbalance.

It was interesting how often those on the political left, pre and post election, emphasised the need for unity over division. This was puzzling given that, in the minds of many, they had been, and uncompromisingly, purveyors of the latter.

The unity the left is referring to, of course, is unity of thought, and in this they are in lock step with the media.

People know intuitively when they are being manipulated. The off button can be a lifesaver, but ratings don't matter to a media that is paid and privileged regardless. The media, confined largely to its urban liberal echo chambers, believes it is right, and being right gives it licence to deny voice to others, to be selective, to damage reputations without conscience, and to disperse privilege ... all at someone else's expense.

Whether there is place for state funded media in a rapidly changing digital landscape is a moot point, but while they are here, and while they are the recipient of state largess, it is reasonable to expect balanced coverage of every story, canvassing of alternative views, and an orientation to diversity of thought and opinion.

If state media is consigned to the dustbin, maybe we could live with that, and it could be a major shot in the arm for alternatives.

Unity of thought is to be avoided at all cost. Ideas must be allowed to butt up against each other, this is how they are measured, shaped, tested, refined, and weighed in the balance. The media has an important part to play in this.

Ideas will stand and fall on their merits, we do not need the media to filter, tell us what is important, how we should think, who is good and who is bad, how we should vote, and when we should come into line.

Recent surveys seem to indicate trust in media at well below the forty percent figure, and likely falling.

The media problem is not something to be brushed aside. It needs a response.

Caleb Anderson, a graduate history, economics, psychotherapy and theology, has been an educator for over thirty years, twenty as a school principal.