Journalists Write

A Discussion in Print with Simon Wilson on Media Woes

Simon Wilson writes for the Herald. Most of his journalism is in the nature of opinion pieces. He has a regular column every Tuesday. These columns are generally on local body matters with a dose of climate change, the need for cycling lanes and a collectivist solution for Auckland’s woes.

Mr. Wilson writes from what could be termed a progressive perspective with a healthy dose of self-assuredness, of the correctness (I almost wrote “rightness”) of his opinions and that he reflects the point of view of the majority of Aucklanders.

He was very supportive of the candidacy of the late Efeso Collins for the mayoralty of Auckland. His disappointment and indignation when his preferred candidate lost was palpable. How could the public be so misguided? A similar attitude was present throughout most Mainstream Media (MSM) organs after the October 2023 election that returned a triumvirate coalition (I prefer the classical metaphor to that of the “three headed taniwha” – at least a “triumvirate’ has an historical reality).

On Saturday 13 April Mr. Wilson had an opinion piece in the Herald. It was about the declining trust in the media and was a commentary on that topic and where some of the responsibility for it lay. Interestingly enough not a lot of the responsibility lay at the feet of the media companies.

In this article, as I have done in others, I shall set out Mr. Wilson’s article with my comments interlineated throughout. The result is a form of discussion – a static dialogue if you will. I do this to be fair. Some of Mr. Wilson’s comments are valid. It would be unfair to selectively take parts of his article and comment unfavourably on them and fail to acknowledge the valid points.

But before starting on the detailed analysis a few general comments. There are probably five important points that can be extracted from Mr. Wilson’s article. They are:

1. Trust in media has dropped 20 percentage points in the last five years, with New Zealanders' trust in media falling from 53% in 2020 to 33% in 2024. ​

2. Linear TV is losing audiences to social media and apps/websites, leading to the closure of TV news operations and cuts to journalism. ​

3. Lack of revenue is a major problem for media companies, with 90% of digital news advertising revenue going to social media platforms. ​

4. Media consumption is changing rapidly, with platforms like TikTok and Snapchat becoming popular among younger audiences.

5. Media companies need to adapt to new technologies and methods to stay relevant, but the decline in revenue and lack of resources hinder innovation and quality journalism. ​

However it is interesting to note that Mr Wilson does not explicitly provide specific reasons for the decline in trust in the media.

The AUT report, as I wrote in my article Houston, We Have a Problem identifies seven major reasons for the growth in MSM distrust. These are:

Biased and unbalanced reporting: Approximately 87% of respondents believe that the news is biased and unbalanced.  They feel that the news reflects the political leaning of the newsroom and lacks actual information.  This perception of bias is stronger towards left-wing bias than right-wing bias.

Lack of transparency: Some respondents believe that there is a lack of transparency in the way the news media operates.  They feel that the news is not transparent about its sources and methods of reporting.

Opinionated reporting: Many respondents feel that the news is too opinionated and lacks factual information.  They believe that the news is more focused on presenting opinions rather than providing objective reporting.

Poor journalism: Some respondents perceive poor journalism in the news media.  They feel that the reporting is sensationalized, clickbait-driven, and lacks in-depth investigative journalism. They also criticize the news for being repetitive and boring.

Lack of trust in journalists to hold the government to account: A proportion of respondents believe that the government financial support for the media in New Zealand means that journalists cannot be trusted to hold the government to account.

Allegations of bias and capture by corporate and commercial interests: Some respondents accuse the news media of being captured by corporate and commercial interests.  They believe that the news is influenced by these interests and does not provide unbiased reporting.

Perception of poor journalism during the pandemic: Some respondents believe that the news media was captured by government funding through the pandemic-related Public Interest Journalism Fund.  They perceive this as a reason to distrust the news.

Mr. Wilson does mention some factors that lead to this decline but ignores the clear identification of reasons in the report itself. This may arise from editorial requirements or it may come from an unwillingness to confront the reality of the problems facing media. And in failing to identify and articulate the clear evidence that is available in the AUT Report Mr. Wilson perpetuates some of the criticisms present in that report.

But Mr. Wilson’s article mentions some factors that could contribute to the decline. These are:

1.   Loss of audiences to social media: The mainstream media is losing audiences to social media platforms and apps, which may lead to a perception that traditional media is less relevant or trustworthy. ​

2.   Bias and framing of stories: The document raises questions about bias in the ways stories are chosen, framed, and presented by the media. ​ It suggests that there may be a lack of debate about what news is and what it should be, which could contribute to a decline in trust. ​

3.   Declining trust in all sources of information: The document suggests that declining trust in media is not unique to New Zealand but is part of a broader trend of declining trust in all sources of information. ​ This could be a sign of a fraying society and a lack of trust in institutions in general.

4.   Perception of special treatment: The document mentions that some individuals perceive that certain groups, such as Māori, receive "special treatment" in the media. This perception could contribute to a decline in trust among those who feel that their own perspectives or interests are not adequately represented.

It is important to note that these reasons are not explicitly stated in Mr. Wilson’s article.  I have  inferred them from the information provided.

I shall now turn to the article itself. My comments are in italics.

Simon Wilson: Trust down, jobs gone, what’s the media going to do now?

OPINION

Trust in media has dropped 20 percentage points in the last five years. The AUT annual Trust in News survey was released on Monday with the startling news that New Zealanders’ trust in media has fallen from 53 per cent in 2020 to 33 per cent this year.

That’s a fact and it is clear in the AUT Report.

What a week. Warner Bros. Discovery confirmed it was closing down its entire Newshub operation, including Three’s flagship 6 o’clock news. And TVNZ confirmed it was closing Sunday, Fair Go and some news programmes, scaling back its digital, youth-oriented service Re:News and making other cuts to its journalism.

Again a fact. What Mr Wilson is doing is setting the scene for the development of his opinion.

A leading social scientist suggested to me on Tuesday that New Zealand might become the first country in the world to lose linear TV.

Linear TV is broadcast TV –the programmes you watch as they are being broadcast – rather than the programmes you choose to watch when you go to a media app or website.

Linear or as I call it “appointment” television will no longer be present as a commercial entity in ten years time. The Digital Paradigm has changed the media landscape from what was the model in the analogue or kinetic paradigm. Streaming consumption – consumption when it suits the audience rather than the audience being governed by when MSM makes the content available – will become the norm. And one must ask the question – is the loss of linear TV that great a loss, given that the content may be available elsewhere, to be consumed at a convenient time rather than at the dictates of a monolithic media organisation.

In some respects we should not be surprised at this proposition. Copper wire telephone services are no longer supported as telephone services move to digital. We still have telephones, be they mobile or landline replacements. The old form of delivery has gone. A new one has arisen to take its place.

Some businesses no longer take cash, so it is pay by card with associated imposts.

One of the characteristics of the Digital Paradigm is continuing disruptive change. Many industries have been hit by this. Now it is the turn of MSM.

In the media we like to tell ourselves we’re not making baked beans. It’s true. News media isn’t a commodity product, it’s crafted by highly skilled people who work hard to do a good job. Most of them could get much better-paid work doing something else, but they do journalism because they like it and, especially, because they believe in it.

Absolutely correct although I wonder why someone would take on a job where the pay is not so good as they might be capable of earning elsewhere. Perhaps Mr. Wilson is trying to create an image of a dedicated journalist. But “because they believe in it”. Journalism is a fact – a job – some might say a profession. But by using this sort of language – rather hyperbolic in my view -  Mr Wilson is elevating it to an article of faith.

Still, what if we were making baked beans? If people told us they didn’t like the taste, we’d do something about the recipe pretty damn quick.

Well as a matter of fact you are involved in the baked beans business in that MSM is a commodity that depends upon an audience. The size of the audience, consuming the content that MSM offers, determines the willingness of advertisers to pay MSM for time and space in whatever medium they choose. No point in putting an announcement on TV, radio or a newspaper where no one will see it. That’s just bad economics.

Journalism has to do the same. In the mainstream we’re losing audiences to social media. In broadcast and print, we’re losing out to apps and websites.

We’re responding by building the strength of our own apps and websites, as we should. That involves the quality of what we offer online, the breadth of coverage and style of how we do it. And, importantly, the revenue-generating potential and the algorithmic wizardry required to succeed. It’s a new and fast-changing world and we’re learning about it, just like our audiences.

It is correct that MSM is losing audiences. The AUT report makes that clear.

But I would contest some of the other statements in this paragraph.

Mr. Wilson over states what MSM and what journalism is doing in the online space. Largely what sites like the Herald are doing is imitative of the hard copy rather than being innovative. And the Stuff website – the “new improved design” is a disaster.

But it is good that MSM is learning. But I doubt that they really understand the lessons that are being taught. A real understanding of what the Digital Paradigm is all about is what is needed.

But is there enough debate about what news is and what it should be? Is there bias in the ways we choose stories and frame them, the language we use and the values we reinforce with those choices?

No there isn’t enough debate about what MSM should be doing. But perhaps MSM should listen to and respect their audience and not belittle them as Mr. Wilson does in the next section of his piece.

And yes, there is bias in the choice of stories, how they are framed, the language used and the values (progressive from Mr. Wilson’s point of view) reinforced.

Rather we should be seeing more factual objective reporting of events. All the news that’s fit to print as Adolph Ochs, owner of the New York Times said in 1897. That was a declaration of the newspaper’s intention to report the news impartially. Thus the NYT is viewed as the newspaper of record. It is regrettable that there is nothing similar in this country.

The AUT survey contains some telling results. Among them:

·         That overall trust figure has dropped a few points each year from 2020 but this year it fell suddenly, from 42 per cent to33 per cent.

·         Trust in social media and search engines has also fallen.

·         AUT piggybacks on a Reuters survey of 46 countries, which had an average trust rate of 40 per cent. We’re doing worsethan the mean.

·         We’re among three countries where trust is notably lower: the others are the United States and Britain.

·         Trust is highest among the young and the old, lowest among 45-to 64-year-olds.

·         Trust is lowest among Pākehā, with “other European” and Indian New Zealanders also showing up strongly.

In a wider sense, these results shouldn’t be a surprise. Declining trust in all sources of information is one sign of a fraying society and who doesn’t think that’s what we’ve living in now.

But look at those demographics: the trust problem is led by middle-aged Pākehā.

Where have we heard that before? Only everywhere.

I know, I’m one of them. I reckon that means I’m allowed to say this.

Turns out the people who complain the most about media are the people who complain the most about everything. Taxes and rates. Having to drive more slowly in suburbs and on dangerous open roads. Climate change. Housing density. Breaking the cycles of violence and illness associated with poverty. And especially the rise of te reo Māori and all the other ways Māori get “special treatment”.

This shouldn’t be a surprise. Of course the people who complain the most about social and cultural change are the people who complain the most about the media. In the media, we reflect those changes, as they evolve in schools and suburbs, workplaces and sports fields. But those who complain the most don’t want to hear about these things and don’t think they should be happening.

The way most media do this is not exclusionary. Weather presenters, for example, could hardly be more inclusive: they haven’t abandoned the name Dunedin, they’ve just added Ōtepoti. But the complainers don’t want warm and friendly inclusion. They want it all to stop.

And yet paradoxically, because this demographic complains the longest, loudest and most often, their views get into the media more than everyone else’s.

You could probably add that much of those “complaints” are well reasoned and articulated for reasons that I shall discuss below.

All this makes it easy to think the media is dominated by these issues. TV presenters reflect the changing te reo Māori-infused language of Aotearoa New Zealand and it leads to noisy debates about whether it should be happening.

“Tēnā koutou katoa” has become common, and so has shouting “Woke!”

This is classic Simon Wilson. He strays away from his subject by ascribing blame. He blames middle-aged Pakeha – a cohort of which he says he is one – for the criticisms of MSM. These are the people, he says, who complain about – everything? But they are also the audience upon which MSM depends. Not a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you, Mr. Wilson.

What Mr Wilson seems to ignore is that a significant portion of that cohort are the beneficiaries of a system that once delivered a full and rounded education (no longer available but I had better be careful or else I shall become one of Mr Wilson’s “shouty” fringe [see below]).

As a result of that education system its beneficiaries were taught how to think, how to evaluate, how to assess value, how to critically examine ideas and how to articulate them. Trouble is that those beneficiaries also learned the benefits of independent thought – that is thoughts and opinions which may run counter to Mr. Wilson’s progressive, collectivist ideal.

Now I immediately acknowledge that Mr Wilson is “allowed to say” what he thinks – not because he is one of the cohort he is talking about but because, like every citizen he has the right to freedom of expression. But what Mr. Wilson ignores is that one doesn’t have to be a member of a cohort to criticise it – to be “allowed” to say something. Freedom of expression is a right but Mr. Wilson’s use of the word “allowed” demonstrates that he does not understand that subtlety.

But what Mr Wilson ignores is that the very demographic that is highly critical of MSM that he derides and for whom trust has declined is only one of the demographics that are critical. And in doing this he demonstrates one of the factors that has resulted in the decline in trust of MSM. He allows his progressive attitude to colour his analysis and rather than focus on the problem he attacks what he perceives is one of the main causes of it. But there would not be the criticism of MSM were it not for the type of analysis that Mr Wilson advances. In trying to get to the root of the problem he demonstrates that in fact he (as a representative of MSM) is the problem.

Another revealing aspect of this comment by Mr. Wilson is the continued denial of largely majoritarian point of view – as he says the trust problem is led by middle-aged Pakeha (with other European and Indian New Zealanders showing up strongly). This echoes the denial of the will of the majority in a democracy – demonstrated, as I have noted earlier, Mr. Wilson’s clear disappointment at the defeat of Efeso Collins in the local body mayoralty elections and more widely the disappointment by MSM that Labour lost in October 2023.

But perhaps the biggest irony is that Mr Wilson – a self-described middle-aged Pakeha – is himself complaining – he is complaining about those who are complaining and so the circle continues. In fact were it not for the complainers of which Mr Wilson complains so bitterly there probably would not be a news media crisis.

It won’t have escaped many that the big drop in trust in media has coincided with the age of Covid. We’ve become a more fractured and angry society, and many people are alienated. It shows up in everything from driver behaviour to shoplifting to ram raids, social media abuse to family harm callouts and threats to the safety of bus drivers and politicians.

And one wonders where that alienation came from. One only has to reflect on the way that the Labour Government divided society into the vaccinated and unvaccinated, that wilfully embarked upon a policy of discrimination against those exercising their freedom of choice, and the media which stoked the fires of division with such offering as “Fire and Fury” and “Web of Chaos”, demonising dissent and alienating members of society.

Add to that the awful perception caused by the Public Interest Journalism Fund – and I emphasise perception – and you have a perfect storm.

And in relation to media, the sudden drop in trust last year suggests we’ve reached a tipping point. The shouty arguments of the fringe have moved into the mainstream.

Once again Mr. Wilson demonstrates his propensity to criticise and further alienate his critics by the use of the word “shouty” as a derogatory term. The fact of the matter is that the views with which he inferentially disagrees by characterising them as “shouty” have in fact become mainstream.

But this has nothing to do with the main reason media is in trouble.

It actually has EVERYTHING to do with why the media is in trouble. What Mr. Wilson ignores is that the complaints of his “shouty fringe” – in fact a significant cohort of the audience who are migrating from MSM – is having an effect on the number of eyeballs that are directed to the advertising content that MSM relies upon for revenue.

Mr. Wilson likes to use the word “shouty”. It often appears in article he writes where he wants to denigrate opinions with which he disagrees. Rather like many of his MSM colleagues he would like to hear the shouting die down and be heard as the only voice in the room.

It comes down to one big thing: money.

Damn right Simon. And where does the money from. Most of it comes from advertisers. And if the advertisers are not getting their reach (audience eyeballs) they are not going to place announcements. And if they are not placing announcements they are not going to pay. And if they don’t pay MSM revenues fall.

But Mr Wilson has failed to reckon with an important fact. Advertisers depend on audience surveys to ascertain when they are going to get the biggest bang for the buck – the largest audience reach. And the problem is that the audience is migrating away from MSM. And one of the reasons for that migration (there are seven of them in fact) are identified in the AUT report. But of course, I forget. Mr. Wilson ignored those facts in this article.

TVNZ boss Jodi O’Donnell says 90 per cent of digital news advertising revenue goes to social media platforms and therefore leaves the country.

Correct. MSM made extensive submissions to the Select Committee considering the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill emphasising this point. In doing so MSM is asking the legislature to enact the Bill that would see the digital platforms that are attracting the advertising paying what amounts to a subsidy to MSM.

Clearly MSM is asking for a handout simply because they cannot or will not compete in the marketplace or alternatively change their business model for something different and something that works. Social media platforms obviously work. Surely with all that creativity at hand MSM can develop an alternative.

As Charlotte Grimshaw put it in the Listener this week, social media platforms are destroying local journalism. The question she asked was: Are we really going to let this happen?

It always helps to cite a fellow progressive to bolster an argument but what is Ms Grimshaw, and inferentially Mr Wilson, describing as local journalism. There is an abundance of local journalism available online. It is not employed by MSM. If MSM wanted to I am sure many of these citizen journalists could move into the mainstream. As a result of my pieces on Substack I was offered an opportunity to write a fortnightly column for a MSM outlet. Perhaps Mr. Wilson and MS. Grimshaw lament the decline in conventional or orthodox journalists. But this again is indicative of the continuing disruptive change that characterises the Digital Paradigm.

The answer, to date, is yes. Those platforms have not only sucked up most of the available revenue, they feed off media companies for content, they pay very little tax, and we just let them do it. They’re hardly constrained by regulation and they’re among the biggest companies in the world.

And the Minister of Broadcasting, Melissa Lee, has not yet said a single coherent thing about it.

Here we go again, seeking to blame someone else for MSM’s own mess. Having blamed middle-aged Pakeha he now blames the Digital Platforms. What he fails to understand is the nature of competition in a capitalist society. Why should Melissa Lee do anything. What business does the Government have in propping up a failing business model. If I sound like an economic Darwinist, so be it. Perhaps Mr Wilson and those who have enjoyed the Golden Age of MSM dominance should wake up and realise that the Digital Paradigm has ushered in a new game in town.

Digital media has a superpower: it can connect advertisers directly with individual consumers whose online behaviour marks them as good targets for those advertisers.

Broadcast TV and newspapers can’t do that. TV companies lost 14 per cent of their ad revenue last year and they know there is little prospect of getting it back.

Then the answer is to change the MSM business model. Work out a way to connect better with the audience. Give them something that they want and enable that ability for advertisers to connect directly with the audience in the same way that Digital Media does. Become a Digital Power

But it’s not just social media that has the superpower. The apps and websites of mainstream media do, too. This is why media companies are refocusing to “digital first”.

Lack of revenue is crippling. It leads to staff layoffs, so there are fewer stories, less coverage of events and less time available for the remaining staff to keep standards high.

It means broadcast programmes and print titles are shut down. While the big shocks this week are about TV news, in the last few years we’ve lost dozens of community newspapers, magazines and supplements.

An exhaustive head count by the Spinoff this year noted there were 4071 professional journalists recorded in the 2006 census. With this week’s TV layoffs factored in, the figure could now be less than 1500.

The preceding four paragraphs demonstrate the sad and harsh realities of the marketplace. It may well be that the new business models that will finally be developed for MSM will not allow for the super-profits that they have been accustomed to in the past. By the same token, if they develop their new model properly they may well make the same super profits presently enjoyed by the digital superpowers. But there will be a period of pain. The length of time of that period will depend upon the ability and nimbleness of MSM to adapt.

Lack of revenue also inhibits innovation. We know it’s essential, but it’s not easy when there’s no money to employ new talent, to experiment and launch new ventures.

This rather generalised comment suggests that innovation depends on revenue. Perhaps Mr. Wilson should look at the examples of Bill Hewlett and David Packard who started business in a garage in Palo Alto in 1939 or Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak who developed the first Apple computer, once again operating out of a garage. Not a lot of funding for those innovative people. Indeed the history of innovation in the digital space depends on people with ideas rather than large sums of money (although venture capital helps). But innovation need not be restricted to those within the MSM organisations – what about those who are outside?

Next problem: media consumption is changing fast. TikTok leads the way right now but it’s not even eight years old. What worked yesterday doesn’t work today and what works today may not work tomorrow.

We know we need new ways of doing the news. But what, and how?

Oh dear – poor Mr. Wilson. He still cannot grasp the concept of continuing disruptive change and the fact that everything changes all the time. Coming up “tomorrow” will be enhanced AI (which was a dream 10 or 15 years ago) and Quantum computing. Get ready, Mr. Wilson. The train is coming down the track.

One of the reasons I chose to do my PhD focussing on the communications technology of the printing press rather than digital tech was that at least the tech was mature and the data stationary. My decision to stay away from digital tech (at least at that stage) was vindicated because over the time I was researching and writing Facebook happened. Facebook is considered to be a “mature” technology now.

And when I wrote about AI in my book “Collisions in the Digital Paradigm” I described aspects of AI but since publication (in 2017) Large Language Models like ChatGPT have become a feature on the AI landscape.

I took part in a podcast on Tuesday evening for the Working Group, which pops up in the top five political podcasts listened to by New Zealanders. We debated the political issues of the day.

The podcast itself was watched and listened to live and remains available for anyone to do that at any time. But that’s almost the least of it. With the involvement of a broadcast partner, it also gets sliced and diced into a whole lot of smaller pieces of content, for TikTok, Instagram, linear radio and other platforms.

The reach it can achieve from all that is exponentially larger than what the original show does on its own. Media companies will probably have to get really good at this, but it isn’t easy.

An excellent example of the sort of innovative approach that needs to be adopted. But to do it properly may not be easy. But things that are worth doing rarely are.

And will it last? Journalists and media companies use social media to promote their work. But social media is becoming less interested in that. Instagram doesn’t want you to leave Instagram and go read something at the Herald. It wants you to stay on Instagram.

Among people under 25, the most popular media form in the world right now is said to be the six-second video. On TikTok and Snapchat.

I am not sure what Mr Wilson is trying to say here. It may well be that the platforms he describes may not be the model for news distribution. Perhaps a news mo\del needs to be developed to attract audience eyeballs

And it’s thought that the time people take to decide if they want to watch a video is 0.013 seconds. That’s swipe, swipe, swipe, as fast as your finger can move, until your brain goes yep! And then off again, swipe, swipe.

How do you package news into that? Should you even try?

I am not sure whether Mr. Wilson is being disparaging of the swiping that characterises smartphone based information consumption. And of course some thought should be given to trying to incorporate a news media model into that behaviour. We shape our tools  - as McLuhan said – and thereafter our tools shape us. Technology may not be determinative of behaviour but it certainly is an agent of behavioural change. Clearly Mr. Wilson is struggling to understand that

And AI is on its way. Google “Wayne Brown port” at the moment and you’ll get a range of news reports and analysis from the media. How long before you’ll just get an AI-generated answer?

This shows that Mr. Wilson is not up with the AI play. Google has used AI from its very inception. The whole search engine has AI algorithms sitting inside it, ranking content, developing snippets. The answer that you get from Google ALREADY involves AI. Or does Mr Wilson mean Large Language Models like Chat GPT?

In the search for relevance and profitability, not all the decisions media companies have made seem wise. Why close community newspapers and websites, when we know readers love local news and retail advertisers need to connect to them? Communities are only going to become more important in this fraught world.

Why close Sunday and Fair Go when they’re among the most-watched, loved and best-quality programmes you offer? You’re just telling viewers you don’t care about them.

Why cut back Re:News, which in style and target market seems like the closest thing to the future TVNZ has?

I can understand Mr Wilson’s angst about the departure of these programmes from our screens and to a certain degree I agree with him. One wonders why the interminable cooking and building shows, the Celebrity Treasure Islands and the Bachelors and Bachelorettes remain on-screen – the mind-numbing programmes that demonstrate nothing more than the vacuity of the participants

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that such measures – in print and broadcasting – are not about regrouping to a position of strength, so the companies can marshal their resources and go boldly forth. Instead, they seem merely to be managing decline.

Ah yes, but what about all that other bias: the bias intrinsic to all that opinion writing? You might think I’m biased about this myself, but I would say that alongside the news, media have a valuable role in presenting analysis and points of view.

I absolutely agree – but without bias. Objective factual news reporting is what is required and we need more of it. But more and more column inches are being taken up with Mr. Wilson’s admittedly biased opinion writing. His attitude is insulting to the intelligence and analytical powers of his readership. We are not dumb, Mr Wilson and we can think for ourselves.

You might think what I write is a beacon of reason and hope, but others tell me it’s absurd propaganda for the left. Conversely, I think what some of the other Herald columnists write is absurd propaganda for the right, although I know they have readers who believe they are beacons of reason and hope.

Mr. Wilson is talking about opinion pieces here rather than fact based journalism. The columnists in the Herald may not wear their political colours on their sleeves but it doesn’t take long to work out which side of centre they prefer to rest. And that is fine. We need a diversity of views.

But a recent example of good fact based reporting can be seen in the coverage by Anna Leask of the aftermath of the “Heavenly Creatures” murder where she traces the history of Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme. That provides a good example of objective fact based reporting.

What the Herald tries to do is present well-argued points of view. We value being a pluralist newspaper: you can read us all and make up your own mind.

How do media manage their way through all this? Who the hell would know.

But in my view, a couple of things are worth clinging to.

I entirely agree with this comment. Largely the Herald is pluralist although sometimes its political analysts let their sympathies slip (unlike TV where they are plain to see – the Benedict Collins smirk, the Maiki Sherman cocked eyebrow and John Campbell who treats the camera as a pulpit.

First, we need to stake a bigger claim to the hearts and minds of people who believe in a decent, inclusive, cohesive society. Let’s be biased towards them.

Agreed. But I am not sure about the “cohesive” bit. That suggests collectivist conformity. Cut out the word “cohesive” and I entirely agree.

I believe we should do this because it’s the right thing to do, and also because it might even work. And yes, this is a constructive way of saying we should stop paying so much attention to all the angry people shouting at us.

Oh Mr. Wilson. What are you saying. Stop listening to the people with whom you disagree, even although they are a significant part of your audience. Is that what you are suggesting? Why not engage with them and give them a chance to be heard.

Related, we have to keep working long and hard with advertisers to get them to share the dream.

Second, we have to get very nimble with the technologies, the methods and the styles with which we do news, current affairs, commentary and analysis. We have to be constantly upping our skills, and we have to take risks and be brave.

What a wonderful last paragraph. But Mr. Wilson, don’t forget your audience. You depend on them. And respect them and their point of view even if you disagree with them and even if they outnumber you.