Media Influencers

Thoughts and Feelings

People don’t think any more – they feel…we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas. Now thoughts and ideas – that interests me.

Attributed to Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady”

I read an interesting comment recently. I cannot recall the precise wording but the gist was that there was a time when media reported facts and left it up to the audience or readership as to how they reacted. Today media reports feelings and how we should feel about a story.

The focus has shifted from providing society with information which individuals can assess to a form of societal signposting heading towards a form of group-think or perhaps group-feelings would be a better term.

We only need to see the focus of the various stories that appear in mainstream media (MSM) news feeds – and I use that term because the online distribution medium dominates and “kinetic” media like newspapers are very much passe. Indeed an example of the shift in focus as far as TV news is concerned are the set of instructions given by news readers on TV1 on how to access TVNZ + on a smart TV. This is indicative of the shift to a digital strategy and perhaps is also indicative of the fact that the six o’clock news is a summary rather than an in-depth and detailed report.

Whether it ius possible to get such a report anyway is questionable, especially when MSM (radio and TV) insist in journalists interviewing journalists. What we get is a journalist’s analysis of a set of facts rather than the facts being presented to the audience who should do their own analysis.

Is this because educational standards have slipped and society has been so “dumbed down” that people cannot do this sort of analysis? Or is it because we would prefer to be told what the facts “mean” because thinking has become too hard?

Yet it is clear that people do think about the news and about media in general and the thinking is anything but positive. Stats NZ recently released information about how New Zealanders trust key institutions.  Data from the 2023 General Social Survey (GSS) found that trust held by New Zealanders in institutions like the health system, education system, parliament, media, police, and courts has declined since 2021. The figures reveal that people had the least trust in the media which was down from 4.7 in 2021 (out of 10) to 4.3.

The fifth annual Trust in News in Aotearoa New Zealand released by the AUT research centre for journalism, media and democracy finds that trust in news continues rapidly to decline, and news avoidance is increasing.

The study’s findings show trust in news in general fell significantly from 42% in 2023 to 33% (-9%) in 2024 and the proportion of those who actively avoid the news to some extent grew from 69% in 2023 to 75% (+6%) in 2024.

TVNZ has remained the biggest source of news for New Zealanders, but Facebook has become the second most important source of news, despite a drop in its trustworthiness.

Journalism has lost its authority as the main source of news and information. In general, people distrust the information they see, and they are increasingly checking their ‘facts’ themselves. This phenomenon is described by one of the authors of the study as highly problematic. Another study author suggests that trust in news and news outlets keeps declining and journalists and media companies need urgently to form relationships with their audiences and with communities to rebuild that trust.

One author commented that audiences do their own fact-checking.

“In general, people distrust the information they see, and they are increasingly checking their ‘facts’ themselves,”

In 2024, all the major New Zealand news brands suffered declines in trust. The Otago Daily Times was regarded as the most trustworthy news brand, followed by RNZ and NBR in the second place. TVNZ, Newsroom, other commercial radio stations and BusinessDesk were jointly regarded as the third most trustworthy sources.

Eighty-seven percent of those surveyed who did not trust news said it was "biased and unbalanced", while 82 percent said news reflected the political leaning of the newsroom and 76 percent regarded news as "too opinionated, lacking in actual information".

Yet faced with these facts MSM continues to propagate stories that are skewed in focus or in fact misinterpret or manipulate data and statistics to justify a particular position.

A recent example – the subject of an article by Rob MacCulloch -  was in a report at the end of October that went out in the Herald and Radio NZ suggesting that 65% of New Zealanders support a capital gains tax in some form.

But that question - "Do you support a capital gains tax in some form?" – was not asked. The question that was asked by the survey was this:

"Would you support the introduction of a Capital Gains Tax in the following situations? (1) Sale of an investment property? (2) Sale of a business? (3) Sales of other assets like boats, cars & paintings? (4) Sale of a family home".

57% of respondents supported proposition 1

43% of respondents supported proposition 2

22% of respondents supported proposition 3

13% of respondents supported proposition 4

Thus the majority of support was for a CGT on investment properties and they are subject to a form of CGT in the brightline test and – a little known fact – if you are in the business of buying and selling property (which is what property investment is about) you are taxed on the profits of sale.

So where did the 65% of respondents to a question that was not put originate. In an example of Mark Twain’s famous aphorism “there are lies, damn lies and statistics” the number is arrived at by gently massaging a few other numbers.

What happened was that the number of people who ticked any one of the 4 categories were added up. Thus by adding 43% and 22% the number 65% is reached. Likewise by adding 57% and 13% we reach the number of 70%.

Mr MacCulloch poses a reverse question based on the same numbers, using the 65% as a baseline. The question is “Do you think that only 35% of Kiwis oppose a capital gains tax?”

He then goes on to propose the reverse of the questions put in this way

"Would you not support the introduction of a Capital Gains Tax in the following situations? (1) Sale of an investment property; (2) Sale of a business; (3) Sales of other assets like boats, cars and paintings; (4) Sale of a family home"

32% of respondents would not support proposition 1

41% of respondents would not support proposition 2

64% of respondents would not support proposition 3

78% of respondents would not support proposition 4.

Thus there are majorities in two of the 4 categories.

The question that must be asked is why MSM – and in particular the Herald and RNZ – would want to run a story that is so blatantly misleading. The answer becomes clear when one looks at the wider context of the article by Thomas Coughlan. The lead story in the article reveals that Labour is closing the gap with issues that New Zealanders care about. In fact the entire article is about how much better Labour is favoured in dealing with the issues identified although to be fair it does state that National polls convincingly on the economy and is seen as most capable of managing 10 of the top 20 issues.

But the article suggests that Labour is fighting back. Then the CGT issue is addressed and clearly the “doctored” number of 65% is a form of “softening up” for the inevitable shift in Labour policy to backing a CGT.

Again to be fair, the article states:

However, a large majority of New Zealanders do not support a capital gains tax on the sale of a family home, which was opposed by 78% of people. There was also strong opposition to a capital gains tax on other assets such as boats, cars and paintings, which was opposed by 64%.

This could pose a challenge to Labour should it head down the capital gains tax route. In the past the party has faced difficulties when articulating the detail of what would and would not be touched by a capital gains tax.

But what is unfair about the article is the way that the figures have been massaged to reach the 65% number.

A critical analysis of the survey, the question asked and the figures reveals that the suggestion that 65% of New Zealanders support a CGT is clearly wrong. Is it any wonder that there is a level of distrust for MSM.

The problem with an article such as that which appeared in the Herald is that the information contained in it will be repeated and recycled to the point that it becomes an incontestable fact and will be accepted as an inevitability by an uncritical audience. The article is an example of how we should feel about an issue rather than putting the unvarnished and unmassaged facts before the audience and letting them decide.

Another example about the way in which MSM may take a story and “spin”  - and as this comment develops the pun is intended - it is the reaction to a number of appointments to Government positions.

The appointments in question are of Richard Prebble to the Waitangi Tribunal, Philip Crump (Cranmer) to the Board of NZ On Air and Dr Stephen Rainbow and Dr Melissa Derby to the Human Rights Commission.

Duncan Grieve in the Spinoff covered the appointment of Philip Crump to the Board of NZ on Air under the headline “Is there room for conservatives in culture? NZ On Air is about to find out”. Grieve founded and ran The Spinoff but stepped down to assume the role of senior writer. Spinoff is a relatively new entrant to the media landscape and was noted in Stuff as “ every left-leaning, media-savvy, university-educated hipster you know (and probably their baby-boomer parents) are reading The Spinoff.” And Stuff reports that

“The Spinoff presents itself as a progressive, questioning, often humorous voice, and at times it can resemble a hyper-liberal fishbowl. That's another irony – Greive has been known to hold markedly right-wing views – "I've never voted for the Government that didn't win" –  but working with the young team at The Spinoff has influenced his outlook: "I guess it made me feel like we are in a much more challenging environment than perhaps I'd been privy to, prior." He now describes his position as "centrist".”

So how is Crump’s appointment a problem? The Left have seen NZ on Air as their special preserve. Crump, under the pseudonym Thomas Cranmer, wrote on political and cultural issues from a centre-right perspective.

Grieve reports that there was a theory

“that NZ on Air had succumbed to ideological capture by some. Particularly a range of conservative or right wing sources, including the Taxpayers’ Union, Family First and the Act Party. There is also a strain of current right-leaning politics which is sceptical about a number of aspects of the way we fund culture. The New Zealand Initiative’s chief economist Eric Crampton is a persistent critic of the Screen Production Rebate, which sends millions in tax back to film and TV makers. Act has recently openly put Creative NZ on notice about its decisions, particularly those pertaining to the poet Tusiata Avia.

Still, right-leaning organisations were not alone in perceiving an excess of interest in diversity and intersectionality. Screen veterans like Steven O’Meagher and John Barnett were also unusually public in their criticism of NZ on Air or the NZ FC.”

Now there is no doubt that a significant part of Cranmer’s writing was critical of MSM and diagnosed a combination of overreach, or failure to meaningfully address the complex, controversy-courting questions he was asking.

Grieve then observed that when Crump’s appointment was announced

“Within production, media, funding and commissioning, there was a broad sense of anxiety. A significant proportion of Crump’s writing could be characterised as media criticism, both news media and the sector more broadly. It diagnosed a combination of overreach, or failure to meaningfully address the complex, controversy-courting questions he was asking.

There was a widespread perception that Crump’s appointment was part of a broader pattern. The Spinoff editor Madeleine Chapman recently revealed that incoming race relations commissioner Melissa Derby and chief human rights commissioner Stephen Rainbow were each appointed without the endorsement of bipartisan appointment committees. That process was overseen by Goldsmith, who is also in charge of filling places on NZ On Air’s board.”

And goes on to suggest:

“It’s easy to view this as part of a broader right wing plot to either destabilise, radically reform or ultimately dismantle some key institutions that are perceived as having an inbuilt left wing tilt, or have acquired one in recent years. Opponents would suggest that platforms know NZ On Air’s preferences, and bring them what they want – or that it signals its politics through what it funds, and what it doesn’t.”

Grieve isn’t critical of Crump as an individual and notes that he has an affection for arts and culture but the tone is that his appointment may represent a shift in approach by NZ On Air despite the fact that Crump will be one of six.

What is interesting is whether or not this matters. After all has the best person for the job been selected. Because the Left constantly views the world through an ideological lens, the clear picture is that the presence of someone unconnected to their ideology is going to be a problem.

Grieve, to give him credit, observes:

“NZ On Air’s next board meeting is in November. Its decisions are always closely scrutinised; these next ones will be especially so. It’s only then that the screen community will see if Crump is the thoughtful, slightly pedantic character he comes across as in person, or whether his appointment really does represent the sharp ideological realignment some fear – and others are rooting for.”

The Human Rights Commission presents an entirely different picture. Former Chief Human Rights Commissioner Paul Hunt indicated that he would seek an extension of his term. The Government would have none of it.

The Human Rights Commission, rightly or wrongly is viewed as a Left Wing ideologically driven organization and this could well be the perception depending upon the way that its empowering legislation is interpreted.

Left-wing blogger Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury and The Spinoff editor Madeleine Chapman criticised Rainbow's appointment, citing his alleged transphobic and pro-Israel views. In mid-October 2024, Chapman reported that the independent panel set up to shortlist and interview candidates for the role did not recommend Rainbow. Goldsmith had pressed for Rainbow's appointment as Chief Human Rights Commissioner.

Melissa Derby’s appointment is also criticized by Chapman noting that she was a founding member of the Free Speech Union and has also raised eyebrows by sharing posts that were decidedly anti-trans. The Free Speech Union is viewed with suspicion by the Left for supporting the rights of freedom of expression for all regardless of content. The Left, of course, welcomes free speech as long as it conforms to their ideology.

Chapman concludes her piece by observing:

“So it’s mighty interesting that two of the highest positions regarding human rights in New Zealand are now held by people who have publicly voiced anti-trans views (among other questionable views)”

I assume those “other questionable views” may include supporting the freedom of expression.

In another piece Chapman is critical of the appointment process that was undertaken.

She reports

“Human rights commissioner appointments have historically been uncontroversial, even if the commissioners themselves sometimes court controversy in the role. But the appointments of Rainbow and Derby in particular sparked questions of process and intent, largely surrounding Rainbow’s vocal support of Israel and both Rainbow and Derby’s history of anti-trans views.

As the minister who oversaw their appointments, Goldsmith defended his decisions at the time, telling RNZ, “People express all sorts of views before they take up these roles, but I have every confidence that he will go about his work in a very open and inclusive way.”

But documents released under OIA to The Spinoff last week suggest the recruitment process wasn’t straightforward, with neither Rainbow nor Derby being put forward as shortlisted candidates by the independent panel tasked with conducting the “transparent process”.”

Now it could be argued that Martyn Bradbury’s Daily Blog and The Spinoff are not your typical MSM outlets and I concede that. However the stories that they have run on appointments – especially those by the Spinoff journalists – reflect much of the ideological thinking that underpins much of the opposition to the current Government.

Rather like Trump on 6 January 2021, many in the media seem to be unwilling to accept the result of the election. They fail to understand that vox populi vox dei. And they are fighting a rearguard action, street by street, until the next election where it will be all hands to the pumps to put the Left back in power and the world can turn in an ideologically correct manner.

Richard Prebble’s appointment to the Waitangi Tribunal is an interesting one and predictably there has been outrage from the Left. Prebble as a former Labour politician, born again as a member and leader of ACT can only be seen by the Left as an enemy.

Radio NZ reported that the Labour Party was furious with Prebble’s appointment. Willie Jackson - whose recent claim to fame is that he misunderstood the purpose of the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines, suggestinjg that they were directives to the Judges about sentencing (they weren’t and Mr Jackson should be aware of the Sentencing Act but clearly he isn’t) – described Prebble’s appointment as "unbelievable" and "a kick in the guts" for Māori.

"I think we were all in shock [on Thursday] ... but what next - are we going to make Don Brash the new chair of the tribunal?," Jackson said.

"It's just incredible what this government will do."

Jackson conceded that Prebble had skills and experience as a lawyer working in the Māori sector, the most important factor was his alignment with the ACT Party and its policies, in particular the Treaty Principles Bill (which has not yet been introduced).

A similar report appeared in Stuff.

Waatea News ran a piece by (surprise surprise) Martyn Bradbury which contained the following comment:

“Appointing people with different perspectives to important positions is crucial to ensure an intellectual tension that challenges the mettle of decisions, but appointing someone who has specifically called for the destruction of the very institute they are appointed to is a purposeful self-mutilation of a critical legal infrastructure that is being actively attacked by the very political Party Prebble was once the leader of!

Allowing Prebble, who was once the ACT Party Leader (and who pulled publicity stunts to call for the abolition of the Tribunal), to be appointed to that Tribunal while the latest incarnation of ACT is pushing to dismantle the Treaty with a Treaty Principles Referendum is as intellectually bankrupt as appointing Trump to run the Democratic Party to review his own decisions to see if they are all great.

For a Government and Prime Minister who constantly assures us is not anti-Māori or anti-Treaty, appointing to the Tribunal a political leader who campaigned on dismantling the Tribunal is nothing short of a kick in the face to all New Zealanders.

It highlights just how incredibly weak Luxon is as a Prime Minister to allow an appointment like this to occur in the first place.

Again, who is actually running this country? National or ACT and NZFirst?”

It may be that Prebble will bring some rigour to the Waitangi Tribunal which seems to favour a revisionist (some might say Marxist) view of history. Their 2014 decision He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti finding that the chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 did not give up their sovereignty to the British Crown flies in the face of the evidence and is an example of a retrospective approach to the writing of history. It is clear that much of the revisionist approach to Te Tiriti depends on the fact that sovereignty was not ceded. Thus the answer is to rewrite history so that, in a consummation devoutly to be wished but which is unsupported by the evidence, declaring that sovereignty was not ceded makes it so. It is a form of wish fulfillment.

That said there can be no doubt that Maori were treated badly in the early days of New Zealand settlement by Europeans and they are entitled to redress. That is the function of the Tribunal. To make declaration about whether or not proposed Bills, not presented to Parliament, are in breach of the Treaty has nothing to do with that fundamental purpose.

So to bring all of this back to my theme of media as influencers of feelings.

When you consider the appointments that have been made all of the organisations – NZ On Air, the Human Rights Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal – are statutory. All of the appointees have statutory duties. They cannot go beyond those duties. They are constrained by law. Thus, the suggestion that they may bring a particular ideology to the post is facile. Whatever ideology may be manifested will be limited by statutory constraints.

But of course the commentariat doesn’t see it that way and the articles are put out there not to present the facts about the appointment or the appointees but to prompt feelings about appointments and to provoke an emotional response. Mr. Crump with his legal training and the high level legal work that he did in London may be the best person for the job. But that doesn’t feature. He is seen as a conservative.

Mr. Rainbow and Ms Darby may be the best people for the job, even although they may not have been on the shortlist. Whatever expressions they may have made in the past will have to be constrained by their statutory obligations and duties. But that doesn’t feature in Ms Chapman’s pieces. What she describes as “transphobia” is an automatic disqualifier. The unspoken question behind the Human Rights Commission appointment is “how do you, the readers, feel about what has happened?”

Similarly with Mr Prebble. “What do you think about this well qualified lawyer and politician who has been intimately involved in Maori affairs as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal?” should be the question. But it is not. The proposition is “How do you feel about a former leader of the ACT party as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal.

I shall close this list of concerns with a personal story. It involves an experiment with MSM – the Herald in particular. How willing would the Herald be to publish an op-ed piece that went against their support and advocacy for the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.

So I wrote the op-ed piece. It was entitled “Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill – An Alternative Approach”. It contained my argument that the proper route for the use by platforms of MSM content or links to it lay in the field of copyright. So it did not argue that MSM was not entitled to some compensation. Just by a different route.

The piece was 700 words – the standard length of an op-ed which can run to 800 words. And I know how to write this stuff because I do it for the Listener in 600 words every fortnight.

The piece went to the Herald on 17 October 2024 with a covering email. It was not published. Receipt of the article and the covering email received neither response nor acknowledgement. I suspect that the messaging was not consistent with their position on the matter.

It tells you quite a bit not only about the Herald but also about its manners.

A healthy and trusted Fourth Estate is vital to a functioning democracy. MSM is going to have to work hard to recover that lost trust, and it may never do so. But it could start with returning to the facts, returning to reality and putting to one side the desire to influence feelings and therefore outcomes.

I shall conclude with some observations by Amazon founder and owner of the Washington Post Jeff Bezos which takes us back to the issue of trust in the media.

“We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.”