Slating A Story

How News Media Get Their Message Across

This is an article about an article. It demonstrates how the news media or a journalist may slant a story for a particular purpose by paragraph positioning and structure.

The article in question is headlined “New Zealand’s housing crisis: Older Kiwis in large homes, younger families struggle.”

The moral premise that sits behind the article is that those usually older members of the population who live in large houses are denying that part of the housing stock to those who have a greater need.

This thinking was well articulated by Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme - Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen – From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

The article (which I reproduce in full below) starts with a statement that is designed to shock.

“Many four-bedroom houses nationwide are lived in by only one or two people, new data shows.”

The article then goes on to state the data, refers to the census and also the distribution data.

It then contains a loaded statement

“People living in homes bigger than they need are sometimes blamed for restricting housing supply.”

To provide evidence that this is an example of exclusion of a proportion of the market by selfishness, reference is made to a paper by Richard McLaughlan of Victoria University who says that large dwelling which could cater for growing families are being underutilised by the older generation. He suggests that there could be a programme to provide for homes that would better suit this cohort of the population.

LinkedIn indicates that McLaughlin is a Senior Policy adviser at the Inland Revenue Dept and holds a conjoint Bachelor’s degree in Law and Commerce with a major in Public Policy.

McLaughlan’s paper was published in (2020) 16 Policy quarterly (Victoria University of Wellington. Institute for Governance and Policy Studies). Does this fit the description of “New”.

The paper recommends incentives to the older generations to downsize to smaller homes towards the end of their life cycle as a possible solution to the intergenerational inequality regarding access to affordable housing in New Zealand and examines the housing supply and demand factors facing millennials, particularly in contrast to those that faced baby boomers.

The article goes on to enlarge upon the nature of what is perceived as a problem and why it is that older people are retaining their homes, which co-incidentally are large and were formerly homes for a family unit.

Reference is made to “spare bedrooms”, people “consuming more house than they need” “and underutilised housing”. Note that the language is emotive.

Once again the emphasis is on need. I will get to the other side of the argument shortly.

Observe the use of language – of the loaded language of judgement and implied criticism.

Up until this point there has been the description of a problem. Once the problem is identified the hunt begins for who should be blamed. The approach is to make the problem a moral issue. And the language of Marxism is employed with a particular focus on need.

Casting the argument as a moral problem and making a judgement – you have a bigger house than you need and you should move to somewhere smaller – is the focal point of the article and is all expressed in the first few paragraphs. A confronting statement followed by reference to data and the opinion of a policy analyst.

The problem is that there are rights – property rights – that get in the way of the article’s moral “imperatives”.

The article quite properly records these, but it seems that those rights arise more as an afterthought – a grudging acknowledgement rather than a right. This is all controlled by the author with assistance no doubt from a sub-editor.

 Kelvin Davidson of Corelogic makes a rather late appearance in the article. This demonstrates the power of structure. The major moral arguments have been made. Oh, and by the way there is a legal issue to be considered here.

Mr. Davidson properly remarks that downsizing or moving is a matter of choice for the individuals involved. There is no moral imperative that demands downsizing.

Ed McKnight of Opes Partners – again appearing late in the article – observes

“most people valued having extra space and sometimes a spare bedroom might be doubling as an office.

And, although it might not be lived in all year round, they’re often used for friends or family to stay.”

On the other hand it seems to me implicit in Shamubeel Eaqub’s comment that there should be downsizing but asking people to do so is not easy.

Mr. Eaqub also points to overcrowding  in poorer communities although there may be other imperatives in play than simply not enough homes.

When we look at the structure of the article the moral nature of the problem is emphasised at the beginning. This is where structure is critical. Many readers will have paid attention to the first few paragraphs, but possibly may have flagged by the time the stats and numbers were put forward. Thus the arguments of Mr. Davidson and Mr. McKnight would warrant flagging attention. The only reason they are there is for balance.

The subtext of the article is that selfish old people who own their own homes and have more rooms than they need are keeping young families out of the housing market, ignoring the fact that it may be difficult for a young family to afford one of these larger homes.

What the article is silent upon, and what should have been emphasised at the outset, is that these homes are the lawful property of the occupants. They have been purchased by the owners who have legal title to them.

Ownership is not absolute. You can’t do anything you like with your property. Council by-laws get in the way. The Resource Management Act imposes restraints.

But no one (yet) can force you to move.

It may be that the four bedroom house is now being occupied by two people. The children have moved on. The mortgage has been paid. A room is available for guests or visitors or family visits. A bedroom may have been transformed into a study/library. The garden provides a valuable opportunity to commune with nature, grown plants and vegetables and enjoy the fresh air – especially in summer.

All these aspects of property ownership have arisen in the main from hard work, careful financial management and a desire, now that the children have left and the mortgage is paid off, to enjoy the fruits of the owners’ labour.

Yet here we have some self-righteous Lefties demanding, without any legal rationale, that the property be sold and that the owners downsize. Who are they to determine that need is based on a ration of occupants to rooms? Who are they to dictate moral requirements to property ownership?

In my view John Locke’s labour theory of property rights trumps the whining of the Socialists. Locke proposed his theory of property rights in the Second Treatise of Government in 1690. The theory explains how people can acquire private property through labour. Locke's theory is still influential today and has shaped government policies and individual beliefs and behaviours.

So when it comes to articles of this nature, read them carefully. Focus not only on the words, but how they are used. Look at the structure of the article. Does it make its strongest points first. The Herald actually has developed the habit in some articles (but not this one) of isolating three main points that the article raises (if a form that looks suspiciously like AI has been deployed) What about the use of language? Is it emotive or are the arguments expressed in such a way as to generate an emotional response?

And importantly, check out the provenance of the article and its author. This article came to my attention via the Herald. In fact it originates from Radio NZ – known by some as “Red Radio”. The author of the article is described as Susan Edmunds, Money Correspondent. A brief bio can be found here.

The article as it appeared in the Herald for 19 November 2024 follows.

______________________________________________________________

“New Zealand’s housing crisis: Older Kiwis in large homes, younger families struggle.”

Many four-bedroom houses nationwide are lived in by only one or two people, new data shows.

Census data reveals the proportion of homes with four or more bedrooms being lived in by one or two people is as high as 62% in Thames-Coromandel, 56% in Kaikōura, 54% in Buller, Central Otago and Westland, and 55% in the Mackenzie district.

In Auckland, it is 27%, Wellington 30% and Christchurch 36%.

People living in homes bigger than they need are sometimes blamed for restricting housing supply.

A 2020 paper by Richard McLaughlan of Victoria University suggested there were many large dwellings more suited to young and expanding families being “under-utilised” by the older generation. He said there could be a system of financial incentives and Kiwibuild-style development to produce homes that might better suit these people.

McLaughlan said the tax system also created an incentive to stay in large houses in well-located areas, in return for increases in equity.

The proportion of homes with two or more spare bedrooms has increased substantially since the early 1990s.

It was 40.3% last year, compared with 30.2% in 1991. During this period, the composition of households has changed while homes have increased in size.

There are almost 687,000 houses nationally with two or more bedrooms spare and almost 550,000 with one bedroom spare.

Infometrics chief forecaster Gareth Kiernan said the growth had been largely among people aged 65-69 and 70-plus.

“This result is probably at least partly due to improved health outcomes, which mean people are able to continue living independently and in a bigger home for longer than in the past.”

He said it was a multifaceted issue.

“There has been a trend towards larger houses up until about 2010 that has meant there has been an increasing proportion of people who are consuming more house than they need. We’ve also had an ageing population, and with older people naturally more likely to have under-utilised housing because their children have left home but they are still living in the family home, there’s a larger proportion of people falling into this category.

“I think we’ve also seen a gradual change in behaviour over the last 30 years, where more people are now choosing to retire in the main centres rather than moving to Tauranga — as it was in the 1990s, the Kāpiti Coast or Timaru. Without that catalyst of moving to a retirement location and naturally downsizing as part of the process, it means there will probably be a greater proportion of older people who continue to live in the family home and have under-utilised housing.”

CoreLogic chief property economist Kelvin Davidson said if people with excess space moved to smaller houses it would help ease supply pressures.

“But that’s a choice for the individual to make and ultimately, I’d still just say that building more houses in future — of the right size, type and location — is still the best approach.

“The Government is obviously pushing pretty hard on that right now.”

Opes Partners economist Ed McKnight said most people valued having extra space and sometimes a spare bedroom might be doubling as an office.

“And, although it might not be lived in all year round, they’re often used for friends or family to stay.

“I also wouldn’t look at this thinking that some people are hoarding rooms. For instance, a young couple might decide to buy a three-bedroom house even though it is just them. Their plan might be to have two children, each with their own room. Or they might have one as a child’s room and one as a guest bedroom.

“Similarly, a quarter of households have just one person. But that person might value having the extra space, for instance, if they are a parent who likes to have their children and grandchildren to stay. What this data shows is that many Kiwis are willing to spend the money to have extra space because that is how they want to live. And if that’s how they want to allocate their spending, then that can make sense for their situation.”

Economist Shamubeel Eaqub said asking people to move to smaller homes was not easy.

“There’s an issue of where people go to downsize. As there is often insufficient stock of smaller homes — and slow supply — meaning selling a big old house doesn’t necessarily buy you a smaller-sized home that’s suitable for an older person.”

People often wanted to stay in their communities, too, Eaqub said.

He said the data also showed the heaviest crowding was happening in areas such as Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Ōtara-Papatoetoe and Manurewa.

Porirua, Gisborne, Ōpōtiki and Kawerau also had relatively higher levels of crowded homes.