By Anna Whyte*
Opinion: Politicians and the media have always had a complicated relationship, and recently taking a swing at 'the media' has become somewhat of a political pastime. It's a tried and tested move. It's vague, provocative, and conveniently, it doesn't seem to require a follow-up plan.
A video from ACT leader David Seymour popped up on my Instagram feed while I was listening to birds chirping outside on a visit home to Motueka. The video is captioned: “Every day Kiwis ask me: ‘What are you going to do about the media?’ This proves exactly why.”
Seeing my head bobbing behind him in the video I wondered what we could have done that was so egregious to have warranted that caption. In the video, Seymour is surrounded by journalists responding to questions from RNZ regarding comments he made about the broadcaster.
The 43 second clip has Seymour saying: "...You guys tried to get an expert to try and criticise me, and the best they could come up with was, oh, he's broken the spirit of the rules."
"The only thing any of you guys have asked me a question about, except with respect to Herald asking about Kiwibank... What we have heard about is an interview I did on a show two weeks ago that wasn't reported for a week, and now you'd still like to talk about it. Kind of proves my point about why every day I get people asking me, what are you going to do about the media? Every day."
It is important to note that the deputy Prime Minister is, and always has been, extremely generous in giving his time to media. The press conference in question on May 12 was almost six minutes, and subsequently also covered the fees free policy, the new Te Tai Tokerau Party, the Election and if the Budget had been signed off. This is far from any type of criticism, and this clip is just one of many on a multitude of topics on his social media account.
Seymour is one of the first MPs down in what we call ‘bridge run’, where ministers and party leaders walk through the media pack on the way into Parliament. He answers every question and will almost always make sure to come back for the second bridge run. That’s not like all MPs, many who don’t seem to see the less than 10 minutes on sitting days as a priority.
The time politicians give to media is important because the public can't just ask their MPs questions whenever they want to as they have jobs and lives and their own problems, so that’s why the Press Gallery are there.
Despite what politicians like to say, people read, listen and watch stories that the Press Gallery produces.
Every decision made in that building has some sort of effect on a New Zealander - some small, and some that literally change lives. The public deserve to know what is being decided and debated in Parliament, via a range of different media outlets - not just one and they certainly deserve better than to live in a media vacuum flooded with content straight from politicians' social media accounts.
That's not to say journalists shouldn't be held accountable, we have the privilege of having a platform that many people don’t have. That’s why we have checks and balances, organisations like the Media Council and getting ripped into online or to our face if we get things wrong.
The public can choose to switch off the news or skip opening an article, they can disagree with a story and move on. But they can't choose to opt out of their taxes or the laws that govern their lives. There are only 123 people in New Zealand privileged enough to get the final say on both.
Politicians can say what they want about the media - that's fair, they're on the end of it a lot of the time. But, perhaps, it wouldn't hurt once in a while for them to reflect on the bigger picture.
From the journalists overseas risking their lives, such as Lisette Reymer's harrowing reporting from the war in Ukraine, to today - a pensioner's $85 parking fine waived for mistakenly parking for 16 minutes prior to a medical appointment after Stuff started asking questions. It shouldn't take media intervention to right wrongs, but in a lot of cases, it does.
So, what are politicians going to 'do about the media'? Are they going to treat it like any other sector, one with real workers, real pressures, with global platforms profiting from local content?
Or is it all just talk for a few social media likes?
Regardless, I know what I'm going to do 'about the media.' I'm going to keep doing my job.
*Anna Whyte chairs the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
19 Comments
Suggest the thrust of the criticism is the quality, intelligence and integrity of the reporting and certainly it is not intended to include journalists who respect and maintain those standards. Obviously today headlines are the flying banner of any sort of news outlet and the compilation of them are too often intentionally over graphic and actually misconstrue the actual facts, and the article itself follows suit. Those sort of hasty submissions smack of competitiveness amongst journalists to own a headline and thus a culture of self interest emerges. A good example of that culture was for example abundantly displayed during the pandemic. When PM Ardern at her first address at her soon to be famous podium, with the whole nation watching and waiting for the policy and direction that would affect everybody, the very first question from the attendant media was something like -how much is the media’s assistance package going to be, and when are we going to start getting it. On a final note go back and see how the late great Dame Tariana Turia was so accomplished in dismissing superficial jounalists.
Its everywhere
Beheading nek minit Stabbing
I had just watched the video then heard about the "stabbing" on Newstalk.
They're kinda the same thing?
Vastly different. A beheading in broad daylight on a suburban street is animal behaviour
Animals (other than us) don't use knives to my knowledge. But obviously its uncouth to attack a person with one no matter level of daylight or particular street.
Just noting that an unsuccessful beheading and stabbing are just semantics, and not a reason to distrust a report.
NZ MSM lost any shreds of integrity when they seized the PIJF & it's propagandist T&Cs with their unquestioning & craven hands. They don't deserve our support.
The press in NZ had a two-edged problem.
Firstly, they don't research the human predicament, in proportion. Occasionally they get close, as per Espiner interviewing Rockstrom (around minute 22). But those of us doing that research, could have told Espiner that Rockstrom, like Jason Hickel, is of the 'we can solve this and party on' brigade - and that the discussion has moved on (Professor Tom Murphy, UCAL, wrote a textbook titled Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet - then thought on; his dothemath blog rewards deep scrutiny.
So in essence the 'humans are superior to nature; economic growth can pay for mitigating itself - later, I want more in my back pocket' is a crock. A destined-to-overshoot-and-collapse/reduce trajectory. Being reported daily as 'the markets', ex any real accounting (like: amount of copper left to extract, at what concentration?).
Trapped in that crock, unable or unwilling to confront reality (and maybe just blind to it) they try and make sense of something which stared as nonsense. Well, that worked for a few decades, with the odd minor hiccup.
But we are at the Limits to Growth now - inflating keystroke-issued debt away, doesn't work on the downside. As Governments, local Governments and increasing numbers of individuals, are finding out. Thus the increasing disbelief int he output of the profession; thus rabbit-holes; thus politicians finding it harder - nay near impossible - to square away promises with delivery.
So the word I challenge here is 'keep'. My challenge is that the NZ media is not 'doing its job'. Not only that, my experience of the Press Council is that it does a flawed job of monitoring itself. Hint Anna: balance does not equal truth.
When the media don't cover that the NZ tax system allows people to pay zero tax rates on a profitable company's income (which most of the major outlets would be aware of since the 21st of May 2026); that a complaint sitting with the Ombudsman had not been investigated by the Ombudsman two years after the event; that the Auditor-General's office thinks the possibility of inheriting from a parent is too remote to be considered a financial conflict of interest for a councillor; that a consultation for ratepayers on a large infrastructure project may have been misleading in the details that were the entire point of the consultation; that owner-occupiers have a tax advantage over tenants due to not charging themselves rent on their home investment and so not having to pay income tax on their primary investment; and that NZ has the loosest voter eligibility rules for national elections in the world and that 675 people have signed a petition to change it (https://wiremuthomson.nz/static/doc/CitizensVoteTechnicalSubmission.pdf), but the media covers a petition with less signatures - then yes there is a problem with the media.
Regarding the 675-signature petition, what will happen if it goes ahead, will we have to have another expensive general election next year because the newly-elected government does not have the mandate to govern; or will it be passed through under urgency just before the election such that potentially eligible voters do not have time to become citizens in time to vote, which also undermines the legitimacy of the newly-elected government? If the media want help, it would be helpful if they reported on things so the government doesn't have to waste as much taxpayer money.
I agree with you that "It shouldn't take media intervention to right wrongs, but in a lot of cases, it does", but the media misses a lot, and often only covers supporting arguments for the exact opposite of what perhaps should be done (e.g. increasing tax advantages or use of KiwiSaver retirement savings (a.k.a. wealth)).
I think the fundamental problem with NZ media is that it's too elitist. Politics doesn't just happen inside the walls of Parliament, not every political view is represented by political parties, nor are the paid experts interpreting their crystal databases necessarily a good representation of what New Zealanders want.
Also, some reporters refer to Ipsos' Issues Monitor survey along the lines of "it's not in the top 10 issues Kiwis are concerned about", but the Ipsos survey asks for the top three concerns and then makes a list of the 20 most stated, so the reporter should actually say "it's not in the top 3 issues Kiwis on average are concerned about". If an issue is on 8% sitting at 13th then I believe that means that 8% of respondents put that issue in their top 3 concerns potentially alongside other generic popular choices such as the "Cost of Living", and the "Economy", so one can only imagine where it would sit if they were asked about their top 10 concerns.
I guess why I support interest.co is that you don't do that media problem Anna. Congratulations to you and DC.
But the media problem is rife, indeed it's outrageous.
As for the politicians not doing anything about it, what should they do. Imagine if they did. Rules and punishment. Respect the pollies for not getting into that.
I don't rate DC as a journalist.
Truth is ascertainable truth - it doesn't belong to anyone. You have to grasp that, to be a journo. And to be prepared to research, even if what you find out may threated your comfy status-quo.
Anna I suspect could be, intellectually (she could put herself through this: Programmed to Ignore? | Do the Math ) to find out. But from what I see, she hasn't delved into the Limits to Growth, the physics of energy or associated things (like planetary boundaries - which are essentially Limits).
On that cyclorama, the 'spread' between Left and Right (which I suspect she will see as wide and real) becomes as nothing; mere noise.
There are items of news that are standalone in importance and need to be published regardless of whether or not the journalist has a record or not of investigating other subject that their readers may be passionate about. For instance Kate MacNamara does not publish anything that is not carefully researched, nor without weighed up argument, where largely she lets the gathered facts just speak for themselves. In another vein, when he was still with us, I used to correspond with Sir Terry McLean, not only his acclaimed rugby and sports commentary, but articles arising from such as his thoughtful interview with the larger than life author James Michener. It is, in my opinion, both counterproductive and unappreciative to decry good journalism just because it might not cover one’s own major interest(s.)
The issue seems more the way we want to receive and digest our news, outlets are simply tailoring to our habits and what grabs our attention.
In that sense we're getting exactly what we want (revealed preference) but at the same time we're apparently not happy with the coverage we get. If we weren't reading/watching it they wouldn't be writing/producing it.
Publicly funded journalists and media copping it either way whilst YouTubers and bloggers are riding their coattails with glaring incentives to sow distrust for eyeballs and to flog off whatever product "they don't want you to know about" are gaining credibility for many.
Good on you Anna, keep doing your job. All those who keep bleating on about the MSM are basically silo thinkers. We should all hear from all sides.
"We should all hear from all sides."
Agree. Which is why the MSM has failed NZdrs (especially since 2020)
Jessica then Tova
You can 'hear' from all sides - but that is reporting, not journalism.
Journalism is attempting to ascertain the truth.
Which, typically, has no 'sides'.
Example being giving time for a flat-earth believer to debate with a spherical-understanding person. The latter has the truth - ascertainable with research/logic. If you give them equal time, you're giving a lie 50% exposure.
Which is exactly what is happening when the likes of RNZ parrots the Dow multiple time daily - but does not ask whether the numbers are physically supported (by a being-depleted planet).
Here are couple of truths.
SpaceX's IPO has just happened and this is a company with potential for limitless growth. We are not and never have been confined to any "being depleted planet".
But they can't choose to opt out of their taxes or the laws that govern their lives.
The taxes funding RNZ and TVNZ are mandatory for example.
Couldn't agree more with " It's a tried and tested move."
With the desired affect perfected by the Trump/MAGA machine.
I find each and every time a politician says something like this - it's an indication they don't really have anything of import to say. But the point of such criticism does have a singular objective - instill mistrust, confusion and distress in the general population.
The coalition partners all employ the Bannon playbook. Some more vociferously than others. David can see it working for Winston (based on poll results) - so we'll hear more of it from him.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.