Friday, August 26, 2005
Left-wing Media Bias
"Left-wing media bias": I've lost count of how many times I've heard those on the right scream this in the past year.
"Just look at the New Zealand Herald," they say, without citing actual examples, as is their way.
OK let's have a look at today's Herald then shall we and then maybe, just maybe, you'll all shut the fuck up.
What do we have on pg 1?
'National and Greens gain support' is the lead story which goes on to inform the public that:
Ummmm, I ain't no mathamatician but Labour was sitting on a lead of 6.4% in the last poll and is up to 6.6% even in the latter part of this poll.
No matter which way you look at it Labour's lead in the polls is increasing--OK its surge has been slowed but it's still increasing its lead!
You wouldn't know that from reading the fucking story though would ya.
In the 18 paragraph story this is how much is dedicated to the Greens' increase in the polls:
I would have thought perhaps the Greens becoming the third biggest political player in the country may have been more newsworthy than National doing better in the second half of a poll than they did in the first.
Instead, its nicely phrased with terms such as the Greens' "flagging support" and only a "marked improvment".
Readers are also greeted in the Herald by a massive picture of Don Brash chatting to workers on the front-page.
Granted, below the picture is small story by the Herald's political correspondent, titled 'National shoots its other foot', which hints briefly at National's latest fuck-up:
It then goes on to talk about polls.
That's the Herald's line then - "whether National would permit the chopping down of native trees does not matter much in the larger scheme of things".
Indeed, readers must turn to page 5 to read about "National's logging chopped by Brash".
The intro reads:
The journo then allows Brash to explain that:
Oh that's good then, National's forestry spokesman gets the benefit of the doubt and it's "not nearly" as embarrasing as the Prime Minister's "cavalcade".
The Herald gives Brash ample oppurtunity to clarify what his forestry policy actually is.
In the interests of balance the Herald gives Labour's Chris Carter half a sentence in reposnse: [because] "once again it is saying one thing to one group of people and a completely different thing to the rest of us".
Here's what Connell actually said when he announced National's forestry policy:
Connell seems fairly fucking unequivocal about it all doesn't he.
Strange wording for a discussion document too ain't it?
What I find telling is that there's no hitting up Brash on whether he expects us to really believe this wasn't National policy instead he just gets a free ride.
There's no screaming "U-turn" nor "back-down" commentry, fuck, Labour barely even gets a reply.
Compare this to the coverage page 3 story about the infamous 'speeding motorcade' and Labour Cabinet Ministers chipping in to cover the cops fines:
"Just look at the New Zealand Herald," they say, without citing actual examples, as is their way.
OK let's have a look at today's Herald then shall we and then maybe, just maybe, you'll all shut the fuck up.
What do we have on pg 1?
'National and Greens gain support' is the lead story which goes on to inform the public that:
National's tax-cut policy has arrested Labour's leap in support after its student loans and family tax relief announcements, the latest Herald DigiPoll survey suggests. Overall, Labour is comfortably ahead on 45.3 per cent, up 1.4 points from last month's poll. National is on 36 per cent, down 1.5. The difference between the two is 9.3 points. But comparisons between the two parts of the poll tell a different story. Part of the poll was conducted before National's tax announcement on Monday and the other part after it. Late last month, Labour promised it would wipe interest on student loans. After its tax package and before National's policy release, DigiPoll had conducted almost 40 per cent of its polling, which showed dramatic gains for Labour. It had stretched its lead to 13.7 points (Labour 46; National 32), well up on its 6.4 point lead in the last poll. The larger polling segment, taken after National's tax announcement, also has Labour leading National, but by a much reduced margin of 6.6 points.And doesn't the story read that "National is on 36 per cent, down 1.5" well what the fuck is it - is National gaining support as the headline reads or are they down 1.5%?
Ummmm, I ain't no mathamatician but Labour was sitting on a lead of 6.4% in the last poll and is up to 6.6% even in the latter part of this poll.
No matter which way you look at it Labour's lead in the polls is increasing--OK its surge has been slowed but it's still increasing its lead!
You wouldn't know that from reading the fucking story though would ya.
In the 18 paragraph story this is how much is dedicated to the Greens' increase in the polls:
To boost the Greens' flagging support, Prime Minister Helen Clark agreed to a symbolic public outing with Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons last week. That may have had some bearing on the Greens' marked improvement in the DigiPoll, doubling their support from 3.2 per cent to 6.4 per cent and pipping New Zealand First as the third most popular party.
I would have thought perhaps the Greens becoming the third biggest political player in the country may have been more newsworthy than National doing better in the second half of a poll than they did in the first.
Instead, its nicely phrased with terms such as the Greens' "flagging support" and only a "marked improvment".
Readers are also greeted in the Herald by a massive picture of Don Brash chatting to workers on the front-page.
Granted, below the picture is small story by the Herald's political correspondent, titled 'National shoots its other foot', which hints briefly at National's latest fuck-up:
Taken in isolation, the shambles over Brian Connell's unauthorised release of the party's forestry policy, the party's pulling of him from a radio interview and the confusion over whether National would permit the chopping down of more native trees does not matter much in the larger scheme of things.
It then goes on to talk about polls.
That's the Herald's line then - "whether National would permit the chopping down of native trees does not matter much in the larger scheme of things".
Indeed, readers must turn to page 5 to read about "National's logging chopped by Brash".
The intro reads:
National Party leader Don Brash stepped in and overrode his forestry spokesman yesterday, categorically denying that National would resume logging on the West Coast. He said a document released by Brian Connell headed "forestry policy" was actually a discussion document that had not been ratified by the party's board.
The journo then allows Brash to explain that:
"We will not be resuming logging in any form on the West Coast while I'm leader of the National Party". The issue proved a distraction from his attempts to sell his party's $3.9 billion tax cut policy and is understood to have infuriated colleagues of Mr Connell. Dr Brash said it was "not nearly as embarrassing as the PM's cavalcade through South Canterbury" but conceded: "It's unhelpful, certainly". But Dr Brash gave Mr Connell the benefit of the doubt.
Oh that's good then, National's forestry spokesman gets the benefit of the doubt and it's "not nearly" as embarrasing as the Prime Minister's "cavalcade".
The Herald gives Brash ample oppurtunity to clarify what his forestry policy actually is.
In the interests of balance the Herald gives Labour's Chris Carter half a sentence in reposnse: [because] "once again it is saying one thing to one group of people and a completely different thing to the rest of us".
Here's what Connell actually said when he announced National's forestry policy:
....The decision [Labour's] to stop all indigenous logging on the West Coast of the South Island destroyed a hitherto sustainable indigenous forest industry....[What will National do?]...Allow selective sustainable harvesting of native beech trees from privately owned forests and will review similar production from carefully selected areas of crown-owned forests including the South Island’s West Coast. Inherent in this policy is an absolute commitment that National will not touch forests already protected under New Zealand’s national parks and reserves network.
Connell seems fairly fucking unequivocal about it all doesn't he.
Strange wording for a discussion document too ain't it?
What I find telling is that there's no hitting up Brash on whether he expects us to really believe this wasn't National policy instead he just gets a free ride.
There's no screaming "U-turn" nor "back-down" commentry, fuck, Labour barely even gets a reply.
Compare this to the coverage page 3 story about the infamous 'speeding motorcade' and Labour Cabinet Ministers chipping in to cover the cops fines:
The whip-round has been slammed by National deputy leader Gerry Brownlee. He said he was pleased the police officers would not have to fork out themselves, but criticised the Prime Minister for not taking responsibility during the trial but accepting fault by paying the bill. He said Dr Cullen had repeatedly said the officers worked for ministers and should not have to pay for doing their job - which indicated they had been directed to speed. "It's almost too cynical to believe but I'm afraid so very typical of the way Helen Clark operates her Government, whereby you can fix anything with a chequebook," said Mr Brownlee.
Comments:
Bennyasena say: "Left-wing media bias": I've lost count of how many times I've heard those on the right scream this in the past year. "Just look at the New Zealand Herald," they say, without citing actual examples, as is their way.
Dinkas says: I love the irony of you complaining about the right-wingers not 'citing actual examples' of the left-wing media bias, but then you fail to give one single example of such behaviour. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Google has been helpful in giving me two examples of David Farrar talking about left wing media bias with (shock, horror) him mentioning actual examples
DPF 1 & DPF 2
NZ Herald isn't too bad and are fairly neutral, but surely you don't think that the Listener and National Radio are neutral. If that is the case, then Fox News is also neutral.
-Dinkas
Dinkas says: I love the irony of you complaining about the right-wingers not 'citing actual examples' of the left-wing media bias, but then you fail to give one single example of such behaviour. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Google has been helpful in giving me two examples of David Farrar talking about left wing media bias with (shock, horror) him mentioning actual examples
DPF 1 & DPF 2
NZ Herald isn't too bad and are fairly neutral, but surely you don't think that the Listener and National Radio are neutral. If that is the case, then Fox News is also neutral.
-Dinkas
# posted by 
: 26 August 2005 at 15:52
: 26 August 2005 at 15:52
dinkas, you've been a bit testy lately.
The increasing possibility that we will get a left wing government for another 3 years perhaps?
The Herald is craporama, as is the sunday star whipup a scandal times and TVNZ is a shocker as well. Every time I buy the Herald I cringe at at least one or two stories which have headlines bearing little relationship with the actual story, and stories which repeat some tossers case without question.
And leading last nights news on one is another rock going through a bus window and then getting token coverage a few items later is the countries crime rate going down 7.1% in the past year.
What's the bigger fucking story? A rock through a bus window (an incident of crime) or ALL FUCKING CRIME IN THE COUNTRY OVER A YEAR.
That is pure bullshit TV coverage.
Is the TV1 news serious or does it want to turn into a womans magazine? They have even started introducing Close Up during the news with Bailey asking Wood what's on tonights show.
Magazine tripe.
meanwhile crime down, unemployment down, total number on benefits down...
The increasing possibility that we will get a left wing government for another 3 years perhaps?
The Herald is craporama, as is the sunday star whipup a scandal times and TVNZ is a shocker as well. Every time I buy the Herald I cringe at at least one or two stories which have headlines bearing little relationship with the actual story, and stories which repeat some tossers case without question.
And leading last nights news on one is another rock going through a bus window and then getting token coverage a few items later is the countries crime rate going down 7.1% in the past year.
What's the bigger fucking story? A rock through a bus window (an incident of crime) or ALL FUCKING CRIME IN THE COUNTRY OVER A YEAR.
That is pure bullshit TV coverage.
Is the TV1 news serious or does it want to turn into a womans magazine? They have even started introducing Close Up during the news with Bailey asking Wood what's on tonights show.
Magazine tripe.
meanwhile crime down, unemployment down, total number on benefits down...
Oh and on that John Banks link. Thats a shocker.
My father had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Banks up close during his mayoralty and he was in absolute disbelief at how fucking useless he was.
My father would regularly rattle off the things Banks said he had done and how he had nothing to do with them.
It was well known in certain circles and thankfully in larger circles after good articles like that one that anything he claimed credit for was done by other people or was set up before he arrived.
I remember Banks slagging something, then it opens to fanfare and he's their taking credit for it. Something called Britomart springs to mind.
The only thing Banks did was open his mouth too much.
Stating the facts is a gay example of media bias... and an old one.
My father had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Banks up close during his mayoralty and he was in absolute disbelief at how fucking useless he was.
My father would regularly rattle off the things Banks said he had done and how he had nothing to do with them.
It was well known in certain circles and thankfully in larger circles after good articles like that one that anything he claimed credit for was done by other people or was set up before he arrived.
I remember Banks slagging something, then it opens to fanfare and he's their taking credit for it. Something called Britomart springs to mind.
The only thing Banks did was open his mouth too much.
Stating the facts is a gay example of media bias... and an old one.
The second link is very interesting.
Not so much MCCully but the comments after it.
The slight left-wing nature of journalists. Balanced by the more powerful (ie editors) who are to the right dictating what stories get run with and what slant is taken.
Not so much MCCully but the comments after it.
The slight left-wing nature of journalists. Balanced by the more powerful (ie editors) who are to the right dictating what stories get run with and what slant is taken.
I'd say the Herald has a populist bias, rather than a left or a right one -- they just report on and spin in favour of whatever's flavour of the month. That rock through the bus window is a good one -- it wouldn't have got nearly as much coverage if it weren't for that guy getting a concrete block dropped on his car.
Similarly, a little girl is badly mauled by a dog, and suddenly there's dog attacks all over the place, as if they never happened before.
Similarly, a little girl is badly mauled by a dog, and suddenly there's dog attacks all over the place, as if they never happened before.
Dinkas:
I could have been more clear.
I was trying to refer specifically to the NZ Herald, and its alleged left-wing bias, that right-minded media associates of mine constantly whinge about.
I don't think anyone reading the Listener expects it to be neutral, nor do people reading say the NBR or the Independent.
They've got well-known ideological positions.
I don't listen to enough of Radio NZ to have an informed opionion on it.
But when you've got the country's main newspaper, supposedly politically neutral, being accused of promoting the left, when in my eyes it definitely is not, then its time to look at its content.
What I have cited is the NZ Herald today going EASY on National (forestry), interpreting their poll's findings to paint National in the best possible light (lead story), virtually ignoring the Greens in that same story, and granting National far more copy to attack Labour in their stories than they grant Labour(cavalcade)!
There clearly is no left-wing conspiracy at work at the Herald.
I could have been more clear.
I was trying to refer specifically to the NZ Herald, and its alleged left-wing bias, that right-minded media associates of mine constantly whinge about.
I don't think anyone reading the Listener expects it to be neutral, nor do people reading say the NBR or the Independent.
They've got well-known ideological positions.
I don't listen to enough of Radio NZ to have an informed opionion on it.
But when you've got the country's main newspaper, supposedly politically neutral, being accused of promoting the left, when in my eyes it definitely is not, then its time to look at its content.
What I have cited is the NZ Herald today going EASY on National (forestry), interpreting their poll's findings to paint National in the best possible light (lead story), virtually ignoring the Greens in that same story, and granting National far more copy to attack Labour in their stories than they grant Labour(cavalcade)!
There clearly is no left-wing conspiracy at work at the Herald.
Isn't it amazing how suddenly we have bus drivers and companies and trains (in Christchurch) coming out now and telling how there's a real problem with this.
It got me wondering what other similar stories are floating arond that just 'aren't news' or aren't talked about.
I wonder how many stories of telecom ripping customers off there are out there?
It got me wondering what other similar stories are floating arond that just 'aren't news' or aren't talked about.
I wonder how many stories of telecom ripping customers off there are out there?
Yamis
Moi, testy? I suppose only getting 3 hours of sleep last night didn't help, but mid-semesters are over so who fucking cares about sleep. Ok, so I am not happy that Labour might win.
So the new mayor of Auckland is much better than Banks? What has he done recently?
The media have always been like that. I hate watching the TV news here in Aus. As much as I hate the ABC, they have a good news show at 10:30pm which I watch sometimes.
Josh: I agree completely with your comment on the Herald having a populist bias.
Bennyasena: I thought you were referring to right-wing blogs instead of your colleagues (so obviously you can't provide a link to what your colleagues have said) so for that I apologise for jumping the gun. Although, my main point of you not providing examples in your initial post still stands, I just thought it was rather ironic really.
You do realise I could cite examples of the NZ Herald actually promoting the left, like this article on National's tax cuts leaving kids in poverty. The article makes no mention whether they are referring to absolute or relative poverty. The headline struck me as unusual and then I continued reading the article and then I read the reason why National's tax cuts would leave kids in 'poverty' and that is "because its tax cuts would raise the after-tax median income."
Damn, if we were all poor that is ok. Call it income inequality or relative poverty, but none of this 'poverty' shit.
Re your criticism of the Herald stories, I should point out that the Herald still pointed out the Green's rise in polls in the the headline (if they hadn't have mentioned it then I can understand your criticism). And as the breakdown of the poll showed, National went from 13 points behind to 6 behind (7 point difference) as a result of their tax policy. Given National's tax policy, the leader's debate etc, I think it is understandable Audrey Young main focus in the article would be on the poll's breakdown and National's performance. Perhaps, I am showing my own bias, but I saw nothing wrong with the article - she still mentions the Green's rise in the polls.
I don't think the story on forestry shows National in a good light at all. At best, it was mistake, at worst complete incompetence and no control over policy. It just shows they are light years behind Labour and their well-oiled ship at the moment.
-Dinkas
Moi, testy? I suppose only getting 3 hours of sleep last night didn't help, but mid-semesters are over so who fucking cares about sleep. Ok, so I am not happy that Labour might win.
So the new mayor of Auckland is much better than Banks? What has he done recently?
The media have always been like that. I hate watching the TV news here in Aus. As much as I hate the ABC, they have a good news show at 10:30pm which I watch sometimes.
Josh: I agree completely with your comment on the Herald having a populist bias.
Bennyasena: I thought you were referring to right-wing blogs instead of your colleagues (so obviously you can't provide a link to what your colleagues have said) so for that I apologise for jumping the gun. Although, my main point of you not providing examples in your initial post still stands, I just thought it was rather ironic really.
You do realise I could cite examples of the NZ Herald actually promoting the left, like this article on National's tax cuts leaving kids in poverty. The article makes no mention whether they are referring to absolute or relative poverty. The headline struck me as unusual and then I continued reading the article and then I read the reason why National's tax cuts would leave kids in 'poverty' and that is "because its tax cuts would raise the after-tax median income."
Damn, if we were all poor that is ok. Call it income inequality or relative poverty, but none of this 'poverty' shit.
Re your criticism of the Herald stories, I should point out that the Herald still pointed out the Green's rise in polls in the the headline (if they hadn't have mentioned it then I can understand your criticism). And as the breakdown of the poll showed, National went from 13 points behind to 6 behind (7 point difference) as a result of their tax policy. Given National's tax policy, the leader's debate etc, I think it is understandable Audrey Young main focus in the article would be on the poll's breakdown and National's performance. Perhaps, I am showing my own bias, but I saw nothing wrong with the article - she still mentions the Green's rise in the polls.
I don't think the story on forestry shows National in a good light at all. At best, it was mistake, at worst complete incompetence and no control over policy. It just shows they are light years behind Labour and their well-oiled ship at the moment.
-Dinkas
# posted by : 26 August 2005 at 20:34
: 26 August 2005 at 20:34
For what it's worth the I did a bit on the crime stat's yesterday from a purely Canterbury focus. Yes overall the crime rate had dropped (to its lowest level in 10 years), however violent offending was up (7.2%) following an increase in 2003-04 (6.5%). Now does this mean, as a journalist I have a right wing bias?
Or did it mean I avoided the spin on the Police press release that devoted a page and a half to the overall drop and less than one paragraph to the violent offending figures?
What worries people more; police busting people for trespassing, orpopping E's (which they're quite good at incidentally ... ask Marc, he knows), or are they concerned about the possibility of being mugged, murdered, raped, or beaten to a bloody pulp?
Or did it mean I avoided the spin on the Police press release that devoted a page and a half to the overall drop and less than one paragraph to the violent offending figures?
What worries people more; police busting people for trespassing, orpopping E's (which they're quite good at incidentally ... ask Marc, he knows), or are they concerned about the possibility of being mugged, murdered, raped, or beaten to a bloody pulp?
Post a Comment