RadioNZBias

2004-04-07T21:09:00.000+12:00

IMPROVE YOUR LISTENING PLEASURE

Cease to listen. If you thought the smugness of polling at 50% was bad try the desperation of political reporting and discussion when Labour is in trouble.

Dismal. So I ceased to listen.

Although it would be a shame to miss out on the good stuff - I remain an unhappy fan of National Radio - of which there is much. But you know, the market will provide you with what you want and need if you only look far enough:

Take Blogs for example:
Diversity.
Interactive media.
Many 'channels' of content.
A way of escaping the bias of NZ media

All gloriously provided by people doing their own thing. I celebrate and salute them. Some are even run by collectives - but I predict that the most common form of 'organisation' as in the wider economy will be either the individual or the company.

But sorry folks, I am enjoying my sabbatical from this particular niche and will not tune in to the polluted, captured, and damaged treasure that is National Radio.

Not yet.

Maybe after Easter.

Enjoy your break.

2004-02-12T22:26:00.000+13:00

DECLARATION OF BIAS:

We are social and economic liberals. We like to read people like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman. We have spelling difficulties too. Sometimes.

2004-02-12T11:04:00.000+13:00

QUOTE OF THE DAY

"Do not ask what you can do for your country, ask what's for lunch"
- Orson Welles

A contributor has made some great points. The one above, not the least of them!

MEDIA BAN RACIST?

Respondents have had us on about our throwaway comment on the media ban at Waitangi... they have a point: This deserves further attention, and better writing and thinking than we have so far given the subject. So here is a taste of it...

One of us likens it to this situation in the UK: The Carlton Club in London has a membership policy: only by invitation. The effect of the policy is this: only men get full membership, a very few women get 'associate membership' (Margaret Thatcher was offered one of these).

Just because they deny many men membership, and 'admit' a very few women, does not make their membership policy 'not sexist' - it plainly is sexist, and stupid... this walks and talks a lot like the structure of the media ban mentioned at Waitangi - hence our comment.

The media ban maybe entirely defensible if it was solely on the ground of Te Reo speakers only... Journos at mainstream media that are Te Reo speakers remain banned however... so that disproves that.

We suspect this is the root of the problem. They might not be as sympathetic as the
organisations 'selected' by the criteria.

But we are happy to be pulled up: we should not make such statements without providing our reasoning. So here is our reasoning, what do you folk out there think?

2004-02-09T20:20:00.000+13:00

Why do you use a psuedonym?

I/we/the computer consists of a few people. But politics can get nasty, we have day jobs and children and we are not running for public office – so we don’t have to tell you. We don’t have to be accountable – because we don’t spend your money doing this. RNZ on the other hand, they are spending your money…my money... money that could buy better things... roughly 1000 heart bypass operations for example. But we are big on bias - and we must declare it: we are social and economic liberals in the Adam Smith / Milton Friedman tradition.

Why don’t you refer to specific broadcasts? Or be specific other media?

Well, I have had a look, and often the reference has been a casual ‘the 6 pm news yesterday’ or the ‘a programme with race relations conciliators from SA, Australia etc.’ - which we did in our last post – sufficient to reference the actual programme. However, nice to know you are reading, and we will make an effort to be precise. I have been flamed by other media for bringing their commentary into the column but I should not let that put me off! As a general rule the alternative commercial radio channel being referred to ZB. Likewise I will make an effort to be more specific with these references as well.

Is your perception of imbalance just because the views do not fit your own?

Maybe. See comments about accountability above. However, a big piece of research was done and is available here: www.act.org.nz/radiobias. Think what you like about the authors… before you dismiss it, read it.

Are you unfair just looking at one or two broadcasts – shouldn’t you look at the breadth of the output?

True. The report above does that in a much more scientific way than I have time for. All we can do is provide a forum to discuss possible bias. On balance, we find that bias exists, you may not – but you should look at the evidence first.

In essence - RNZ may be balancing up too much ‘pro-market’ coverage in commercial providers, so aren’t your comments unfair?

The report above found that commercial providers generally provided a mix that more or less reflected the electorate – understandable in a small media market where you have to try and please everybody (unlike the UK where you can make enough money pandering to one political group or another and therefore tend to get papers of the left or right). RNZ therefore doesn’t have to be more left-wing to compensate.

You appear to have a thesis that RNZ is too pro the current government…

Actually my main concern is that state-owned media can never be considered entirely free from its masters. So the state should not own it.

Regardless of the stripe of government and the care of management problems arise.

The post below on the BBC covers this well.

However, RNZ would tend to be more left-wing in its bias because it represents a form of state intervention in the radio media market. In order to preserve their livelihoods RNZ’s people must therefore be broadly in favour of this form of intervention. This would mean that their views would tend to greater concordance with a government of the left than of the right.

That’s how it appears to us.

Why do you discuss subjects only distantly related to RNZ…or they are a bit sparse…is bias hard to find?

Sometimes to bring up a subject that we think is not being covered – omissions being part of possible bias. Sometimes because its nice to think about how an issue could have been covered. At other times because we get bored (hey I’m not spending your money remember). Generally we have no difficulty in finding something to post. But, as www.nzpundit.com said “some masochist is blogging Radio New Zealand”.
Occasionally, I get sick of the pain.

We also just have to have a break and earn our keep. So as not to be a burden on you hard working taxpayers…

For the man who posted these questions and the vigorous answers to some of them. We loved your mail. We have readers! Yay!

2004-02-08T16:27:00.000+13:00

THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Amongst strenuous attempts by media to 'prove' that Maori do not get more than their fair share - which may or may not be true, and is completely beside the point - ...

...if targeting by need rather than ethnicity would generate the same results: why don't we do it that way and get rid of the slur of race-based funding?

...if the proposed solution to the foreshore and seabed issue will really result in no gain for Maori, why not accept simple, straightforward public ownership?

...and if all this is true, what, then, is the role of the Ministry for Maori Affairs?

GREAT SITES

www.nzpundit.com
www.johannhari.com
www.littlegreenfootballs.com

2004-02-07T18:23:00.000+13:00

STAY IN TOUCH

Email us on: radionzbias@yahoo.co.nz

2004-02-07T18:19:00.000+13:00

FOR THE HARD OF THINKING

For clarity let us refer to a dictionary for a definition of racism:

"Race hatred, rivalry, or feeling: belief in inherent superiority of some races over others, usually with implications of a right to rule: discriminative treatment based on such a belief." (Chambers).

I quote from Don Brash's speech: "National will focus its welfare reform efforts on the areas of need. Skin colour is irrelevant. New Zealanders who are in need will get assistance because they need it, not because they are Maori."

FACT FREE DEBATE

You could grab dozens of such points from Brash's speech. None of his detractors use his actual words because, unhelpfully, they do not paint the speech as racist.

So Radio New Zealand continues this approach with an achingly left-wing debate hosting current and former race relations conciliators from Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand.

The continuously repeated question was: "Was Don Brash being racist?". Any twelve year-old could read his speech, and the definition of racism from all but the weirdest dictionaries and come to that conclusion.

So was there bias in the RNZ piece?

Yes; To demonstrate that point, let us consider an alternative show, where we repeat the question: "Is Titewhai Harewira a racist?" or how about: "Is John Tamahere a racist?". Repeat this often enough, and you would be subject to a deluge of criticism.

At least RNZ possessed some subtlety. One commentator simply falls to lumping National, Act, and NZ First together, accusing them all of 'playing the race card'. Anyone remotely interested in politics will spot this for what it is - a desperate attempt to deligitimise a sensible question by linking it with the loony right (sorry Winston, but thats how we see you).

Labour has introduced the most restrictive immigration regime in years as a response to Winston's successful playing the race card. It is awful. Anyone that cares about human liberty would consider the rules a racist disgrace. Lots of research in New Zealand and overseas shows the powerful net contribution overall of migration - with or without the higher levels of attainment in English now required. But most kiwis are happy to limit Asian migration, and thus approve. There is a concordance of interest with extreme Maori concerned at increased migration threatening their view of New Zealand as a bi-cultural state - when in fact it is multi-cultural.

Next up, is that Labour has itself very successfully played the race card. It has hoovered up votes from Maori and Pacific Islanders as it has increasingly spent more more and more on ethnically targeted spending. As revealed in recent reviews of spending by Government by ACT.

Any disproportionate pay-off to a special interest group needs scrutiny - not withstanding that it may pass that scrutiny, since there is clearly a strong link between ethnicity and need.

Radio New Zealand is clearly incapable of being part of that scrutiny - it has too much to lose if the current system changes, because it is a special interest group fed by the same system. So if it cannot participate in national debates of this kind, what use is it?

2004-02-05T23:10:00.000+13:00

Lessons from Auntie Beeb

State ownership creates a fundamental conflict of interest. You may be unaware of the storm of criticism of the BBC because of - to put it kindly - the narrow reporting in local media. If you have been dreamily marching along thinking the Hutton report was a big problem for Tony Blair, well, it remains a bigger one for the Beeb.

Not just Bombs

It turns out that, wrong though it may seem now, Kelly believed that weapons of mass destruction could be ready quickly for use in war. The Beeb ran a story that was too good to check properly, and did not investigate it thoroughly enough in the following weeks. That excuses Tony's crackerjack style of government not one jot. Lets just stick with the Beeb.

Now they are in trouble over:
* Editing an interview to make it look like a police chief had walked out.
* Beating up on the Catholic Church
* and an old favourite... their suspension of Robert Kilroy-Silk for comments on Arabs, but their retention of Tom Paulin in spite of his comments on Jews.

The bad news just keeps coming.

Lessons for us?

One day someone will crawl all over our state-controlled media and find it every bit as torn between slavish adherence to the party line and cavalier disregard for supervision. Suspicion will continue to grow, as it has in the UK, building up pressure against the myth of a 'reputation for unbiased coverage'. When the pressure becomes too great, the damn will burst.

Our day will come RNZ... TVNZ... MTS...

2004-02-05T20:40:00.000+13:00

MAORI, DON, and the CRUSHING WEIGHT OF THE STATE

So, after a four point lift in the polls: is Don about to get a swatika tattoed on his forehead in the hope that it will carry him all the way? Helen Clark wishes.

RNZ was almost breathless with delight at the machinations at Waitangi. Perfectly delightful for the state-controlled media. Don gets mud thrown at him, and this is referred to as 'controversy'.

Curious choice of word. It's quite uncontroversial in fact... the mud that is. It is incontrovertible that it happened. It did. A man is being charged with disorderly behaviour, it was reported in commercial media.

For a media watcher what was interesting today was the treatment of media.

Non-Maori media were banned from the Te Tii Marae.

This is racist. It is also perfectly OK. Its their Marae, and if they want to ban non-Maori media they can. Lets just call it what it is: racist and stupid.

If a large corporate bans media at its AGM, we generally assume something fishy is going on (sorry, Winston).

If they were to ban all black media there would be an outcry.

It would be decried as racist and stupid. Likewise the decision at the Te Tii Marae is racist and stupid. The "Mainstream" media, usually so keen to have a crack at anyone who denies their God given right to rake muck at will... was pretty coy about this one. They all coyly referred to the ban as being on 'mainstream' media. But this is a fig leaf. It is a ban on non-Maori media. RNZ... hardly mentioned it at all.

Don did. Good on him.

STATE CONTROLLED MEDIA - CREATING DEPENDENCY

A swift survey of the world shows that there is a strong correlation between monopoly state-control of a nation's media and the wealth of that nation. The news for the hard of thinking among you is not good. The line of best fit indicates that life expectancy, health, and wealth, are generally much worse the greater the state control of your media.

For those complete dolts that don't understand why this is, I am going to spare you a 101 level lecture on freedom of thought and initiative being a key component in wealth creation.

If Maori are a nation, and most of their media is state-controlled, then the prognosis is not good. For the sake of their culture, their nation, and - lets face it - all our pockets (thank you John Davey, Tuku Morgan, Derek Fox and co.) I call on Maori entrepreneurs to come up with a decent alternative to the ill-fated MTS.

Oh, except they'd be nuts to bother, because the state is competing unfairly... happily losing money so that real capacity in the community cannot make it.

COULD NOT SPOT ONE IF IT BIT THEM ON THE ARSE

Which brings us back to our dearly beloved state-controlled broadcaster of choice. RNZ. Describing MTS as "a business"? Come, come. State-owned, without even the pretence of a profit objective. An individual may have 'business', a trade or work - but 'a businesss' is usually a commercial endeavour... if only it were.

UNIONS ENDORSE STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

So the O'Herald is in hot water with the unions for not 'stating clearly its conflict of interest' in the matter of its editorial on employment law proposals.

A statement of conflict of interest by Radio New Zealand would have been good. But thinking again, it would have had to precede some actual, meaningful, coverage of the subject.

2004-02-01T16:31:00.000+13:00

STRATEGY OF BIAS

Only Play on Home Ground

Radio New Zealand gave us two stories out of six on America in recent news broadcasts. What is this - the Voice of America?

No. The reason we get so much of this stuff is because it is relatively easy for the lefties at RNZ to snipe at the US. It is a handy way of filling space that might be filled with more difficult local issues such as: the treatment of the needy, what the limits of settlements of treaty grievances should be, whether people should be free to swap holidays for money, other employee / employer issues, what we should be spending surpluses on... the list of no go issues for Radio New Zealand is long.

Meanwhile, private media spent a lot of time on New Zealand. Choosing to focus on the speech by Don Brash to Orewa Rotary, including the poll follow-up, or on the allegations made against the recently appointed assistant police commissioner.

Interesting.

LORD HUTTON REPORT

On Radio New Zealand's Mediawatch the question was framed as "What does this mean for the BBC?" and quickly - in discussion with a media academic - what it means for press freedom.

What I find extraordinarily interesting is what it reveals about the relationship between the government and a state-owned media company.

Consider that the BBC did not take anything like the stance on the war in Iraq that some privately owned media did. Consider media at opposite ends of the spectrum: The Guardian, and Fox News. These two organisations took strong views, backed often by more slender 'evidence' or lack of it, than that which has ended the careers of three people at the BBC.

The fact is that media owned by the state cannot, ever, act without fear of the response of it's owner: government. That does affect its behaviour. Binding it to standards that may be considered by people such as Russell Brown as limiting journalistic freedom, or they may proceed down a track which people such as Lord Hutton may consider to be too loose.

In short - state owned media cannot win. Whereas the Guardian and Fox News can cheerfully present the case as they see it - and only need to worry about the ramifications of that in two ways: losing or gaining audience, and being sued. That is as it should be. State owned media will never have that clarity of purpose or allegiance - charter or no charter.

2004-01-26T21:49:00.000+13:00

The Radio New Zealand Charter

Can be viewed here.

If you think that the fulfillment of this charter is but a cruel joke and grievous waste of your $20 million, each year, then you should email me here: radionzbias@yahoo.co.nz

MTS - TVNZ - and... WINSTON!

If you are concerned about state control of the media you might consider the additional $65 million being mismanaged by the Maori Television Service to produce - what? Well, nothing yet. But wait - you don't have to be on air to be biased... you only have to pay friends too much money for the loan of their garage - sorry - studio and you are away. Oiling the political wheels to get the vote back in.

Vote - did I say vote? oops, another slip of the tongue. Russell Brown used the term when describing an opinion poll - an important difference. He likes to mention fifty percent because it enhances the credibility of his idol - but in reality Labour runs a minority government. We can expect little better from the "Mouth of Helen". But I digress.

We can, thanks to Brown, add the absence of debate about 'Jobs Jolts' and 'Work for the Dole' schemes to the Radio New Zealand 'missing issues' list. It is still worth debating: all our politicians appear to be floundering on unemployment. But employers are saying there aren't enough people to pick fruit, deliver pizzas, make sales calls, type letters, or answer calls...

So 4.4% unemployment - or more like 6% if you include just some of the massive recent increase in disability claimants, inexplicably coinciding with general improvements in health and welfare - what's that all about? Sadly, and politicians won't name it - and neither will Radio New Zealand. It comes down to this:

Incentives.

You get what you pay for.

I make no judgement about this - it is economically rational for an unemployed person to reject a job that would only better his dole by $100 a week. That would be a marginal rate of just $2.50 an hour. Why would you work? Just throw in a couple of cash jobs instead. Bingo, better off.

We have to tackle the incentive.

Back to another state owned broadcaster. TVNZ looks like it might be getting itself a little bijou BBC-style controversy over the 'fish meal' story. I was soooo ashamed when the BBC itself did a round up of international news and this was picked up from the front page of The Herald (following up on the TVNZ story).

Were the facts of the story 'too good to check' as some assert. TVNZ stands by it - but Winston has a good track record in these fights. Having said all of that - a fishmeal? Several meals? A basis for corruption... I am not sure. Surely Winston would be too unreliable to bribe anyway - too little integrity even for that.

What concerns this blog: Its damned hard for TVNZ to press claims of political corruption against an opposition politician, and one that handles such controversy so well.

Its fun to watch - but cannot but leave Winston in the position to claim that he is the victim of a tool of the state. Especially since TVNZ has been so publicly 'brought back into line' with a new charter and the very public rearrangement of its board in a manner more the to liking of Labour.

Such are the cleft sticks that state-owned media find themselves in.

2004-01-26T13:46:00.000+13:00

The missing issues:

Employer's views on proposed legislation - and questions such as:
Whether the time allowed for response to the legislation is adequate.
What the effects of the legislation would be.
The question: "Would you rather choose whether to trade time for money?"
An international comparison - do kiwis actually take more or less time off than other people?

While other radio stations have spent some time on these issues - they receive a very light handed touch on our state broadcaster. When they are touched we find the same tireless pattern of presentation. The rules of which we might describe as:

* Limit the scope of the issue - Such as the debate about whether 'workers' should have as much holiday allowance as 'managers and professionals', or the 'that oon't happen' nonsense about multi-employer contractual agreements.
* Take a very narrow comment (if any) from an opposing viewpoint.
* Insert a laudibly anodyne and unbiased statement, but then...
* Conclude with a lengthy supporting quote from a union official, government official or other partial 'commentator'.

We does wonder, we does...

ADVANCE AUSTRALIA FAIR

One of our more paranoid readers is convinced that we continue to only hear only bad news about Australia.

Is this simply because no news is good news... or is this because of a form of bias agianst our more right of centre neighbour?

Recent coverage of the demonstrations by aboriginal people in Tasmania was lavish. Other controversies or perhaps greater proportions in Australia remain untouched.

Unlikely to ever come to light is Australia's debate about what should be taught in schools. The politicisation of the curriculum is an important subject. Even the risk of politicisation should be regularly considered - as education is another area that is the subject of a double-layered near-monopoly. The near monopoly of government in provision. The near monopoly of unions in teaching.

We have an item coming up on literacy - no bets either of these issues will be touched!

2004-01-20T08:35:00.000+13:00

Niueans At What Price?

Let's see, taking a ten year time-frame, the reconstruction of Niue and its support from our government could be... $8.5 million annually plus, say, $30 million upfront. Taking a short (ten year time frame) we now have $115 million. Divided by 1700 Niueans - that $67,000 each.

Is it worth it? I don't know - but I do know this:

Radio New Zealand has lavished time on Niue without specifically addressing this issue.

Framed as a subsidy on Island life versus spending on other urgent issues... what would most kiwis say should be done with the money?

New hospital anyone?
3,400 heart by-pass operations perhaps?
How many schools could we keep open instead?

Chiefs' Welfare Bill

One reader was keen for us to see more of the Fijian foreshore settlement. I think its worth looking at, because there has been too little time spent in our media contrasting our own current debate with the outcome in Fiji.

The Fijian government intends to draft a law transferring ownership of state-owned coastal lands and fisheries to the customary landholding system:

Fiji's new law will be drafted by the end of this year, after negotiations between the Government, tourism industry and local landowners.

Senator [Qoriniasi] Bale did not want to elaborate on the planned law change, but referred the Herald to a recent speech he made to a Fiji tourism forum. In this, he said the areas covered would include waters identified as customary fishing grounds, including reefs and seabeds.

"One of the principal purposes and effects of this new law will be to maximise and direct commercial benefits on the use of foreshore land and resources straight to the customary owners," he said. "Foreshore lease rentals will no longer be paid to the state, but to the customary owners."

The trouble with this is that customary land ownership in Fiji operates according to a complicated system in which ground rents are collected and administered by chiefs at various levels. Critics of the system charge that little of the rents find their way to the commoners. The land transfer contemplated by the Fijian government would thus take revenue-producing property away from the state - in which indigenous Fijians have political control and in which some revenue does find its way to the commoners in the form of government programs - and place it under the effective control of the chiefs. Although this plan is presented as a way to give more commercial benefit to customary landowning units, its effect might be exactly the opposite.

Check out more stuff like this at: http://headheeb.blogmosis.com

Let us conclude with a question. If Maori are successful in claims for 20% of the foreshore, and also receive around a further 20% as a share of government revene from other foreshore developments - would that outcome be substantially different from the catastrophe of governance occuring in Fiji?

I think that outcome unlikely - Maori will likely be unsuccessful in most of those cliams. However, it is not beyond the bounds of possiblity. It also further ups the ante - where will claims end next time? Will there ever be any end? Are the interests of Maori best served by the destruction of property rights as we understand them - the process of treaty redress was intended to butress property rights by denying gain from theft - but has it gone too far? These are the kinds of questions we do not hear debated adequately on our state-controlled media.

2004-01-19T20:26:00.000+13:00

Tamihere Flayed With Scented Bootlaces By RNZ

Hardly a stranger to rough and tumble John Tamihere was almost left thumping himself to make the fight a bit more believable in a recent RNZ interview (played at 5pm today).

What passed for questioning fell down to the level of 'what are you suggesting when you say that there is nothing Maori about having fingers in the till'. Quickly smothered by the loving, 'but couldn't this programme slur Maori businesses with the impression that there are problems'.

The impression? Have you not been reading the papers?

Is Radio NZ simply filled with charming credulous people? Well they played a half way decent interview between an ABC reporter and an American Captain (of PR, I think). The Good Captain declared proudly that the latest bombing happened outside the 'green zone'. To which the entirely sensible question is 'so don't you care about Iraqi civilians?'.

Perhaps Radio NZ should have said maybe "If its not only Maori who have their hands in the till why single them out?". An incentive based question "Why not simply pursue lawbreakers through the courts?" then "If they have not broken the law, then isn't there something wrong with the way contracts with government are written".

Concluding with "Have we wasted our money?"

But there is an unwritten code in the civil service that you don't criticise someone else's pile of steaming pork, lest your own comes under too much scrutiny.

2004-01-18T22:00:00.000+13:00

RNZ's ACTIVIST PALS

We can all have fun with this one, after all, Nicky Hager is not just an opponent of social and eocnomic liberals like myself, fully three quarters of the political spectrum are in his sights.

So a good question is... why does he get so much play on RNZ?

As one reader says: "something that has bothered me for a long time, and has resulted in a number of calls to Radio NZ's newsroom. After these calls the item I called about being is generally sacked from the line up in the following bulletin. The topic I called about: issues raised by Nicky Hager."

In fact, they get lots of calls like this.

Were we to do a five year audit on how often Nicky Hager is mentioned on RNZ news, I'm sure we'd find a huge majority of those occasions were on Saturday or Sunday bulletins. Nicky is a pretty shrewd fellow, and we're sure there's no coincidence in his getting airtime when he does.

1) Slow news days
2) No one (easily contactable) to counter his views

So he's always releasing his emotive rantings down the line to the producer at RNZ who's just praying for something to fill the 2 o'clock bulletin on a Saturday and Sunday.

And the reason RNZ generally pulls the stories so quickly? They quite simply can't anyone why Nicky Hager is an authoritative person to be quoting on the news. Who does he represent? Just himself. Would quote you or I on same issue in the news bulletin? Of course not.

The next hour rolls around, Nicky Hager isn't in the news any more. But he got there, and did his thing...

The latest example was when Hager decided he had "secret evidence" that NZ troops were doing things in Afghanistan which the government had said they wouldn't be doing. That was just plain rubbish.

The government had cleverly made no clear assurances on exactly what the troops would be doing, although they gave guidelines on how they thought they might be employed, but through some emotive language Hager made it on to the news again.

When we asked the producer to cite the government statements Hager claimed had been contravened. He couldn't, they'd just taken Hager's word for it. They didn't know who Hager was representing - no one of course.

Note he didn't refer to Hager as what he is: an activist, plain and simple, be it defence, GE or native forests.

It's worth remembering what a long history Hager has of this behaviour. Many years ago now, perhaps 15 years back, he was the spokesman of a group called "Just Defence". He played RNZ then as he does now, getting on the airwaves over the weekend to strike fear into the hearts of listeners over the gross cost of upgrading our frigates. He was then invited by the select committee to submit his opposition to them, which required their asking how many members his group had.

And the answer? Three!

Not only did this (understandably) deeply affect his supposed authority as a spokesman for a large opposition constituency with the members of the select committee, it said a lot about RNZ and their long time love of the left.

They are prepared to let some punk with a good turn of phrase but no evidence to back his claims hi-jack the tax-payer funded airways week after week. Then he goes away, finds another issue and calls his pals at Radio New Zealand.

It's a disgrace.

2004-01-13T22:44:00.000+13:00

ANITA? BIASED?

A reader makes a good point re: Anita McNaught - the profiles of the commentators are fairly crude ways of placing them on a spectrum which, despite protestations to the contrary, looks pretty "Left vs Right". Invading a country is a pretty extreme form of intervention - perhaps Anita was demonstrating a radical form of detachment?

Maybe not: our own view is that the freedom to choose economically - how to work, contracting with each other, free trade, is closely aligned with the freedom to choose ones own government. So perhaps its not a case of seeing reds under the bed everywhere. Opposition to one is closely alignedwith opposition to the other.

We therefore feel that, especially if you have listened to Anita, that like most of the other presenters she is generally pro-interventionist.

But full points: Deborah breaks her own rule by equating 'anti-war' with 'anti-market'. Which is not necessarily so.

DEBORAH? BIASED?

We are under no illusions as to the political nature of Deborah Coddington and her intentions with the report.

That said, I don't think it fundamentally undermines Coddington's report - the evidence is on the air for all to hear. Of course, if RNZ is how you like your news, then you may not see this issue. Like deep southern racism perhaps... hard to see if its always been this way.

As a National Radio listener I don't hear my views expressed. I find that pro-market views are rare, and the range of comment is narrow.

In a private broadcaster I can understand that, and I have the freedom to withdraw support: I can stop my patronage. But with my tax dollars, I can't do that.

So I do this!

What do you think? You be the judge.

SPACE WEAPONS AND BIAS

On the militarisation of space...

One reader feels the link between space and weapons is clear. I remain unsure.

... several administrations have been talking about putting weapons in space. To our knowledge none exist at present.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP RNZ!

If RNZ has some intelligence on the matter: perhaps the Mars mission will be militarised, then it should say clearly what it is. Linking the two by innuendo or conjecture does not stack up.

AN APOLOGY

We have been accused of being 'tabloid'. Re: the Damian Christie piece. We apologise. Our intention was not to besmirch his good name. Christie writes entertaining and interesting material which is worth challenging.

Our intention is to reveal a point: that we should all declare possible bias.

OUR BIAS

we are social and economic liberals. We listen to Christie from time to time as well.

2004-01-12T21:57:00.000+13:00

JEAN BERTRAND, THE YANKS, AND RNZ

Interesting how popular Bill Clinton's interventions were: Jean Bertrand Aristide is still being excused by all and sundry. But some regime changes - no matter how bad they may be - are given a lighter treatment than others.

Is it because Clinton and Aristide fall on the same side of the colour chart as our own esteemed Government? Is it because only brown people get killed in Haiti? Actually, it is mainly brown people that get killed in Iraq - the left are not generally racist. Unless you are Jewish, in which case they are happy for you to be blown up in pizza parlours.

There would be room for a link between past failed regime changes (Aristide has got to be a good example of that) and current experiments. Equally critical viewpoints.

The report of a protest calling for Aristide's resignation dwelt on the fact that past protests have been violent. This one was not. Ahhh.

Then we move on to everyone's favourite whipping boy: The good ole US of A.

Once again the only news item to be overtly critical was a report on the allegation by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil. The sacked former foot-in-mouth man of money has every reason for sour grapes. We also have every reason to believe what he says: Donald Rumsfeld had probably had an idea that Saddam might need to go. Many felt that he should have been deposed as part of the last Gulf War. It is the job of the military to be ready for war, it is the job of those that lead them to consider threats and scenarios. Five minutes with a whiteboard at the Pentagon would come up with a list of possible war plans that would easily have included Iraq.

What does this mean? Well, if you had listened to the rest of the speech containing the words "Axis of Evil" you would have picked up that the US intended to move to a doctrine of pre-emption.

The lefties here keep harping on about how the US is 'trying to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda'. They have no need to do so. What they have consistently done is said that the lesson of September 11 was that to wait on the move of the enemy is to invite disaster. All those that claim 'the CIA could have done more to prevent September 11' should be delighted by the new policy of pre-emption: It is a logical response to such criticism.

So there you have it. Paul O'Neil is probably telling the truth, and the only link you need to Al-Qaeda is one of type. Whether you agree with the yanks or not, it might be interesting to hear the position from time to time.

But thanks RNZ, as if to prove me right, you keep serving up broadcast after broadcast where negativity is reserved for politics that you so clearly disdain. Evidence again today that it is not that you don't like yanks, its that you don't like a certain type of American.

2004-01-11T21:57:00.000+13:00

RNZ POLICY ON WMD

Danish and Icelandic troops may have discovered hidden Iraqi shells filled with mustard gas today.

The Associated Press release leads where RNZ will definitely follow. The shells were old. They were buried. They will be a blister agent (avoiding the more provocative term ' Mustard Gas'). They will be found 'north of British controlled Basra'. It will be the British source that is quoted (so that RNZ can minimise references to the Danes, because left-wing orthodoxy is to paint the coalition of the willing as only America and Britain).

As more rubbish from the nasty Saddam-era regime is discovered we will not hear much of it. Headlines such as 'US asks UN for help' will make it onto RNZ's airwaves with far more regularity.

2004-01-11T21:17:00.000+13:00

SINGULAR PARTIALITY

In six stories on the news this evening, can you guess which was the one singled out for negative treatment by RNZ?

1) Film award story on 'Whale Rider' actress
2) Government MP's visit to Nuie
3) The ANC's manifesto launch in South Africa
4) American plan for further space exploration
5) Police search for lost man

Al of these items could have received comment from a positive, neutral, or negative point of view.

Lets ignore the film awards and the poor soul presumed lost while swimming.

We have three items of a political nature. Two about nice left wing governments written directly from the press releases:

We quote a Phil Goff at some length in the Niue piece. It would have been nice to hear the answer to the question "What are you doing in Nuie?" or even "How are we going to help them?" instead we got the answer to the question "What are the priorites in reconstruction?" which is important for the people of Niue but is dead soft. I mean, it has nothing to do with Phil Goff being there, but was a very politically safe question to answer.

This was a dream media slot for Phil. Name recognition and no downside risk. Thanks RNZ.

We then have the nice piece about the ANC. Long quote from RNZ journo on the ANC being first to launch their manifesto even though no date has been set (that's the power of incumbency, they are the one party that does know the date). A statement that they are "assured of victory" repetition of pure party line on 'delivered economic growth and promising more of the same'. There must have been a plethora of opportunity to balance this from other parties views. But they didn't take them.

No you guessed it. The Bad ole US of A is where RNZ suddenly discovers that it has journalists. To provide a contrasting view of the US plan to build a moonbase and put astronauts on Mars they go to the man that opposes the militarisation of space. No matter that these subjects are not clearly connected. We don't have time for that in a five minute news cast. No matter that no other news organisation in the country picked this obscure man to comment on this story. We will simply single out the US as the news item to be covered in this way.

I find it interesting that with depressing regularity this is the case. In story selection, in quote selection, and in presentation - RNZ pulls to the left.

How else could this bulletin have been done?

1) We had yards of quote from Goff. Surely we could have cut some of the self serving crap. We could even have had a quote from, God forbid, a Nuiean. "What will you ask Phil Goff for?" "Money, people, technical assistance". "Phil, how will you respond to these requests?" etc.

2) The ANC party political broadcast could have been much shorter. A comment on Thabo Mbeki's views on AIDS and Zimbabwe might have provided an interesting counterpoint.

3) Or, the piece on the US could have been the same shamefully weak reportage that the other pieces were.

But, you know I would rather the former two options had been employed.

You know too - its NOT just about this one broadcast. It is a pattern that has been established by research, and deserves correction, somehow. The service that RNZ provides is too important to allow political capture, or the perception of political capture.

INESCAPABLE BIAS

Bias is inescapable. We all suffer from bias, known perhaps more politely as our cultural context or frame of reference. Some of RNZ's bias may be because of the people drawn to public service broadcasting. To an extent they self select. media types are generally left of centre people. Another selection issue is pay - Journalism does not pay magnificently compared to, say, a career in business. This particularly hampers the production of quality business news.

Can bias ever be overcome? Maybe. It can be audited, compensated for, and it can be disclosed - allowing listeners to make a more informed decision.

The great problem for RNZ is that as a state broadcaster it needs to be demonstrably less biased - or else it needs to enjoy further separation from Government.

EMAIL US

At: radionzbias@yahoo.co.nz

2004-01-08T23:10:00.000+13:00

G'DAY PEOPLE

Who has been happily listening to RNZ chirrup along about nothing in particular recently?

Why are they so quiet on the Fijian foreshore deal?

But in this heat, we can forgive them for some of this. There is bugger all news about. So lets review some general themes until the meddlers are back in parliament and causing trouble.

AMERICANS ON RNZ

If you are going to be pro-government on foreign policy you have to demonise American policy as much as possible. It should ideally be portrayed as heavy handed, yank-o-centric, and stupid. RNZ does not need a lot of help with this. The problem is where it takes them.

If American policy is constantly portrayed as just a couple of shades more stupid than it really is, with no explanation as to why it might make any sense whatsoever you eventually have a hole to dig yourself out of: the question of elections.

Come election time the American voter must then be portrayed as either (a) stupid, or (b) manipulated, lied to, or having had an election 'stolen'.

Some people enjoy the self importance that comes with believing that Americans are stupid. But those of us that lead reasonably broad lives meet a few, and after a while discover that the distribution of stupidity is pretty even throughout humanity. No special quantities of it in the US. Just lots of everything - it's a big place.

So, since politics contains a lot of manipulation, lies, and deception (on all sides), more sophisticated audiences prefer to take their self-importance as a criticism of American democracy. There is plenty of material here too: gerrymandering, campaign finance scandals, hanging chads, and supreme court dramas to get us all excited.

This is likely to be the route the folk at RNZ will feed you over the coming year of the American presidential primaries and campaigns.

However, next time you hear the patter, its worth considering the following:

= Our own government is a minority one with a limited mandate that has happily used razor thin majorities of MPs cobbled together in the house to make major constitutional changes.

= Our own government cheerfully, retrospectively, legislated to salvage an MP who broke the electoral law.

= Our own government carefully crafted the 'waka jumping legislation' to allow it to retain Anderton.

= Our own government has paid non-governmental organisations with our own tax dollars to lobby for its own policies.

= Our own government is happy to retain a biased state owned media outlet.

You should consider things like these next time you hear a Radio New Zealand presenter talking about "America's broken democracy".

We have got some work to do at home.

2004-01-06T22:07:00.000+13:00

FROM THE MAILBAG

Re: "Caucasian" or "Cork-Asian"

"Personally, being largely of Scandinavian extraction, I find the term 'NZ European' insulting. I am not Irish, English, French or Latvian, so why should I succumb to a catch all?"

"Just a quick message of support and congratulations for taking the time and putting in the effort. Good on you!""

WHOSE FAULT IS THIS?

""You have captured the culture of RNZ accurately. One hopes that a future government might sort it out (the present one won’t touch them)"

But are we unfair on Labour/Progressives? Oh No. Sadly there is plenty of blame to be spread around:

"...but I assume that this culture arose over years, many of which were under a National government."

Politicians are not the best custodians of knowledge, money, or power. Perhaps we should have the equivalent of the Ben Elton gun licence application form for politicians:

Do you want to own a gun? If you tick yes, we don't give you one.
Do you want to control your fellow man? If you tick yes...

2004-01-06T16:30:00.000+13:00
Anatomy of Bias - Part 2

From Deborah Coddington's Report on Radio NZ Bias - we focus on the issue of the range of presenters.

Analysis: Range of Views

Presenters

In one sense, the diversity of presenters’ opinions may be seen to be irrelevant. Complete objectivity for a journalist is an unattainable ideal, as is absolutely representative diversity for a media organisation. A journalist’s views will not necessarily make his or her reporting biased.

There is a difference between declared bias and undeclared bias – an Australian radio host told the Australian Broadcasting Authority that:

'I don’t see a great ethical conflict if I have a particular political view. Not for a political party but on a political issue. I don’t see any problem with that because,
as I say, I’ve got a view that Peter Reith is, at least, a disgrace. I’ll state that view, and then I’ll interview him so Peter Reith knows where I’m coming from. It’s no
secret. The audience knows where I’m coming from. So I don’t find that a conflict even though some would say, “Well, you’re conducting what is a prejudiced
interview”. I am. Because I come from a particular point of view.'

Within National Radio, presenters seldom declare any bias on air. It is necessary to look further a field and collate presenters’ work in other media which indicates a political or philosophical framework.

This report will not single out any employee – this would convey a message that the presence of pro-interventionist views is the problem. It is not. The problem is a lack of
diversity. Two conclusions are indisputable:

1. National Radio does not have a single presenter who clearly and publicly holds a pro-market philosophical framework.

2. There are high profile presenters whose work in other media (and, arguably, Radio New Zealand) indicates a clear preference for pro-interventionist views and actions.

The second point does not mean that these presenters are impartial or unprofessional, but – taken with the first point – it indicates a possible level of institutional bias that shall be examined in more depth later.

First, it is valuable to explore whether political views
are blunted by other forces. Author Kathleen Hall Jamieson notes:

'One might hypothesise that reporters respond to the cues of those who pay their salaries and mask their own ideological dispositions.'

Another explanation would hold that norms of journalism, including ‘objectivity’ and ‘balance’ blunt whatever
biases exist.

Jamieson’s first hypothesis – that journalists “respond to the cues of those who pay their salaries and mask their own ideological dispositions” leads to a counterfactual
implication in the case of Radio New Zealand.

If it is true that the crown-owned company’s employees consistently act in this manner, then it could be expected that mainstream allegations of “right-wing bias” would have arisen under the previous, National administration. No examples of such allegations could be found. In fact, during that time, then-Opposition leader Helen Clark attacked the board of Radio New Zealand for planning to cut up to $3.5 million from the National Radio news budget, indicating that she was not unhappy with her portrayal by the broadcaster.

Jamieson’s second suggestion – that “objectivity and balance blunt whatever biases exist” is more relevant. The public does not expect each journalist to abandon his or her conscience or philosophical framework. The existence of views does not automatically lead to bias.

Of course, having some presenters with a pro-market viewpoint would reduce the perception – and weaken accusations – of bias.

It is instructional to put the presenters aside for a moment and instead examine the diversity of the broadcaster’s regular guests: the people who are selected by the producers and presenters.

Regular guests are used extensively by National Radio to provide ‘expert’ opinion on matters from financial planning to news from abroad.

As ‘experts’, they are held up as objective analysts with a nuanced understanding of their field. A detailed analysis of the views of regular guests is more instructional than an exploration of presenters’ views because this is an area where diversity is important: regular guests provide an authoritative perspective to the audience that is based on their own perception. Their opinions are blended into fact, with no dissenting viewpoints offered.

As has been established, a presenter may hold strong views and still be impartial. But if impartiality did exist, then a cursory search would find a broad cross section of views represented by the regular guests that producers and presenters select.

This broad cross section would be an indication that National Radio was meeting the Charter objective to broadcast programming which provides “for varied interests within the community”.

Regular guests on Morning Report and Nine to Noon:

Murray Weatherston, financial planner:

Appointed to the crown entity Public Trust Modernisation Board by Hon Jim Anderton in 2001 and the Public Trust Board in March 2003. Weatherston was cited in a Green Party parliamentary
speech responding to the 2001 Budget.

Kieran McLeonard, Australian perspective:

Broadcaster who has worked extensively for Australian state-owned broadcaster Radio National.

Patrick Ensor, British perspective:

Editor of the Guardian Weekly. In an Australian interview, said that the Guardian Weekly: needs to have a radical agenda… I do feel that there is a need to kind of
question some of the accepted beliefs that we have thrust down our throats by politicians, by corporations, I think we need to question all the things they’re up to, and globalisation in particular being a particularly important issue at the moment. He went on to state: The Guardian itself does carry campaigns.

For instance, an issue which they raised recently, in which we echoed in The Guardian Weekly, was how the pharmaceutical companies, the small number who control AIDS drugs in particular, and the issue of why they aren’t supplying Africa, why they’re trying to stop Africa trying to get cheap, generic drugs to cure what is, or rather to help solve what is a fearful problem in Southern Africa. And I think we came to the conclusion in The Guardian and the Guardian Weekly that the drug companies were out to make a profit and they weren‘t putting people first on their agenda, all they were concerned about was their shareholders and protecting their patents.

Anita McNaught, British perspective:

New Zealand broadcaster who has worked most recently for the British state-owned broadcaster, BBC. McNaught wanted to join a London protest against the invasion of Iraq. BBC banned staff from protesting, but before the ban McNaught reportedly sent the following message to Global Peace and Justice Auckland: “I wish you all the best. I'll be marching on 15th Feb here in London in solidarity, and perhaps sooner, if Blair doesn't show some signs of stopping his own ludicrous participation in this insane business.”

Rod Oram, business news:

financial journalist and Adjunct Professor in the New Zealand Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Took part in the ‘Reclaiming APEC Conference’ – “a conference to critique APEC’s misguided direction & develop positive models for people & earth-centred development”.

Believes that “bad company performance and management are major
contributors to New Zealand’s poor economic performance”. This view puts him
at odds with pro-market business representatives such as Roger Kerr, executive
director of the New Zealand Business Roundtable. Has worked on crownappointed
economic development projects.

Gordon Harcourt, British perspective:

A broadcaster who has worked for the state-owned BBC. Phil Kafcaloudes, Australian perspective: Has had a lifelong career in Australian state-owned broadcaster ABC, and has written several books, including journalism manuals.

Bill Bevan, Whitireia Community Law Centre:

A member of the Public Advisory Committee of the crown entity Legal Services Agency. Bevan’s role on the committee is to represent community law centres, legal, Maori, consumers. His writing includes the advocacy of pro-interventionist views.

Stephen Price, Victoria University:

An academic trained in law who discusses “consumer issues and listener queries”.
This snapshot of the views of National Radio’s regular guests indicates a striking
homogeneity. Of local guests, the majority espouse a pro-interventionist philosophy, and have been appointed to a crown entity since the election of a pro-interventionist government.

There is similar pattern among overseas guests – every one except Patrick Ensor works for a state-owned broadcaster. Ensor is the editor of a newspaper with a strong prointerventionist leaning.

Where are the commentators from ‘rightwing’ news organisations?

This homogeneity is disquieting.

It indicates that the Radio New Zealand environment lacks diversity.

2004-01-04T17:18:00.000+13:00
PIE IN THE SKY

Three pieces about planes, terrorism, and sky marshals led the midday report. We got quotes from the CAA and no-one else. We closed on a grudging admission that if the US insisted, then we might have to act.

THE MISSING RACE

We have a missing person report using that terrible old descriptor "Caucasian". Am I the only one that hates the term? It's nearly certain that the poor woman has no actual relatives from the region. I loathe "NZ European" which is the form used in the census, but at least it would be consistent. Perhaps our ethnically observant radio station, which spends so much time and effort getting Maori descriptions right, could come up with better for the rest of us.

WHO STOLE MY RADIO STATION?

I thought we would get nothing of a political nature, our own politicians all being (thankfully) at the beach. But I was wrong. So we have plenty to write about!

The Pope's New Year message was chosen as a significant focus in the midday report. His worthwhile messages about justice and peace being given plenty of time. These play well with the pro-government lot at RNZ. So they play long.

"Respect for International Law" would have to be the focus we were lectured and "Building on the strengths of the United Nations". This rather begs the question: what strengths? But I digress. International Law is sadly lacking in so many areas that I am afraid to say: I disagree with Il Papa.

There are bugger all international laws that say you should not starve loads of your own people to death while preserving the privileges of the few (like they have done in North Korea, China, Zimbabwe, etc). There are even fewer that describe the penalties for such actions. It seems to me that either RNZ has misquoted the Pope or there is something missing from this picture. Let us not beat about the bush, George W. Bush to be specific. This message was a thinly veiled "don't go to war America" lesson - courtesy of the Pope and RNZ.

So we tuned back to sinfully-commercial radio land. It is interesting to contrast the RNZ message with the piece on ZB about the Queen's speech. Anachronistic though royalty may be, she is our head of state. Her message was one of support for the British, American, and Commonwealth troops. The reporter who had been in Iraq recently described the scenes of Iraqi children celebrating the capture of Saddam. A message so rarely heard on New Zealand radio - possibly never heard on RNZ - that it was surprising.

CRITICISING RADIONZBIAS

Our email address is radionzbias@yahoo.co.nz

Email us and criticize us. Agree. Disagree. Present examples. Drive the debate forward. We won't publish absolutely anything, but I am keen to publish a variety of points of view.

We ask only this: that you actually argue with the issue, don't simply attack the people who have dared to raise the issue.

2004-01-02T21:53:00.000+13:00
HI DAMIAN!

Nice to have another reader. Sorry about your Christmas Damian. I do hope you weren't thinking about it too much.

We'll try to make it up to you by throwing in a wee plug: Damian Christie's interesting weblog is located here.

Go read how Damian (taking a further 2000 words), briefly and professionally declares that he fancied Deborah Coddington, got fired by her, was left unrequited, and these facts had no effect on his ability to objectively critique her politics.

2004-01-02T21:19:00.000+13:00
WELCOME BACK

Have you spotted the non-subjects on Radio New Zealand? Take a moment to contemplate and suggest your own. These are just a couple of suggestions from readers:

1) Welfare reform
2) Howard government spin (although we have plenty of our own, so thats OK).

WHY WELFARE?

A recent programme covered foodbanks in Wellington. It does seem strange that these things are growing at such a pace. The economy is booming, welfare rolls are - supposedly - falling (provided you don't count sickness benefits, or the DPB) and levels of benefit support are manifestly sufficient for the vast majority of claimants. So what is going wrong?

Were these questions explored? No.

RNZ could have taken a stronger interventionist approach (not my own view, but they could have). However, that would have required explicit criticism of the government. Heaven forbid.

RNZ could also have taken an approach that asked whether the foodbanks had not simply proven that its possible to give away limitless quantities of free food.

RNZ could have asked both questions, and a lot more besides. But they didn't we don't know why - we can only guess.

I really wanted them to ask what actual solutions were being offered to these people. I don't want to think of families not starving just at Christmas, but all the time would be handy.

If our lavish welfare state is failing them now - why? I know that the Sallies usually think there is a budgeting issue in food bank claimants. And usually, unpopular though this may be, they find that budgeting problems are caused by other issues such as addiction.

There you begin to get to the heart of it.

Unreformed welfare is the state equivalent of dropping coins into a beggar's hat and saying 'fuck off'.

It's about as heartless as you can get. Much more heartless, I suggest than requiring job training or work activity for 40 hours a week.

These two activities that would at least provide a) a sense of achievement b) a requirement to show up, and a way of identifying those with other issues, and c) more motivation to find more fulfilling work.

A RECENT NEWS CAST

Two car crashes, and a piece about a radio jingle (I mean, this is suburban newpaper stuff) were the bread around the following meat:

A fawning piece about Tasmania's Labour Government deciding to allow same-sex unions. "New Zealand, Western Australia, and ... are considering similar moves"

A piece on the Fijian decision to deprive 55% of its population of any benefit from the foreshore, courtesy of their own special brand of 'democracy'. The only comment was sought from our own government.

MIDDLE EASTERN MADNESS

Any of you sick of hearing all about how Libyan tractability is a sign of great diplomacy should read this as a bit of an antidote, and a reminder that you are not the only sane folk out there!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110004494