The great media freakout of 2023

Over the last six years, up until election night this year, there was a unique convergence in public discourse. This has been characterised by a broad alignment of opinion across four key sectors:

• Media;

• Bureaucracy;

• Academia; and

• Elected politicians.

The degree of uniformity should not be overstated. As with any group of human beings, there are always those who swim against the tide. And even within broad confines of the orthodoxy, there is often intense disagreement as to precise positioning.

A shared set of assumptions

But despite these inevitable complexities, it is fair to say that, while Labour was in power, there were a set of shared assumptions about the world at the institutional level in this country.

The consensus has been an overarching one. It has traversed topics as diverse as gender, affirmative action, sexuality, race, climate change, the voting age, education, the treaty, law, order and punishment. And with the notable exceptions of the shock jocks, who often stick out like sore thumbs, the editorial lines of establishment media have been a part of this consensus.

A trap for wishful thinkers

That unified front has, it seems, been a bit of a trap for news organisations.  

The electoral success of the left between 2017 and 2023 should never have been taken of a blanket endorsement of the full range of leftwing views. Labour made a comeback in Jacinda Ardern’s first election as leader and dominated in the second. This surge was not attributable to a sudden conversion of the heart of ordinary voters on issues of political correctness, however.

What really drives voters

Economic questions have always formed the cornerstone of electoral decision-making. While it is never the only thing in play, people can be relied upon to prioritise the state of the economy above all else. Job security and prices directly impact our livelihoods in an immediate way and this, not culture warfare, is always the first thing we need to look to in deciphering voting behaviour.

After the economy, satisfaction with government services is an important consideration. Persistent health system issues such as long waiting times, under-staffing, or inadequate facilities can breed disillusionment. The state of schools and the quality of education imparted can significantly impact public sentiment about a government. Frustration with a weak and unresponsive police and justice system triggers discontent for the same reason.

People will put up with extraneous stuff

So even if the people writ large do not fully align with the prevailing social views of a party and its supporters, they will tolerate a wide range of stances on these matters if they perceive the economy to be robust and growing and services to be well delivered. The electoral victories of Labour under Ardern reflected this more than anything else, particularly in response to the perception to an economy saving and well executed Covid-19 response.

What has happened, however, is that the political monoculture has become completely ingrained across all four liberal sectors. This is particularly the case with extremely unpopular left-wing positions, which are just completely unquestioned by the media.

The undeniable slant

Consider the example of Chloe Swarbrick. The Green MP is much beloved of broadcast media and has been the subject of three glowing, taxpayer funded documentaries. She also believes in abolishing prisons.

We are not merely reforming prisons to enhance humane conditions. Prison abolition entails the dismantling the current prison system wholesale. The idea is to shift away from the values of retributive justice entirely.

This is an extreme stance. It so flies against common sense that most ordinary people would be completely baffled by the suggestion. It would be about as much popular standing as the idea of completely abolishing the minimum wage.

Now, say Simeon Brown began advocating for the abolition of the minimum wage on social media. The media would undoubtedly have lots of questions for both Brown and his party leader. When those questions were answered, difficult follow up questions would be asked. And rightly so.

But this never happens with radical left-wing proposals, like abolishing prisons. The position is never subjected to any level of hostile scrutiny. That’s because the overwhelming number of broadcasters (not all) would agree that it’s the smart thing to do and that it’s a shame that ordinary voters are too small minded and vindictive to take an enlightened view.

So only thing Swarbrick would ever be criticised for on the subject is being a bit too enthusiastic.

Media bias is inevitable and a sign of democracy

It is lame and uninteresting to carp on about media bias. It exists and always will. And always must.

Journalists need to be free to cover the news however they want. We should perhaps expect more neutrality from organisations funded by the Crown, but the reality is that journalism is always going to attract people with a more liberal mindset. It is no different to the way farming tends to attract those with a more conservative outlook.

But it’s not always good for the media

What is interesting, however, is the freakout by media, the bureaucracy and the academy ever since the new coalition has been formed.

The tide is out on liberalism for the time being. We now have a centre-right government in power, being a coalition of three parties, one conservative, one libertarian and one populist. All three campaigned on the promise of change and, between them, secured a decisive victory in the 2023 vote.

Rattled by shifting fortunes

While the primary focus is on strengthening the economy, this new government is also implementing some social policies that challenge establishment liberalism. Since liberals have assumed those questions to have been settled, leading to significant disruption and disorientation within liberal circles. Accustomed to a certain consensus on social issues, the remaining branches of the liberal coalition must grapple with a new political reality that questions and challenges these once seemingly inviolable tenets (if only for the time being).

We are not an ideological nation

New Zealand is a diverse nation with a wide range of political beliefs. It cannot be categorically defined as a right-wing or left-wing country. There are a mix of opinion across various issues.

Establishment liberals need to reconcile themselves to is that, as often as not, the views of the people will diverge from what might be considered more liberal or progressive viewpoints.

I subscribe to David Farrar’s Patreon and one of the main reasons is access to various polling information conducted by his market research company, Curia. While Farrar is a National Party partisan, his company adheres to good industry practice. His findings are the type of things liberals reject at their peril.

For instance, the vast majority of New Zealanders polled were unaware of the Te Reo names of government agencies, indicating a distance from the progressive push for cultural recognition. This should serve as a warning to liberals who are enthusiastic about accelerating the trend towards official bilingualism and who are trying to affect some kind of merger between Te Reo and English.

The credibility gap on the left

There are clear signs of voter fatigue with rapid cultural and linguistic changes and liberals showing themselves to be out of touch with this is not the means by which they will regain the electoral edge over the centre right.

In September, there was a debate between National's Dr Shane Reti and Labour's Health Minister Dr Ayesha Verrall on the health system. Both were asked what constitutes the biggest barrier to health in New Zealand. Dr Reti put forward the health workforce. Dr Verrall, on the other hand, contended that the "lack of embodiment of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our health system" posed the greatest obstacle.

Around the same time, here in Palmerston North, only a third of patients at Palmerston North Hospital were being discharged or admitted within the target six hours. Many people were spending more than 24 hours in the waiting room.

And if the news media is completely oblivious to how these overt differences in priority are received by regular people, of all ethnicities, then it’s not hard to see why the change in government has been so discombobulating.

The media is less protected from the public

The media is a bit different to the bureaucracy and the academy. The latter two are more insulated from the public than the media is. Universities are dedicated to intellectual exploration and research, often delving into extremely specialised knowledge areas that may not directly resonate with the general public. The bureaucracy is tasked with the implementation of policies and regulations, a process that is often complex, technical, and not immediately visible or understandable to the public.

This means that news organisations need to be more careful in maintaining the good faith of the public. The media's reach, influence and effectiveness are much more tied to the public trust than those of its sister branches in the liberal alliance are. That trust, once lost, is hard to put back together again.

The case for calming down

I suppose there’s no particular reason for journos to take advice from the likes of me. However, it seems quite evident that the media would do well to pause and take a breath. That isn't about appeasing the new government or currying its favour, but rather to take stock of the fact that so much daylight has opened up between the prevailing views of the institutional media and the general public. A sudden reactionary response or vehement opposition could further widen the gap.

Calming down doesn't mean the media should surrender its role as the fourth estate. Instead, it offers an opportunity to re engage with the public, understand the public’s perspectives and better incorporate these views into media narratives. It means reaffirming the bridge between the government, the opposition and the public as a conduit of balanced and unbiased information.

On picking your battles

The French have a saying I have always been fond of. "Cet animal est très méchant; quand on l'attaque, il se défend," which translates to "This animal is very nasty; when it is attacked, it defends itself." It is the natural instinct of any creature to defend itself when threatened or attacked.

At the moment, populist deputy prime minister Winston Peters is quite scathing of the news media. Which he always has been. But coupled with the stinging defeat of the election, it seems to have really upset reporters – to the point where many seem to think the hurt feelings of journalists are the most important news story in the country right now.

We’ve seen this before. When Auckland flooded earlier in the year Auckland mayor Wayne Brown lamented he would have to cancel tennis to talk with media “drongoes.” Cue tweet after tweet and story after story about how incredibly offensive and insulting this was to journalists. It went on for days.

When is a bribe a bribe?

The big controversy du jour is Winston Peters' accusation of "bribery" about the former Public Interest Journalism Fund. Journalists and media outlets have almost universally condemned these comments and stated as if fact that it is a false characterisation. And yet these same people and outlets now taking umbrage have for years routinely described politicians as bribing the electorate with tax cuts and spending promises.

In my view, it is laughably improbable to claim that the media would have significantly altered its coverage to secure funding from the PIJF. But I am also pretty sure Michael Wood wasn’t making major transport decisions thinking about his Auckland Airport shares. The issue here is not about the media's actions, but rather about the standards they uphold. Journalists commonly apply rigorous and sceptical scrutiny of other institutions and individuals.

This situation is a classic example of how media outlets can react when criticism is directed towards them. All the public sees are people quick to scrutinise the actions of others becoming shrilly defensive when the tables are turned. And what it looks like is journalists and their bosses considering themselves to be uniquely above reproach when it comes to their financial dealings.

Why criticising the media works

The reason why criticising journalists is such a powerful tactic for the right is because it resonates with a significant proportion of the population. An April survey of 1,000 New Zealanders by Curia, for example, highlighted the perceived political leanings of New Zealand media outlets.

None of the media outlets were rated as neutral by more than half of respondents, though the Herald came close. Newstalk ZB was the only major outlet seen as right leaning. One News, Newshub, RNZ, and Stuff were all seen as leaning heavily to the left. Stuff had a stronger “net left” score than The Spinoff, which is more or less overt in its overall political leanings.

So when both major television broadcasters, the national radio broadcaster and one of the two major newspaper outlets are perceived as leaning left overall, there is an inbuilt narrative around media bias which is easy to tap into.

Pouring fuel on the fire

The trouble is that too many reports appear to be reacting to the new government, and NZ First’s provocations, with outward defiance.  There's a pervasive sense of indignation about the suggestion that there’s anything out of kilter with our media culture. And that all adds up to a situation in which news organisations appear to be tone-deaf to the public mood.

The media's aggressive stance could yield dividends for liberalism if Luxon succumbs to the pressure. The corporate world, where Luxon hails from, is not particularly known for its ability to resist strong media criticism. Should he blink in the face of media onslaught, it would be interpreted as a victory for the journalists.

But it would also further entrench the perception of the media as active participants in the political arena rather than impartial observers and reporters of facts. This could, in turn, contribute to a further erosion of public trust, as the media's role as honest brokers of information becomes increasingly compromised. That creates yet more fertile ground for undermining trust in the media.

Some practical steps

I think there are a few things that the press could do to build some trust across the political spectrum:

• Understand your audience: Don't assume that your audience shares your viewpoints. Approach every story with an open mind and aim for balanced reporting that caters to a variety of perspectives. This includes matters that you personally consider to be settled.

• Respect your audience: It's not your job to tell the news consumers they are wrong or backwards.

• Fact-check diligently but sparingly: While fact-checking is crucial for accurate reporting, be wary of policy disagreements disguised as fact-checks. Focus on verifying the essential details of a story not the preponderance of elite opinion on contested claims.

• Ease up on the snark: Avoid resorting to social media snark. It might be tempting for a quick reaction, but it’s not worth it.

• Keep the focus of yourselves: We want you to facilitate information, not be the subject of the story.

• Listen to regular people a bit more often: Tune out the noise of social media and start paying attention to real-world, in person conversations. If you go through the whole day only talking to people thinking that it’s a bad idea to crack down on gangs, you’re not in touch with the public.

I'm acquainted with more than a few journalists. I genuinely like most of them and deeply respect more than a few. They have a hard job, often walking a tightrope of competing interests and pressures and telling people things they don’t want to here. Often for not a lot of money.

However, the path ahead, particularly in a climate where public trust is at an all-time low, is something to watch carefully. And it’s all in their hands.