Nat/act/nzf 2023

[mistaTea]

Tell me you are actually smarter than this?
I'm not convinced.

This is why you must hush.

[Balance]

Comparing MSM to Whale Oil? ������
Cameron Slater is an absolute piece of crap who was paid to write attack articles targetting people personally, whether there was any truth to the matter or not.

Media received Government funding, which is not unusual. The conditions were in regards respecting Te Tiriti & coverage of Maori issues.
Why that triggers people so much is interesting and says a lot about them than anything else.

Best you keep to your ‘one source of truth’ from the ‘most transparent government ever’.

[Daytr]

The Maori conditions are just one aspect.

The bigger issue is the perceived bias and soft-ball questioning by journos on the previous govt. Contrast to the stiff opposition the media have put up to literally everything the new govt has done since being elected.

Perceived not reality.
If you want to hear soft-ball questioning just listen to Hopkins interviewing Luxon or Bridges compared to how he interviewed Ardern.

Both Stuff & NZH have right & left wing contributors.

As I said, it's not unusual for Governments to assist the media with funding.

Journalism on average probably does attract more lefties than rightcysts, as many are wannabe or actual writers and the arts is generally more left than right. But the funding doesn't impact that, it's just a reality.

Whereas shock jocks with plenty to say normally with little foundation, but pander to their adoring audience who only want to hear what they want to hear, are virtually all rightcysts.

I find it amusing that MSM is continually accused of left bias when the alternative doesn't even bother to hide their overt promotion of the right. Think of Hopkins, his wife, Plunkett & Williams to name a few.

[Daytr]

There should never be any conditions aside from a basic scope/intent/ring fencing.

Virtually all funding applications from any organization have conditions.
This is not unusual.

For those who don't want to read about issues concerning Maori, then don't read it.
But to complain issues & news pertaining to Maori is getting coverage says only one thing about the complainant.

[ynot]

I find it amusing that MSM is continually accused of left bias when the alternative doesn't even bother to hide their overt promotion of the right. Think of Hopkins, his wife, Plunkett & Williams to name a few.

Those you named are a drop in the ocean conmpared to the weight TV1 commands, and you know that only too well.
You are full of "it" Daytr.

[mistaTea]

Perceived not reality.
If you want to hear soft-ball questioning just listen to Hopkins interviewing Luxon or Bridges compared to how he interviewed Ardern.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Hosko is not biased lol.

He has grilled National MP's too though, let's not be unfair to him.

But he is catering to a conservative view, and of all the media he has done well as he provides an alternative to the usual left wing stuff in most of the other outlets.

Guys like Mike would not be nearly as successful if the wider 'MSM' was not so woke.

[mistaTea]

You are full of "it" Daytr.

Hear Hear!

[Bjauck]

Or possibly some stories on issues that are real such as our economy, what inflation is doing to harm us all, or lo & behold, send a reporter out into regional New Zealand and find out what is good or bad in their lives today.

Could even report on the hundreds of millions of dollars extortions from Ngai Tahu regarding power projects in the South Island or how Far North Iwi have destroyed the mussel spat industry and stifled the green lip mussel industry all over NZ as a result.

But I doubt any of the so called news media would do that, or even have reporters that have the intelligence to understand any of it.

I don’t know what you mean by News Media as I don’t know from where you get your news. However how would you amend this article on Mussel Spat from December 2022.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-...NN2ARHD2NSOCA/

[Baa_Baa]

I find it amusing that MSM is continually accused of left bias

Media Bias Exposed

Public Rating of Media Political Leanings

[thegreatestben]

Virtually all funding applications from any organization have conditions.
This is not unusual.

For those who don't want to read about issues concerning Maori, then don't read it.
But to complain issues & news pertaining to Maori is getting coverage says only one thing about the complainant.

No - we are specifically talking about government funding for the media.

I figure this is common sense but a good summary -

Why Fund Media?

• Informed Citizens:
  People need quality information to make informed decisions. Media provides in-depth analysis of political issues, keeping the public engaged in civic life.
  
• Watchdog Role:
  A strong media acts as a watchdog, holding governments accountable and exposing corruption. This strengthens democracy by ensuring transparency.
  
• Diversity of Voices: Funding can help promote a variety of media outlets, representing different viewpoints. This fosters a healthy public discourse.

Considerations for Maintaining Independence

• Funding with Firewalls: Government funding should come with clear rules to prevent editorial influence. Independent boards could allocate funds based on pre-determined criteria.
  
• Multiple Funding Sources: Media outlets shouldn't rely solely on government money. Subscriptions, advertising (with regulations to prevent undue influence), and donations can create a funding mix.
  
• Transparency and Accountability: Media outlets should be transparent about their funding sources, allowing public scrutiny.

Challenges and Considerations

• Fake News and Bias: There's a growing concern about misinformation and biased reporting. Funding could come with fact-checking initiatives and promoting media literacy.
  
• Concentrated Media Ownership: A few corporations controlling a large share of media can stifle diverse voices. Policies promoting media ownership diversity can be helpful.