this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
20 points (95.5% liked)

NZ Politics

562 readers
1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

 

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

News stories don’t just pre-exist somewhere out there, walking around intact and whole, waiting for an equal chance to step through the door of a media outlet and into the public arena.

They exist in tiny bits and pieces, among heaps of junk and distortions and agendas — and the bits are selected, assessed, ranked, and assembled, according to the rigour and professionalism, or the whim and worldview, of the journalists and outlets involved.

Barry Soper chose to construct a pretty ugly beast out of their scraps. The Herald chose to parade it. Then they stepped back and let everyone else feed it, until the whole thing became something big and real-seeming enough to cause genuine uncertainty and fear, and to prompt genuine attempts to do the proper journalistic work of understanding what this new health initiative is all about.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This article comes out as a butthurt whinge, to be bluntly honest.

Whether the reporting on this was fair is a matter of opinion, whether it was factually accurate isn't. We saw our media absolutely bend over backwards to portray Marama Davidson's actions in the best possible light, the author of this seems to have expected the same treatment by our media, and is shocked and appalled they didn't get it.

Fuck em.

[–] cloventt 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think there's any dispute the herald reporting was factually accurate. The issue is that it was very heavily biased and was obviously designed to be inflammatory clickbait.

[–] Ilovethebomb -3 points 1 year ago

Eh, the main reason for the outrage, in my view, is that usually they're doing this to favour the point of view the author holds.

Having the media not on their side must have been a shock to them.

[–] BalpeenHammer 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In this case the reporting was neither fair nor factually accurate.

In order to be factually accurate it has to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It didn't do that. It presented a half truth and the racist public devoured it because it reinforced their "white replacement" persecution complex.