My main sources of news are TV1, TV3, Newsroom, and Stuff. I can’t stand Mike Hosking or Heather Du Plessis-Allan . Mind you I introduced this post with the phrase, “main sources of news”. No one could ever describe the party-political broadcasts spewing from Hosking and Du Plessis-Allan as news. New Zealand has a huge reputation for honesty and fairness. A fair crack of the whip is a badge of honor. Not with Hosking and Du Plessis-Allan, it is not. Every day they spew out their right-wing opinions. Right-wing opinions that would do credit to the American Drudge Report or Breitbart News. Balanced people avoid this filth. Jacinda Arden quietly left both broadcasters to wallow in their own muck. And so have I.

But it is not those extremists I want to consider in this post. It is the mainstream that is my interest – TV1, TV3, Newsroom, and Stuff. I do not know whether they too are taking their lead from Hosking and Du Plessis-Allan, not in a right-wing, left-wing sort of way. But in the sense that they will latch on to a favourite topic and right or wrong hammer it to death. This is especially noticeable in sport.

I am not advocating for mainstream journalists to be muzzled in any way. Freedom of the press is vital in a healthy community. But there is a need in New Zealand for that freedom to be balanced, fair and honest. There is concern that responsibility could be slipping. Journalists may be using their position to push personal agendas rather than provide a balanced report of news events. That might be fine for Hosking and Du Plessis-Allan who no one expects to be anything else but one-eyed bigots. But their example is not one good journalist should copy.

Here are three examples of what I mean.  

Lydia Ko – Reporting Lydia Ko’s career is way out of line. She is probably the best example of the sad outcome of distorted reporting. I have moved from an enthusiastic supporter of Ko’s career to a disinterested sceptic. Why? Well, it is certainly not Ko’s fault. It’s because some journalists can’t help but lie about her results. And that sadly rubs off on her. Detailed descriptions of a brilliant, stunning, and career turning shot made from her knees in the USA is followed at the end of the report by the news that she finished the day 20 shots or something behind the leader. We can only take so much of that bad reporting.

For example, Ko ended 2021 ranked 9^th in the world. Certainly nothing wrong with that. Except Tom Walsh ended up 2^nd and Lewis Clareburt ended the year 5^th in the world. Just compare the column inches spent on these two, compared to the forest of trees cut to report the promise Ko was on her way to 1^st.  

The media also did a Lydia Ko on pole vaulter Eliza McCartney. There was a time there when you couldn’t read the sport’s news without Eliza’s leg or foot, hip or arm injury being described. But like Lydia Ko, Eliza was always on her way back. The best was yet to come. She finally failed to qualify for the Tokyo Games and had a best vault for the season of 4.32 compared to the qualifying height of 4.60. and was ranked third in New Zealand. Some reporter did her no favours at all by describing that disaster as “she has struggled over the past year with her emotions.” Excuses like that are bad for everyone. They are especially bad for the reporter who should be looking closely at the hard lessons that come out of a fine athlete’s failure to progress. A good reporter has a duty to accurately report the good and the bad. That is how we all progress. It is not a reporter’s job to make excuses and cover-up the failings of their precious favourite. At the end of her career, I suspect Eliza McCartney will think this journalist is pathetic. And if she doesn’t, she should.    

But the best example of New Zealand press bias is the Waikato and Chiefs rugby teams. This is the most difficult example of sporting favoritism to understand. Why Waikato? Why the Chiefs? I can understand an Auckland bias. Most journalists live there. But Waikato and the Chiefs? Who knows?

But bias there most certainly is. Yesterday there was a classic example. Waikato played Northland. First of all the result was a “shock win” for Northland. Whenever Waikato or the Chiefs lose it is always a shock win for the opposition, even Canterbury. The text reinforces the shock with the description, “monster upset win.” Indeed, how could the country hicks from Northland beat the trained to perfection athletes from the Waikato? But not content with making the point twice in the first paragraph this scribe goes on to explain “the hosts stunned the Premiership leaders.” For God’s sake, three times in the first paragraph. We’ve got the point. The best team lost.

But, oh no this guy needs more. Paragraph two begins, “Only the hardiest Northland fans would have backed them to topple Waikato.” And then “despite a backpedalling scrum,” and “some late wobbles” Northland held on to win. But wait, all is explained at the end. “Waikato were crucially reduced to 14 men for the final 10 minutes.” See, it took 15 men playing for Northland plus the referee to explain the defeat. The final score 38-28. I think Northland won but from the Stuff report I’m still not sure.   

Being a press favourite usually does the target no favors at all. It just makes the athletes, and the reporters look stupid – just like Hosking and Du Plessis-Allan.