Hosking, Henry and Media Bias

Written By: - Date published: 8:35 am, August 18th, 2015 - 187 comments
Categories: john key, Media, national, same old national, slippery, spin, Steven Joyce, twitter, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Mike Hosking biased

John Key and National has always appeared to be on the leading edge of understanding and manipulating public opinion.  But it seems that something of a tsunami has erupted and Key’s most trusted media supporters are being denigrated for their bias.  And his judgment appears to be totally calculating and nothing to do with what is actually happening.

Yesterday Winston Peters raised the issue in this column where he said that Hosking was a “National Party Stooge” and he suggested that the cost of Hosking’s show should count against National’s electoral advertising.  His conclusion was that Mr Hosking’s jowls are up the Prime Minister’s cheeks.  Ouch.

The Labour Party and the Green Party chimed in.  Andrew Little said that Hosking made “no attempt at objectivity,” and  Shaw said it was pretty obvious that Hosking was biased and there was not any balancing voices with the same reach.

Raybon Kan summarises it very well in a single tweet:

The problem is the overwhelming sense of media bias you get from any interaction with current media.  For instance yesterday’s concerns about Hosking’s clear bias were met with this Stuff headline:

Hosking headline

Of course he would say that.  Can you imagine him agreeing with the suggestion that Hosking was biased?  But the poll suggests that Key is clearly on the wrong side of public opinion on this occasion.

Meanwhile National continue to do what they always do and attack the intelligent dissenting voices prepared to raise their heads above the parapet and say that things have to change.  This recent twitter exchange between Rod Oram and Steven Joyce shows clearly what happens when you criticise this Government.  Oram is one of the most thoughtful analytical commentators we have and Joyce views this analysis as evidence of bias just because Oram disagrees with what the Government is doing.

I expect Paul Henry to do what he does and attack every left wing progressive idea presented to him.  But I am still flummoxed that Television New Zealand, the state broadcaster, should choose to employ someone who does not have the decency to hide his clearly right wing views.

This is serious stuff.  It is all to do with our future and our democracy and the insistence of the right that they twist the rules so that they tilt the playing field to their favour so that they can retain as much power as possible.

There has to be a better way.  The State owned Television Channel insisting on some notion political balance would be a very good start.

Update:  Mike Hosking has responded in the Herald.  The article contains this passage:

He said any links between him being a National Party stooge and an article on dairy prices he wrote last week for the NZ Herald were non-existent.

“I didn’t even mention the National Party at all because the two issues are not related,” Hosking said.

He misses the point.  It is not that on the basis of one particular article there is evidence of his bias, it is because of a continuous mode of behaviour there is evidence of his bias.

187 comments on “Hosking, Henry and Media Bias”

  1. The ‘state-owned’ thing is a red herring. All broadcasting licenses come with obligations. Media used to regard its civic role as the ‘4th estate’ as important. They also got legal protections and privileged access in exchange for holding the powerful to account on behalf of the public.

    If media owners and producers and editors no longer want to uphold professional standards around balance and truth, then let’s strip those privileges and protections. They can gather and publish their reckons like anyone else.

    • mickysavage 1.1

      Agreed Sacha. I mentioned Television New Zealand because if the Government cannot insist that the state owned television channel shows independence then there is no hope for any other channel.

      • tc 1.1.1

        Stop insisting and legislate to enshrine independance like the ABC/SBS in OZ, it fought a charter so don’t give it a choice and bend it to your will which is a weakness of labour who pussyfoot about expecting to be obeyed…wake up !

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2

      +1

      If all they’re going to do is gossip publicly then they should not have the protections extended to journalists as they aren’t journalists.

  2. Lanthanide 2

    Radio NZ’s new ‘drive-time’ show with John Campbell will be simulcast, I believe on the internet, like the Paul Henry morning radio show is by media works.

    I expect this is RadioNZ putting their toes into the water of their long-stated wish to set up a public TV station.

    Once the government changes, I expect this is something the left will support and throw money at.

    This is where TVNZ 7 ultimately could have gone. I suspect National knew this, and that is why they chose to shut the television station down – exercising their fascistic need to control the media under the veil of “commercial reality”.

    • tc 2.1

      Gut TVNZ and use that, good facilities across NZ (the ones not sold off to casinos etc) and you’d leave a channel delivering content via the transmission facilities currently used for TV1/TV2 so coro st emmerdale etc all stay and WTF is all that content gifted to SKY’s now defunct Heartland.

      TVNZ is a disgrace with and needs to be transformed into a useful public service rather than allowed to descend further into celebrity strip sex snooker darts on Ice reality TV schlock.

    • David H 2.2

      And now the Ghost of TVNZ7 could come back to haunt them. Now watch the funds get slashed from RNZ.

      • Pat 2.2.1

        you mean as opposed to the sinking lid on funding it is under?

        • Macro 2.2.1.1

          Yep that as well 🙁
          The sooner these do nothing, no good, fat arse, vandals are booted off the treasury benches, the better for us all.

    • Clemgeopin 2.3

      +1

      I have also wondered if there aren’t any wealthy individuals with integrity in New Zealand who could set up independent media/radio/television, not for profit or excessive profit nor for decimating a particular point of view, but purely to keep it completely independent, objective and investigative in the interest of having a free and fair fourth estate for the good of the people, the country and democracy.

      • Melanie Scott 2.3.1

        I have also wondered if there aren’t any wealthy individuals with integrity in New Zealand.

        • Clemgeopin 2.3.1.1

          Probably are….but may be more interested in some other worthy stuff like bird eating cats?

    • Gosman 2.4

      Then it will be the first to get cut when the right take back the Treasury benches. If you set up ideologically biased State controlled media don’t expect them to remain either independent or fully funded for very long.

      • Lanthanide 2.4.1

        You’re the only one who said it would be ideologically biased.

        All I want is journalism that isn’t biased and reports the facts. Clearly Hoskins doesn’t do either.

        • McFlock 2.4.1.1

          Funnily enough because Hosking is ideologically biased.

          And yet the nats don’t seem to have a problem at all with that.

          • Macro 2.4.1.1.1

            Yep it’s all sweet with them, so long as its biased in their favour; but they don’t want unbiased journalism, nor the reporting of the facts, because that would expose just how poor they were both in practice and in moral principles.

  3. tc 3

    Joyce V Oram…excellent display of arrogance up against serious questions all on social media goliath Twitter keep it up Stevie you are the gift that keeps giving.

    How’s that Nogopay going Stevie ?

  4. Rudi Can't Fail 4

    Attack the media, that’s going to work. Winston get one column in the rag, Hosking is on air 5 days a week speaking to thousands.
    Own goal for Winston as leader of the opposition.

    • tc 4.1

      Why not, expecting them to be fair hasn’t worked and the bias is so blatant they’ve exposed their arrogance and sense of entitlement to sunlight so shine on Winnie.

    • dukeofurl 4.2

      5 days a week ?, we wish it was only that.

      “In the past month, broadcaster Mike Hosking has been given a platform to voice his views 70 times across his Newstalk ZB show, his NZ Herald column and the television show Seven Sharp.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/71189005/Had-enough-of-Mike-Hosking

    • Lanthanide 4.3

      For an ordinary politician, you might be right.

      But Winston has positioned himself into such a place that he can say these sorts of things about the media – and the public listen.

      It’s like the old saying – only Nixon could go to China.

  5. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5

    But I am still flummoxed that Television New Zealand, the state broadcaster, should choose to employ someone who does not have the decency to hide his clearly right wing views.

    I remember you complaining about John Campbell on the basis of his bias as well. I remember you demanding he be taken off air.

    Oh, noes, that’s right, you did the opposite.

    • mickysavage 5.1

      Well apart from the fact that Campbell got stuck into Labour when it was in power, that he was employed by Mediaworks which is a private broadcaster and that it is the State Broadcaster’s job not to show preference for the Government I guess you have a point.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1

        So, there are different standard of impartiality imposed depending on who your employer is? Interesting.

        • RJL 5.1.1.1

          @Fool

          Of course, there’s a difference in expectation between a journalist employed by a state broadcaster and a journalist employed by a private company. Just like there is a difference in expectations between a police officer and a private security guard.

          Also, National is the party of government. The main social point of political journalism is to investigate and question the statements and actions of the government. Acting instead as a propaganda relay for government is what state media does in totalitarian states.

          • Sacha 5.1.1.1.1

            I expect a journalist to uphold their professional standards and obligations no matter who they work for. If they believe they are some other creature instead like a ‘commentator’ then let’s stop treating them like journalists.

  6. hoom 6

    Great quote from Raybon, shame its true.

  7. Clean_power 8

    A feeling of deja vu after the demise of Mr Campbell, always biased towards the left?

    • mickysavage 8.1

      Remember those multiple times where Campbell got stuck into Labour? Remember the GE controversy of 2002?

      The last argument National has when their inappropriate behaviour is pointed out to them. The left does it too.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 8.1.1

        Yeah, he was complaining they weren’t left wing enough.

        • Puddleglum 8.1.1.1

          My take on Campbell’s journalistic behaviour is that he constantly takes those with power – e.g., a government, a corporation, etc. – to task when what they are doing seems to be harming ordinary people or over-riding them.

          I can understand why you would see that as being evidence of Campbell being emphatically ‘left wing’ since – for some reason I’ve never been able to understand – many right wingers appear always to side with those who have extraordinary status, power or wealth and vehemently defend their interests (i.e., the interests of the powerful) against the interests of ordinary people (who they often disparage as not having what it takes, being moaners and whingers, etc., etc.).

          Such right wingers remind me of those kids in the schoolyard who desperately seek to identify with the schoolyard bully and his or her power over others. It comes across as a kind of breathlessness in the presence of power and an unwavering, uncritical admiration for power and its exercise over others (unless its a left wing government that exercises its power over the already powerful, of course).

          I’ve never had that impulse in relation to power and would be very disappointed in myself if I ever did.

          I should add that some right wingers are not like that – but there does seem to be a lot who are. At least that’s my impression.

      • Enough is Enough 8.1.2

        Greg – Are you claiming Mike Hosking never criticises National?

    • dukeofurl 8.2

      Campbell always biased ?.

      When you are doing current affairs the government of the day gets a bashing, as did Helen Clarks- she famously called him a “sanctimonious little creep”

    • D'Esterre 8.3

      @Clean_power: “A feeling of deja vu after the demise of Mr Campbell, always biased towards the left?”

      You didn’t watch or listen to Campbell much – or maybe at all – did you? You wouldn’t make such a comment otherwise.

  8. Weepus beard 9

    Mike Hosking’s response was surprisingly weak.

    He denied being a journalist which was odd. By doing that I can only assume he wants to be known as an entertainer only. He also denied bias despite 75% of respondents in that stuff poll accusing him of the same.

    Also, proving the point made about his bias he clumsily targeted Andrew Little.

    Weak.

    • Charles 9.1

      Mike Hosking’s response was surprisingly weak.

      Not just mentally weak, but surprisingly stupid – he must be rattled. As I recall “the rules”, if your employer gives you a title that doesn’t directly reflect your job description, the thing you never ever do is go out into the public forum and tell everyone you aren’t what your title implies. It tends to make employer look stoopid, reduces your in/formal influence in clients minds, and is not forgiven. With so many other people eager for his level of media time, Hosking just signed his own obscurity/fade-out sentence.

      • the pigman 9.1.1

        Mike Hosking dropped out of school without obtaining School Certificate.

        So from that perspective, his stupidity is not surprising at all.

        He’s a mindless talking head, supinely repeating the talking points of the Nacts with a large degree of wilful ignorance and a whole lot of unwarranted confidence and purpose.

        No surprises that the similarly weak-minded are utterly seduced.

    • infused 9.2

      stuff is about as reliable as the trademe forums.

      • Weepus beard 9.2.1

        75% is a staggering confirmation of Mike Hosking bias no matter what the platform.

        Mike himself told the 12% who voted that he is an outstanding journalist they were wrong because in his own words, he is not a journalist and never has been.

      • Tricledrown 9.2.2

        But its owned by Gina Reinhart and other billionaires how can a right wing wrag be so wrong.
        O sorry Confused real people gave honest answers.
        You would have closed down the survey or deliberately skewed the figures aye infused.

  9. “I didn’t even mention the National Party at all because the two issues are not related,” Hosking said.

    Many backing Hosking are on their usual chorus about left bias on National Radio.
    “The people on there don’t mention the Labour Party at all…” yet are firmly accused.

    Some of the weirdest comment unsurprisingly comes from David Farrar.

    They (Labour and Greens) want a media that agrees with them and they will publicly attack and denigrate people in the media who don’t agree with them. Opposition parties only wants [sic] media that agrees with them

    That’s a reflection of reality yet someone who works endlessly promoting the same sort of thing feigning angst about it, deserves a BIJULT Gold Medal Award. (Best Impression of a Jumped Up Little Twerp.)

    • Weepus beard 10.1

      Yeah, as usual Farrar completely and deliberately skirts the point which was a call from Peters, echoed by Little and Shaw, for objectivity from leading media outlets. Farrar has created the false impression that they argue for the silencing of voices who disagree with them.

  10. vto 11

    That display by Joyce was appalling.

    It was on the level of the most useless tro1ls that trundle around here from time to time…. boring, childish

  11. Matthew Hooton 12

    Worse than so-called bias is the sheer predictability of Hosking, Oram, Henry and (to a much lesser extent) John Campbell.

    • mickysavage 12.1

      Oram is one of the few analytical commentators NZ media has. And I have never seen him grease up to anyone. He digs into stories and says it the way he sees it.

      • Matthew Hooton 12.1.1

        What you mean is that you agree with him, and you know you always will.

        • mickysavage 12.1.1.1

          Reality has a left wing bias …

          But Oram goes deeply into issues and presents a number of layers to a story. Hosking and Henry are very shallow and have that really annoying approach on, for instance climate change, rubbishing 98% of scientific opinion without even explaining themselves.

          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.1

            I think you’ll find that they’re too ignorant to be able to explain themselves.

        • Anne 12.1.1.2

          Hooton… your malicious attack on Professor Jane Kelsey yesterday – RNZ political slot – was beyond disgraceful. Your own track record of bias and ignorance is such, that I don’t consider your opinions on anyone else to be of much worth.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 12.1.1.2.1

            How was it malicious? He simply pointed out that she has been against all free trade agreements. Out of which, New Zealand has done very well.

            • Anne 12.1.1.2.1.1

              Go back and listen again. He lied, and showed no respect for Professor Kelsey. One can oppose a person’s point of view without resorting to the kind of vitriolic language and tone that Hooton frequently uses on these occasions. Also, he’s a coward because he doesn’t do it to their faces.

              Note Kathryn Ryan’s heated response as she tried to shut him down. Media hosts (of quality) don’t do that without good cause.

              • gsays

                hi anne,
                the political discussion on rnz (from the left and from the right) used to be appointment listening for me when laila harre was involved.
                i recall before the last election when something was revealed (leaked?) and hooten was found to have been acting in a disgraceful manner or caught out telling porkies.
                laila harre let him know that it was not on.

                i have listened a few times to the current line up but it just sounds like from the right and an echo from the right.
                i have a lot of respect for the work mike williams does in prisons but he is not an effective advocate for the left (or at least the left as i see it).

                i reckon a few of the regulars from this blog would be better- tracey, colonial viper, clemgeopin for examples.

                as an aside i do remember the rant that martyn bradbury did that got him removed as a guest on the panel.

              • Realblue

                “One can oppose a persons point of view without the kind of vitriolic language….” The irony from Anne is staggering.

                • Anne

                  Yep. I will call out someone who is being an ass-hole but I don’t do malice mate. But I guess you don’t know the difference. 🙄

            • ianmac 12.1.1.2.1.2

              No. Jane Kelsey said that she supported Trade agreements that benefitted NZ as a trading nation. She went on to say that TPP opposition was not about trade so much as all the other issues like sovereignty and intellectual property. (About 5 chapters of TPP are about Trade. 15 are about non trade issues.)

              So Matthew deliberately misrepresented Jane and so have you GFFKaO.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                She couldn’t remember ever having supported a free trade agreement, except maybe GATT.

              • Gosman

                I believe he stated that the interview Professor Kelsey gave with Guyon Espiner was very illuminating and highlighted she was basically against all Free Trade arrangements that NZ has signed (With the possible exception of GATT). If you disagree with that you might care to explain why the interview didn’t show this.

                • lprent

                  That is fine, we need the debate from all sides, and some of the best comes from people who oppose such deals. Certainly they tend not to swallow propaganda wholesale in the way that you and Guyon seem to.

                  The problem that National has is that people like me who have supported every trade deal since the 1970s don’t consider this to be a “trade” deal that benefits NZ, and oppose it.

                  Jane Kelsey has managed to convince a lot of people on this deal which she did not on others. But unfortunately that doesn’t seem to to convinced the munters like you and other arrogant gits that you need to actually provide some information that goes beyond the religious economic quackery that we usually see you munters parrot.

                  Right now I am of the opinion that if the current NZ executive signs this deal, then we should immediately drop out of it with a change of government. That is because it looks likely that it cost us a bundle for at least 10 years, and politically it is unlikely that any promises made about freeing up the trade we are interested in the future has a snowballs chance in hell of ever happening (ie US congress, Japanese diet, and Canadian parliament will block it).

                  It may be that a large part of the issue is the lack of transparency in this deal compared to any of the others that we have been involved in. But it doesn’t feel like it. It just looks like a crap deal.

                  Perhaps you (and Guyon) should deal with that rather than attacking the watchdog.

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                    Must you call anyone who disagrees with you a “munter”? It doesn’t seem very polite. It doesn’t advance your position much. It makes it look like you’ve stepped out of 1983.

                    And, in Guyon’s defence, he’s allowed to (and should) asks questions. Asking the question doesn’t mean he agrees with the position the asking might imply to you. That’s what being a journalist is about.

                    You don’t seem to get much enjoyment out of this. Are you sure your heart’s in it?

                    • lprent

                      Because I think they are acting like a munter? I really can’t be bothered being polite about it.

                      After being ‘interviewed’ by Guyon once, that is exactly what I think he is. His journalism on that occasion (and presumably this one as well) wasn’t based around anything apart from his rather dated personal worldview. In my case it was some kind of picture of TS based on something someone told him in 2007/2008 and all his questions seemed to relate to that – they sounded exactly like the idiot trolls from then mindlessly repeating the propaganda from Farrar.

                      Similarly with Kelsey, rather than being informative, all he did was chase his own inherent ideas rather than those of who he was interviewing – which makes the interviews a total waste of time.

                      So why were you making such a BIG thing about his ‘interview’. Kelsey has always been quite open that she doesn’t trust bilateral trade deals. Also that she acts a detail seeking watchdog on any trade deal. So why did you think that this was significiant? Ignorance or because you were trying to run a meme? Why did bloody Guyon waste so much time pestering on something that she has stated many times?

                      If you don’t want me being irritable with you, then don’t act like a dumbarse.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                      The point, darling, is that Kelsey is going to be happy with exactly no trade deal of any kind on any terms whatever.

                      So, of course she doesn’t like it.

                      I don’t mind you being irritable, but I am concerned about what it’s doing to your health. Please assure me you are eating your vegetables and getting a solid eight hours a night. You know how I worry about you.

                    • lprent []

                      Whatever. An interesting way of avoiding discussion.

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                      But that’s the problem, sweety. You’re not interested in discussion, just in throwing cheap insults from bygone eras and trying to convince everyone you are smarter than them.

                      xxx

                    • lprent []

                      I did discuss it. However you appear to have not read them. You didn’t deal with any points in my extensive replies.

                      I appear to be quite a lot smarter than you are on that basis. Or are you simply lazy? Or are you quite aware that you screwed the pooch in your first comment by trying to play some quite unarguable moronic memes?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      I’ve been extremely skeptical of knee-jerk suspicion of the TPPA for ages. Seeing the investor state dispute resolution provisions changed that.

                      As Lprent says, this is a restraint of trade agreement. You don’t seem to be able to substantively address the issue.

                    • Anno1701

                      that just got a little freeeeeeeeeeeky didnt it !

                • Lloyd

                  Actually I believe Professor Kelsey said she was not against most of all the free trade agreements New Zealand had signed but was opposed to those parts of most of the agreements that took powers away from the New Zealand government. Sounded very patriotic and sensible to me.

            • lprent 12.1.1.2.1.3

              Which is the role of a watchdog. Why exactly is this divergence in this post?

          • Ffloyd 12.1.1.2.2

            Anne. Hooton yesterday was beyond appalling. He is rude, oafish, predictable and bloody boring. Arguing over your radio host is the worst of manners. I was very impressed with Kathryn Ryan for putting him in his place. He’s like a spoiled little child. No idea why he is still on.

        • Tricledrown 12.1.1.3

          Hooton your a bullying Bullshitter.
          I’ve been listening to Oram since he arrived in this country.
          Rod Oram does his research and is not frightened to call it as he see’s today he lambasted both National and Labour over Solid Energy’s demise.
          Lambasted Labour and National over their pathetic attempts at regional development.
          He has been very critical of the Dairy industries shortsightedness.
          For at least 12 years.
          If National were awake instead of putting all their eggs in the one basket.
          Dairying would be in much better health.
          Without good journalists like Oram we would just have utter Bullshit propaganda like you spew out , Mathew spoowton.

        • Paul 12.1.1.4

          Your attack on Jane Kelsey was shameful and says a lot about you as a person.

      • Mike 12.1.2

        Whether you agree or not you could not accuse Oram of political bias. The lack of financial journos with teeth and backbone to say it as it is without the spin doctoring that goes with the likes of Mathew is sad for us all. Keep it up Rod because the likes of you are basically just about alone in this wilderness of the so called financial journalist profession.

    • Pat 12.2

      there are a couple of very significant differences between Hosking/Henry and Campbell/Oram…the latters positions are generally well researched and supported by evidence….and the former are funded by those with vested interest.

    • Charles 12.3

      Campbell, Hosking, Oram, Henry… and Hooton. You forgot Hooten. Oh you are Hooton.

    • Blue Horsehoe 12.4

      Is it really Matthew Hooton, is that even the actors real name

      Perhaps he has a lacky to cruise the blogs using the name

      Pondering the life of a hollowed out lacky actor, paid up shill of the corporate crims

      Not even a good actor or liar. Just a shouty washed up coward using the same tired old lines

      Must be an empty existence Hooton

      [lprent: Yes it is really Matthew Hooten. I’ll leave this comment intact in, but you are getting way to close to the bounds of pointless abuse. Your second line had a point for a newbie on this site. But you can assume that we don’t like people doing impersonations of others and we check. The rest of the comment was just you being an idiot.

      Read the policy before I do more than just warn. ]

    • tc 12.5

      Include yourself in the predictability ranks Matty….anyone with a bag a cash and there you are rent a ranting and positioning as directed to.

      • emergency mike 12.5.1

        Matthew Hooton reckons forget about the so-called bias, it’s ‘predictability’ from political commentators that we should be moaning about. Thanks Matty, great thinks there.

        Remind me again, what exactly does your own brand of professional bullshittery contribute to society?

    • rhinocrates 12.6

      Hoots: Naltrexone, Antabuse. Talk to your GP about them. I swear by them – they’ve really helped me.* Drunkenness must be your only excuse for that appalling behaviour. You really need help before your do serious harm to yourself. I suggest Fluoxetine too.

      *For those interested, Naltrexone controls the cravings for alcohol, allowing new pathways to form and Antabuse ensures that if you have any alcohol, you’ll see it again very soon.

    • Stuart Munro 12.7

      Well actually the bias is pretty shocking.

      But it’s boring too – you’d think the right could afford a better class of sock puppet.

  12. vto 13

    Lordy, Hosking’s response is woeful ….

    Listens to Fed Farmer and Fonterra because they are “experts”… This describes his failings completely. He has no idea the gargantuan holes in his approach, as evidenced by this.

    He is blind to his blindness..

  13. Clean_power 14

    Does Rod Oram get disqualified for having once confessed to be an “admirer” of Helen Clark?

    • mickysavage 14.1

      Only if you want to write off the opinions of a significant part of the population.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 14.1.1

        As you appear quite willing to do in respect of the highest rating broadcaster in NZ.

        • vto 14.1.1.1

          Being the highest rating means diddly squat in the serious world…

          All it means is that Hosking is the toyota corolla of the media world… ha ha ha

          • Puckish Rogue 14.1.1.1.1

            Boring, reliable, efficient, trusted and NZs most popular car, yup VTO thats a bad thing to be compared to a corolla

          • Hami Shearlie 14.1.1.1.2

            Hosking is so bad he’s more like a Reliant Robin. He does often seem to be travelling on only 3 wheels in the brain department.

          • Tricledrown 14.1.1.1.3

            Highest ratings in a dwindling audience.
            More people are viewing online news free to air audiences are declining.
            Traditional broadcasting is loosing advertising income rapidly.
            TVNZ is no longer the profitable company it once was no doubt it will be sold off soon like state houses,landcorp farms ,solid energy etc.

    • Stephen 14.2

      According to Hooten, Oram gets disqualified because he can think for himself.

    • Charles 14.3

      No, but a journalist might raise a “Hosking eyebrow” at his methods of engaging Joyce via twitter. Journalists trying to be entertainers, entertainers trying to be shock-jocks, the whole thing is absurd.

    • miravox 14.4

      No.
      Hosking professed an admiration for Helen Clark too. I doubt anyone would suggest he has a left-wing bias.

      When you call for a person to get re-elected I think your colours are pretty well nailed and you’ve used your position to attempt to influence others.

  14. Phil Tate 15

    I’m more optimistic about the media situation given the response to Corbyn (http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/aug/17/jeremy-corbyns-appeal-is-enhanced-by-the-united-hostility-of-the-press?CMP=share_btn_tw). He’s had the kitchen sink chucked at him both by the notoriously biased UK press and opponents, but these sources have been discounted by his supporters and his campaign thrives. Indeed, the virulence of the attacks has underlined that his position as a real an alternative to the bland consensus espoused by his opponents and the sitting government.
    It shows that a strong message, well articulated by a voice who refuses to engage in personal attack, can achieve cut-through with sections of the electorate previously dismissed as dis-engaged. Both old style campaigning and new forms of social media have clearly worked hand in glove here, and it shows what’s possible.
    It seems many NZ TV commentators have increasingly come to view neutrality as either an irrelevance or career hinderance when faced with a dominant political agenda. Corbyn (and perhaps Sanders too) shows that this will merely accelerate their own irrelevance to the inevitable future debates defining what comes after the current broken economic model.
    The lesson for opposition voices is surely that the level of biased media noise is a direct reflection of an idea’s potential to overturn current political orthodoxy. Therefore, the louder, the better.

    • mickysavage 15.1

      I hope you are right about Corbyn. The problem is however that an ongoing assault by media will slowly but inevitably change public perception.

      • Phil Tate 15.1.1

        My optimism may be tempered with the knowledge that such a phenomena can go both ways.
        Trump demonstrates that a strong reactionary view, crudely stated, but which resonates with people’s anger can also break out of a biased media narrative. The irony here of course is that Fox has been instrumental in both stoking the base’s anger and supporting the political parody personified by Trump. Ailes now appears unable to control the very combination he created, with unfortunate results for the GOP.
        Let’s hope the broader American electorate retains its political senses.

      • Olwyn 15.1.2

        That varies. It worked against Cunliffe, who lacked both the time to establish himself and adequate caucus support, when he needed at least one of those things. It worked against Winston in 2008, but for him in the Northland bi-election. The media will change its ways when it finds it can no longer control the zeitgeist, and every time someone wins despite their onslaught, that day draws closer.

        • Colonial Viper 15.1.2.1

          People are literally switching off from the MSM now.

          Look at the Establishment’s confusion in the UK – the more Corbyn is villified by the MSM and various “very important” talking heads – the better he seems to do.

        • mickysavage 15.1.2.2

          Aye.

          You need stamina and a hide of steel to survive in politics.

  15. Tommo 16

    Mr Hooton once again demonstrating his boorish notions…The mans a shrill

  16. Colonial Viper 17

    When the NZ workforce was still highly unionised, the Left had a way of getting messages and notices directly into hundreds of thousands of ordinary Kiwi households.

    Labour destroyed those unions and those union work places, and now the Left has no way of reaching into most Kiwi households, unless it is via the filter, and the good graces of, corporate for-profit MSM.

    As the MSM defines what is acceptable in political and economic expression in NZ, the Left can only operate within the boundaries that it sets. In this way, the “Mainstream Media” fulfills its characterisation: it defines what is mainstream, and what is marginal (or radical) in political economic discourse.

  17. Anne 18

    It’s beginning to look like there is yet another loosely coordinated campaign of sleaze, gossip, innuendo, lies, set-ups, trumped up charges and general vilification by the political Right against opponents – and anyone who dares stand up to them. I mentioned Professor Jane Kelsey earlier on this post and there is a good and very recent example.

    “Dirty Politics Part 2” coming up in the not too distant future?

  18. Paul 19

    Keep the pressure up on Hoskings.

  19. Amanda Atkinson 20

    What a load of hogwash. There are just as many left bias media commentators. Whale oil says the media is left bias. This site says media is right bias. Both are just pure stupid statements. Mike Hosking and Paul Henry are right bias? Really? That is news? Wow I would never have guessed. Who cares what they think anyway? Why do left and right extremists, like those on here and whale oil think that us normal Kiwis listen to media personalities and are influenced by them? The media is the least trusted profession in NZ on the last survey, so there is your cast iron proof that most people don’t care what the media says. The only ones who care are the left and right extremists who get all up in arms when the media don’t conform to their narrow view of the world. Us out here in the real world, not blinded by ideology, guess what? We can think for ourselves and make up our own minds thanks very much. We don’t need left and right idiots trying to make out that we are influenced by right bias media like Mike Hosking and left bias media like John Campbell. Give us some credit. You lot do not have the sole claim to political intelligence. Fuxake, what a joke.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1

      Who’s “we”? Is it getting crowded in there?

      • Amanda Atkinson 20.1.1

        “we”, are middle NZ, who happen to decide elections. Dis us all you want, but our votes chose the government, your vote, is irrelevant.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1.1.1

          You don’t speak for anyone else no matter how many voices you hear. As for “dissing” people, are your other personalities hypocrites too?

          • Amanda Atkinson 20.1.1.1.1

            my point is standing up rather nicely here

            • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1.1.1

              “Middle NZ”

              no such thing. Unless you mean the top quartile of NZers by income.

            • McFlock 20.1.1.1.1.2

              I’m pretty middle NZ by most socioeconomic standards.
              Stop pretending you speak for me. It makes me think you’re delusional. What are we, telepathically linked?

              Only a third or so of voteres voted for national. You’re part of the dumbest and most selfish third of the country.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                I’m still trying to digest the notion of Winston Peters as a “left and right extremist” 😀

                • McFlock

                  The only reason winston would have a foot either side of a tory trool is so he can relieve himself 🙂

        • vto 20.1.1.2

          “you” are not middle New Zealand in fact “I am” so there….. sheesh

        • Paul 20.1.1.3

          If the extreme right wing faction of the ACT Party is ‘middle New Zealand’then you are indeed middle NZ.
          But it isn’t.
          And you’re not.

    • vto 20.2

      Speak for yourself Amanda Atkinson

      Don’t pretend that you speak for anyone else. Pretending that you speak for others kind of highlights the exact point that is being made ……

      • Amanda Atkinson 20.2.1

        not pretending, you just can’t handle the truth

        • vto 20.2.1.1

          you are full of shit

          • Amanda Atkinson 20.2.1.1.1

            Now the insults are flying. That equates to an epic fail, for you.

            [lprent: And you appear to be deliberately provoking them. Trolling irritates me.

            My usual response is to warn once, and then boot idiots trolling off the system. Stick with the level of your first comment in this thread. If someone challenges you on a point then answer them. After that you can add the extras. But if I see you using fuckwit troll avoidance techniques again, then you will be gone.

            BTW: don’t argue with this, I’m getting tired of fools – so just read the policy first and adjust your behaviour before trying to talk to me.. ]

    • infused 20.3

      I dont think people watch paul henry for his political views.. apart from the daily rip on len brown which is quite warranted.

    • Paul 20.4

      You are talking utter nonsense and you know it.

    • Us out here in the real world, not blinded by ideology, guess what? We can think for ourselves and make up our own minds thanks very much.

      A lot of the research on human beliefs, preferences, attitudes, decision making, etc. actually suggests that people’s sense that they ‘make up their own minds’ is a misleading and illusory belief.

      All of us – irrespective of factors such as intelligence, personality traits or the like – think in a way that is not independent of external influence. These influences are often (usually) ones that we are unaware of and certainly include ‘framing’ etc. provided by the media, peers in our social group, economic factors and interests and the like. (They often exert their influence via well-known cognitive biases, evolved cognitive ‘shortcuts’, that come to be exploited by these kinds of external factors.)

      I’m afraid the notion of the independent, sovereign, decision making individual promoted by the Enlightenment political project doesn’t seem to be the reality.

      I realise that many people – on both the left and right – don’t like this finding. But so far as the word means anything, it’s true.

      Of course, that doesn’t mean that it might not be socially and politically expedient to treat individual beliefs as if they arose out of nothing other than some disembodied and magical process within individuals that is hermetically sealed from external factors but I think it’s important to remember that, so far as we can tell, it’s not how people in reality come to have and express the beliefs, attitudes, etc. that they do.

      By the way, not having an ‘ideology’ – as you put it – doesn’t prevent these external factors from influencing what ‘middle New Zealanders’ happen to believe.

      In fact in some ways, having a well worked out, self-reflective and critical ideology may provide a useful counter to many of these external influences.

      • mickysavage 20.5.1

        Way too deep for Amanda I am afraid Pg.

        • Puddleglum 20.5.1.1

          Maybe mickysavage – although I don’t think it’s all that deep.

          I just have problems writing things in a plain and simple way … mea culpa 🙂

          • Pat 20.5.1.1.1

            and borne out by the shift of “middle NZ” (and other electorates) to the right since the 80s

      • Incognito 20.5.2

        I am glad you brought this up.

        ”No man is an island”

        We don’t use our free will (to create) because we’re not (yet) aware; we (instinctively) react, we copy (parrot), we follow, we obey …

        Through history many have pointed this out, in various ways; the Socratic Method is effective but cumbersome and potentially lethal. There’s fast thinking (biases & heuristics) and then there’s slow thinking (Kahneman et al.).

        Echo Chambers and Group Thinking are insidious, especially nowadays with the increasing reach (24/7) of the Internet. However, it is becoming more and more clear that we cannot rely anymore on the MSM for impartial reporting let alone for stimulation of critical thinking and challenging of mainstream views (perhaps this always has been an oxymoron?); MSM has succumbed to the same insidious forces and has become one itself (it crossed over to The Dark Side). The Public Intellectuals have not fallen silent but they are being crowded out by reverberating noise.

        It doesn’t have to be like this …

      • One Anonymous Bloke 20.5.3

        Well said Puddleglum.

    • the pigman 20.6

      Hi Cathy – how’s biz going being holed up somewhere in the South Pacific? Hope Jason comes to visit.

      Do they do cufflinks in Timbuktu? AA would make for a great monogram.

    • mickysavage 20.7

      The good people here are not left extremists. And if you do not think that Henry and Hosking are right wingers you need to recalibrate your understanding of politics.

      And don’t compare us to commentators on Slater’s site. The difference is stark. Amongst other things the people involved in this site have never smeared or threatened innocent people.

      There is a complete lack of trust in the media because there is a complete lack of balance. Hosking can stay. We just ask that a left wing equivalent like Robert Reid or Deborah Russell get given a similar opportunity on the State broadcaster.

      • adam 20.7.1

        *Cough*

        I’m a left wing extremist Mickysavage.

        I have no qualms in being called a Christian anarchist.

        I think we have moved so far to the right, even moderates like yourself, and many here are seen as extreme by some.

        I think we have moved so far right, that social democracy is now a revolutionary position.

        I think we have moved so far to the right, that the people who call themselves the centre, are actually hard right.

        And finally, I think we have moved so far to the right, having morals, and the ability to think – makes you, an enemy of the state.

        • JeevesPOnzi 20.7.1.1

          I think being a Christian makes you an enemy of reality.
          Wake up to your delusions, let the Truth into your brain – live your life.

  20. Aaron 21

    I hope Hosking stays exactly where he is and gets even more visibly biased, because at the moment it’s all laid out for people to see – as the poll indicated

    If we make too much noise he’ll get replaced by someone who is a bit brighter and better at hiding their bias – kind of like Bush getting replaced by Obama, everyone thought things were going to change…

    • tc 21.1

      Nope Hoskins, Henry and co aren’t going anywhere no matter what they do as it’s a numbers game with radio rantland and commercial TV crucial outlets to sway the swinging sheeple, especially if Shonkys not fronting the 2017 GE for the hollowmen.

      Tony Vietch is an example of boys club membership.

  21. G C 22

    If people keep tuning into Seven Sharp, more Mike Hoskings they will get. TV is tragic anyway and I can’t believe people still watch it. I don’t even watch Parliament TV – I just stream it live!

    The Government are tragic with their GST on Netflix and clearly are up Spark’s backside. As if GST will make a difference to Spark’s ‘Lightbox’ (s#$^box) subscriptions ha ha haha har

    #NationalOutOfTouch

  22. dukeofurl 23

    Looking at the Big Hs opinion piece in the herald today

    Proof concern about Asian investment is simply racism

    He digs – very shallow- into a KPMG report about OIA results for ONE YEAR

    http://www.kpmg.com/nz/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/press-releases/pages/foreign-direct-investment-nz-trends-insights.aspx

    Interesting to note one of KPMG caveats, Australia has no requirement to get OIA approval ( and wont appear on the list) if price is under $477m

    Another is Canada had two large transactions which boosted their share, no data for their share over 5 years say .

    USA has nearly 46% of the land by area acquired.

    WE can see why Hosking does not claim to be a journalist as he cherry picks a limited survey on one years data.

    Cuts to another theme about house buying in Auckland which is not connected but luckily matches views of the PM and his ministers.

    This is the sort of ghostwritten stuff the PMs office sends out to people like Hosking all the time. He just reuses it as though it was all his own work and cleverly says he has no connection to ‘National Party’ . Of course not Mike, you get all your stuff from the PMs office, like they did with whaleoil, like they did with kiwiblog and like they do with other fellow travellors

    • What struck me about the KPMG report were two things.

      First, I’m sure that it was explained (on Morning Report citing KPMG) that the report was carried out out of ‘curiosity’?? Seems an odd thing to motivate a major corporate to research and write a report that, presumably, cost something to generate. (Do shareholders approve of the company going hither and thither, spending money, just because someone is ‘curious’?).

      Second, it was linked to the concerns expressed in the media and by the public over Chinese-based buyer activity in the Auckland housing market (presumably this is what made someone at KPMG ‘curious’ to do more research). Yet, of course, it had nothing to do with the Auckland housing market.

      Another strange thing was that the main reporting of it on Morning Report was quite a detailed analysis that made clear all the points that showed its limitations (especially in relation to its exclusion of the housing market).

      Yet, this morning, the RNZ news headlines about Andrew Little’s response and Susie Ferguson’s intro to her interview with Little used phrases like “despite a report showing Canadians are the biggest overseas investors in New Zealand” Little stands by his comments on the Auckland housing market and that “Andrew Little says the KPMG figures don’t include residential property sales” – as if the latter was only his claim when, in fact, the KPMG report itself and the reporting of it on Morning Report made this clear.

      Quite misleading framing of the interview I thought.

      It came across sounding as if Andrew Little was being a King Canute against incontrovertible evidence from a report that had proved him wrong.

      Yet their own reporting of the report had made clear that there was no connection between his comments on Auckland housing and the report. Why, then, even interview him in that kind of framing?

      It’s as if they hadn’t thought clearly about the facts of the matter but had simply conflated ‘report on foreign investment shows Chinese weren’t the biggest investors’ and ‘Andrew Little said something about overseas Chinese investors in Auckland residential property’ and somehow came up with ‘therefore we must ask him about whether he still stands by his comments‘.

      Why not similarly interview him over whether or not he stands by those same comments given that the All Blacks won the Bledisloe Cup over the weekend? Makes as much sense.

      Bogglingly poor analysis and lack of clear thinking on RNZ’s part in this instance.

      • weston 23.1.1

        rnzs news is absolutely no different to any other msm news much as we might like it to be .its maddening to hve the same so called news repeated all through the day and night also .apart from the interviews and the generally informative stuff the place is run like a regular comercial station complete with background jingles bells and whistles .therefore its no supprize that there appears to be a deliberate muddying of the waters arround the apparent contradiction between what rnz thinks and what it sayes via the news i guess after all its a state broardcaster.it still sucks though

  23. Rolf 24

    That is how all dictatorships worked throughout history, and most of them were on the surface democracies. I am thinking on The Third Reich and the Soviet Union in more recent times. What they do is just like Key and national, remove all critics in the media and put their own people there to pay tribute to what they do. Critics as investigating journalists and media journalists as Campbell are sent off, and the politicians send in their loyal mates to manage.

    • Draco T Bastard 24.1

      +1

    • David 24.2

      John Campbell is in the gulag is he?

    • Neil 24.3

      You’ve hit the nail right on the head.

    • mickysavage 24.4

      Aye.

      Sanctuary said this at Dimpost:

      “As someone else said, our broadcast news and current affairs media at the moment looks like something Putin would recognise, only it all happened without a single journalist disappearing.”

      • Puddleglum 24.4.1

        Reminds me of a report on the Media Lens site years ago.

        Soviet journalists who had reported the USSR action in Afghanistan visited the U.S. after the Soviet Union collapsed and heard the U.S. media discussing Iraq (I think).

        Their comment was words to the effect that ‘Your state propaganda is so much better than in the old Soviet Union. You get all the media to follow the party line and you don’t even have gulags.’

  24. millsy 25

    I still think that Amanda Aktinson is Monique Angel/Watson – PG’s soulmate.

    • lprent 25.1

      Speculation on identities is dangerous if I am in moderation mode.

    • the pigman 25.2

      Thanks millsy, I was trying to remember the previous handle of that D&D-loving “centrist” concern troll that would always get particularly nasty when she got on the wines 😉

      AA is pretty obviously a pseudonym for the new sock puppet to step into that hackneyed role – a little digging makes that clear.

  25. Keith 26

    Wow, what an impotent embarrassing comeback by Joyce! You can see him thinking “Dear God this guy knows the Emperor has no clothes”!

    • maui 26.1

      Wow from me too, I was most impressed with Oram taking it to Joyce. I didn’t know he could do that and so directly.

      • mickysavage 26.1.1

        Yep he would run a million miles normally because he is the consummate financial commentator. Rule one is do not scare anyone. The fact he responded means he thinks things are really bad …

  26. Red Blooded 27

    Jeremy Wells impersonation sounds more Like Mike than the Gelled One himself. Sometimes he just nails him perfectly.
    http://www.hauraki.co.nz/listen/radio-hauraki-audio-vault/jeremy-wells-like-mike-hosking-rant-winston-peters-vs-the-prime-ministers-cheeks-me/

  27. johnm 28

    Hoskins is an intellectual moron. Listening to his ignorant dumbed down rubbish is just plain revolting: I don’t ever.

    • Matthew Hooton 28.1

      If you don’t ever listen to it, how do you know it is ignorant, dumbed down rubbish? How have you experienced the revulsion of which you write? How could you know he is an intellectual moron? C’mon, admit it – you secretly do listen don’t you?

  28. Paul 29

    Hoskins represents all that has gone wrong with New Zealand.
    If you like Hosking you support his despicable view of the world.

  29. Neil 30

    Hosking should change his name to “Laces” because he is that far up Keys arse all you see is his shoe laces.

  30. keyman 31

    just boycott these national party stooges boycott tv3 tvnz and the herald why listen to the key propaganda

  31. keyman 32

    if you get a chance go to one rods presentations there very good

  32. Tricledrown 33

    Free to air TV needs to be boycotted their is f/all worth watching.

  33. save NZ 35

    At least some commentators still have Balls.

    Interesting exchange between Oram and Joyce.

    The Nats want to shut down any debate on the economy and bully any commentators into the party line, of silence or butt check admiration.

    Of the later apparently Sesame ST has higher ratings than Paul Henry. I guess make Hay while the sun shines out of the Nats Ass, even if the rating show that nobody is watching.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    1 week ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago