When You Pay Peanuts, You Get Propaganda

38 comments on “When You Pay Peanuts, You Get Propaganda ”

• Comments are now closed

1. adam 1

   18 June 2023 at 2:45 am

   Don't you think a little historical context around you post might have helped? A change in the ownership of the media for example? Or in RNZ case, the change of structure under the last Key government? Or the fact this has blown up in the middle of war, which has been from the outset been an exercise in heavy propaganda from all sides?

   But lets leave that aside, politics it's not about a polite debate, it's not a fair world. The right will buy this election. They will do it by lying, cheating, and by any means they think they will win. Dirty politics is very real, and to think being nice and polite is the answer, is to gift the radical far right, right into government.

   Finally, and yes I'm going to get personal, why no courage to name said blog site?
2. pat 2

   18 June 2023 at 3:26 am

   Id venture to suggest that salaries/funding at public broadcasters has always been at the legume level….perhaps the cause of the current problems at RNZ lie elsewhere.
   • Incognito 2.1

     18 June 2023 at 8:30 pm

     Indeed, as mentioned in the OP, this is likely an issue wider than RNZ.

     In the episode of Newshub Nation (linked in the OP), Newshub Nation Digital Editor Finn Hogan did mention three things (among others): 1) digital journalists are often not coming from a traditional broadcast background; 2) digital journalists are often paid a lot less money than traditional broadcast; 3) any learning that comes out of the RNZ situation is that newsrooms really need to invest and pay attention to their digital arms.
3. kejo 3

   18 June 2023 at 9:08 am

   Broadcasting suffers from the exact same problem as every other government department and beuracratic endeavour. Chronic underfunding and every little detail contracted out to a large corporate with the profits exported.
4. tWiggle 4

   18 June 2023 at 9:54 am

   Going back to deliberate disinformation and realworld results, just watched a webinar from an EU-funded project to counter disinfo. It talks about scoring the real-life influence of seeded disinformation.

   The easy-watch place to start in this webinar is from 17 min, when Ben Nimmo gives real-life examples. Chilling.

   To add to the discussion, who benefits? How Musk twitter monetises disinformation puts $ figures on why Musk has loosened the controls on twitter.

   And to see debunking of disinfo in action:

   twitter post shows schlocky image doctored by 4-chan, alongside the original image. Further down in the thread, someone links the source video from which the blameless person was pulled.
   • tWiggle 4.1

     18 June 2023 at 10:48 am

     Who benefits? and why you should think about using google as your search engine
5. higherstandard 5

   18 June 2023 at 10:08 am

   When you pay shit loads you also get propaganda…as it's tax payer funds I'd prefer we stick to the peanuts.
   • Incognito 5.1

     18 June 2023 at 8:32 pm

     You gave your opinion but no reasoning or arguments.

     Other newsrooms are likely to have or face similar issues. This has got nothing to do with tax payer funds.

     The compelling argument is that newsrooms need to invest more time & money and pay more attention to their digital arms, not less.
6. Patricia Bremner 6

   18 June 2023 at 11:57 am

   Personally I believe, like the Judiciary, payment should be at a level that there is little temptation. I also believe The Press Council should be funded and audited and be more proactive. To me, paywalls create divisions. those who pay for information and those who can't. Worse, now we have AI and Chat bots. Very difficult for the ordinary bod to pick truth from slightly slanted.
   • Dennis Frank 6.1

     18 June 2023 at 12:04 pm

     Worse, now we have AI and Chat bots

     Indeed the trend to watch Patricia! I'm expecting this to escalate considerably on the global stage the next few years. The reason is that cultural contagion is driven by network effects. Experts on that scene are opining that scaling up of collective leverage is where all the smart action is headed. At the media/politics interface, competitive social darwinist designs will become highly interactive I expect…
7. Anne 7

   18 June 2023 at 12:01 pm

   Media Watch (RNZ) have an article which sums up the story well:

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018894802/further-fallout-as-rnz-takes-out-the-garbage

   Excerpt: Peter Bale, editor of Wiki Tribune:

   I think there's been a little bit of ‘too florid’ language used about this. This person h’as inserted what are in some people's views genuine talking points from those who . . . want to have expressed what the Russian view is. But it was very ham-fisted,” said Bale.

   “There are ways to do this. You could have inserted the Russian perspective to highlight the fact that there is a different view about things like the Orange Revolution when the pro-Kremlin leader in Kyiv was overthrown,” he said.

   “I don't think it is necessarily ‘Kremlin propaganda’ as it's been described. It was just a misguided attempt to bring another perspective, I suspect, but it still represents a tremendous breach of trust,” he said.

   From what we have learned thus far, I think Bale has got it right.

   It looks to me like this Michael Hall failed to recognise the difference between social media forums such as TS where different opinions and perspectives are expressed – albeit within acceptable boundaries – and an online story sourced from an internationally renowned newsagent such as Reuters.

   He really was a stupid man to try it on.
   • Muttonbird 7.1

     18 June 2023 at 12:54 pm

     Part of the problem is accepting the line that Reuters is immune from politically slanted output, and more problematic is that Reuters is accepted as "internationally renowned" and as such the weight of their name is considered wholly trustworthy, neutral and free from political interference and bias.

     But, how do we know that is the case?

     In the Charlie Mitchell article, he says at the end:

     This is partly managed through bylines, which allow readers to judge the reporter’s work – their interests, style, biases – and to rely on that information when viewing their other work.

     Any dispute can be channelled towards an identifiable person.

     That is impossible when changes based on political ideology are made by a hidden hand and inserted into material written by other journalists without their knowledge.

     Fine, but wire copy reproduced on RNZ doesn't always include a byline (sometimes only the name of the news agency at the end), and so there is no identifiable person. Even when there is a byline, NZ readers would not necessarily know the background or political slant of the writer.

     In the above article, only one of the reproduced articles has a byline, the last one by Guy Falconbridge. It is the article when drew the complaint because Michael Hall added:

     The conflict in Ukraine began in 2014 after a pro-Russian elected government was toppled during Ukraine’s violent Maidan colour revolution. Russia annexed Crimea after a referendum, as the new pro-Western government suppressed ethnic Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine, sending in its armed forces to the Donbas.

     Can't see what is controversial about this paragraph because it is stone cold fact. Agree though that the RNZ copy should state that the article had been edited.

     The whole thing highlights a problem at the heart of Charlie Mitchell's point, that sometimes in editorials, and in reproduced copy, there is no identification of the writer.
     • Anne 7.1.1

       18 June 2023 at 1:56 pm

       "Part of the problem is accepting the line that Reuters is immune from politically slanted output…"

       Agreed. But in the excerpt I linked to, Peter Bale does explain how this person should have gone about it.

       My use of the word "stupid" to describe Michael Hall's behaviour was not quite right. "Naivety" would have been a better description. If that is correct I feel a bit sorry for him. We've all done naive things in our lives.
     • UncookedSelachimorpha 7.1.2

       18 June 2023 at 2:58 pm

       Can't see what is controversial about this paragraph because it is stone cold fact

       Actually, it is stone cold kremlin propaganda – but I guess you are evidence that it is effective. Have you read many Ukrainian sources? One angle of kremlin propaganda is that Ukrainians have no agency or valid opinion on their own country and experience.

       The conflict in Ukraine began in 2014 after a pro-Russian elected government *1 was toppled during Ukraine’s violent *2 Maidan colour revolution. Russia annexed Crimea after a referendum *3, as the new pro-Western government suppressed ethnic Russians *4 in eastern and southern Ukraine, sending in its armed forces to the Donbas *5.

       *1 whose leader is suspected of stealing billions of state money and now lives in russia under the protection of the russian government

       *2 most of the violence was from police snipers shooting unarmed anti-government protestors. At least some of these snipers are suspected of being russian troops / police. Vast majority of the killed and wounded were protestors, not police / government.

       *3 an illegal referendum conducted at gunpoint, under russian military occupation, widely regarded as illegitimate.

       *4 little or no evidence of any abuse of ethnic russians in Ukraine, but often repeated by russia. Russia famously russifies everywhere it occupies (including deportation / murder of much of the native Crimean population, extermination of local languages). Russian is widely spoken throughout Ukraine (and is the first language of the president).

       *5 Sent to donbas following attacks from regular russian military and russian-backed militia.
     • Incognito 7.1.3

       18 June 2023 at 8:36 pm

       Your argument is flawed. Michael Hall made changes to the stories that changed the tone or framing and he instilled his own ideological bias & views. The least he should have done is to put his name under those altered stories and clearly indicate what was original text and what was his own commentary & opinion. This is the exact same principle we adhere to here on TS for comments.

       Frankly, I’m gobsmacked that you don’t seem to have a problem with those hidden edits.
       • Muttonbird 7.1.3.1

         19 June 2023 at 10:05 am

         I love the edits, every self-respecting leftie should. Agree readers should have been made aware the articles had been edited, and have said so at @ 7.1

         This should be the case whenever anything published has been changed by anyone other than the writer.
   • Incognito 7.2

     18 June 2023 at 8:35 pm

     Yes, I agree with Peter Bale and you.

     FYI, the title of the OP was deliberately provocative. The alterations made to the wire stories may have aligned with Russian propaganda, but this doesn’t mean or even imply that Russia was involved and that it truly qualifies as propaganda as such.
8. Phillip ure 8

   18 June 2023 at 12:03 pm

   I think this creative editing exercise @ rnz…has actually underlined the credibility of rnz as a reliable source for news..

   And their increased internal vigilance after this brouhaha. .will only further enhance that credibility..
9. Mike the Lefty 9

   18 June 2023 at 12:07 pm

   It is dangerous to get me started about journalistic standards because I have a big problem with how journalists are trained nowadays.

   I trained as a journalist in the late 1970s. This was at Wellington Polytechnic, which has since become a part of Massey University.

   There were a few fundamental principles we were taught.

   The most important was credibility and trust. This was earned by demonstrating accuracy in reporting, fairness, political neutrality and protecting your source's confidentiality when writing about sensitive subjects.

   But now the industry turns out journalists the way IT wants them. Smart arses who are looking to make a name for themselves, towing the political line (usually right wing) that employers want and writing material that is style over substance.

   What interests me in the RNZ case is that the journalist responsible reportedly thought he/she had done nothing wrong. This is probably true, they were doing things how they were taught to do, change a bit here and there to make a more interesting story – nothing wrong with that is there?

   I think it says more about the poisonous media mogul-controlled industry than it does about the individual journalist at the centre of attention. He/she will be hung out to dry but there are a whole more at the top that deserve that too.
   • Anne 9.1

     18 June 2023 at 12:27 pm

     Couldn't agree more Mike the Lefty.

     The deliberate falsehoods and the denigrating of Labour and Green politicians are daily occurrences in certain media outlets (we all know the worst example), yet they are free to spread their particular brand of poisoning without consequences.
     • Mike the Lefty 9.1.1

       18 June 2023 at 12:46 pm

       Something I forgot to add.

       We were taught that the most important thing was what the people we talked to said, and what they thought. What we as journalists thought wasn't important. Many a time I had to stifle my natural left wing tendencies when reporting on something or a political party that I did not agree with but that was the nature of the job. I was just the medium from the source to the publication and I think I did it pretty well.

       When you have gained journalistic credibility you can start to do opinion pieces, but it takes a long time. There are a lot of stuff and ZB Newstalk writers who probably think they have gained journalistic credibility but their credibility is low by my standards.

       Nowadays journalists seem to be encouraged to take a political line. In my day you gained journalistic credibility by refusing to take sides and not taking any shit from politicians trying to use you as their mouthpiece. You can't say the same today.
   • Patricia Bremner 9.2

     18 June 2023 at 12:47 pm

     Yes influencers rather than reporters. 100% Mike the Lefty.
   • mikesh 9.3

     18 June 2023 at 4:42 pm

     Is Paul Thompson a trained journalist, or is he a managerial person ?
     • Patricia Bremner 9.3.1

       18 June 2023 at 6:45 pm

       Journalist 1995. Was part of The Press Council 2911. so I am told by him indoors
10. Drowsy M. Kram 10

    18 June 2023 at 3:24 pm

    higherstandard @5 is concerned about media propaganda, but there's also 'And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling journalists!' to consider.
    Keep 'em honest, as much as is possible in these $$$-mesmerised times.

    Mediawatch: Turning off the news? [9 April 2023]
    “We noticed that there's 14,500 journalists in Finland [popn 5.5 m] – and about 2500 here [popn 5.2 m]. It does actually speak to what you can offer people. I think in New Zealand we're rushing the news. I'm not blaming journalists for that, because that same stuff has to be covered with fewer resources, but you're inevitably going to get thinner coverage,” Dr Treadwell said.

    https://www.icij.org/journalists/nicky-hager/
    Gotta love a free press, even if it means putting up with a few "media drongos"

    The top five investigations of 2020. So good that there are actually seven

    Why Victorian voters need to care about press freedom [3 Nov. 2022]
    Without meddling journalists, and brave whistleblowers, we may never have had a royal commission into the banking sector, an investigation into industrial-scale branch stacking in the ALP, or the Fitzgerald Inquiry which exposed political and police corruption and organised crime in Queensland.

    Journalism is a public good: World trends in freedom of expression and media development; Global report 2021/2022
    Conclusion
    The picture outlined in this World Trends Report is a sobering one. Even as the global community has seen mounting evidence for the importance of a free, independent, pluralistic, and sustainable news media where the safety of journalists is secured, this public good is threatened on all fronts. There is, however, also some cause for optimism. While accounting for this grim tally of setbacks, this Report highlights a groundswell of efforts to preserve press freedom and protect the safety of journalists around the world.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-people-trust-journalists-country

    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230426IPR82701/the-daphne-caruana-galizia-prize-for-journalism-call-for-submission-of-entries
11. Steve Bradley 11

    18 June 2023 at 4:55 pm

    RNZ News Sunday 17th of June at 0700hr.

    The new wisdom is that listeners to RNZ News are losing confidence in the supposed even-handed, fairness, and neutrality of RNZ news. This wisdom is being declared in response to the discovery that news editorial staff have been re-writing foreign-sourced news of the conflict in Ukraine in ways that are favourable to the Russian point of view. The Minister of Broadcasting has launched an investigation by appointing three persons to assess the evidence.

    But ever since since the long-standing conflict in Ukraine was elevated by the Russian Special Military Operation, the Western media has churned out endless stories favourable to the position taken by the US State Department.

    Classic example: just to make sure that no one can be confused about what is going on in Ukraine – the background message on TVNZ News every night since the beginning has always read in large characters: Russia Invades Ukraine. Don't ever forget.

    Current example: RNZ News at 0700 on Sunday June 18th.

    Paraphrasing: President Putin welcomed a delegation of African leader to a meeting in St. Petersburg. African leaders appealed for a negotiated end to the Ukraine conflict. President Putin smiled broadly as he welcomed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. The South African President called for negotiations to end the war. No coverage of what Putin said.

    But not to worry, we are provided with an audio bite from somebody called Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. who tells us that neither party knows how to start negotiations. And that we'll just have to wait and see how the current military [offensive/counter-offensive] works out.

    This ignores the well documented fact that negotiations between the two sides some time back under the aegis of the President of Turkey produced a package to take to the table for signing.

    That settlement, provisionally agreeable to the two principals to the conflict, was nixed by NATO.

    This morning's particular item was not repeated in the 0800 Bulletin! Go figure.
    • Incognito 11.1

      18 June 2023 at 8:38 pm

      The Minister of Broadcasting has launched an investigation by appointing three persons to assess the evidence.

      This is completely incorrect and highly misleading.

      RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson initiated an immediate investigation and has announced an external review of RNZ's processes for the editing of online stories to ensure these are robust. The terms of reference for that review were announced on June 14.

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/news-extras/story/2018893905/rnz-editorial-audit

      This morning's particular item was not repeated in the 0800 Bulletin! Go figure.

      Firstly, there is no ‘0800 Bulletin’. Secondly, the news cycles are short and not repeating a story on radio is not at all the same as altering online content.

      I also have doubts about your ‘recollection’ of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia but you can take that to OM, if you wish to discuss that further – not under my Post, thanks.
      • Anne 11.1.1

        18 June 2023 at 9:58 pm

        So Steve Bradley is doing exactly what the online digital editor has been accused of doing. Altering the facts to suit his perception of what they should be?
12. tsmithfield 12

    19 June 2023 at 6:21 am

    I am just joining this conversation. And, I agree with the problem as set out. And, AI will certainly make things a lot worse. I think, in the future, it will become increasingly difficult to discern what is true, and what is fake.

    But, I think, first principles are that people creating media need to be creating content that people want to view. Personally, I think traditional TV is dead. In our home we seldom watch broadcast TV these days. We watch the news, and that is about it. Other than that we watch streamed content. I listen to the radio on the way into work. Other than that, everything I get is online now. And, I don't think my family is alone in this trend, judging by the stated rationale for merging RNZ/TVNZ.

    So, media needs to adapt to the new environment in the first instance. It might be that NZ simply isn't big enough for a government-owned entity such as RNZ, and that such entities will end up just becoming black holes for tax payer money. This is a concern when there are competing demands from areas such as health that most voters would likely see as much more important.

    So, increasingly, I think the viability of state-owned media will come under the spotlight. And media will be left to sink or swim on the basis of its merits.
13. Thinker 13

    19 June 2023 at 7:36 am

    Sorry, this was a comment to the dumber article. The train went over a bump maybe. P
14. Adrian Thornton 14

    19 June 2023 at 9:11 am

    Thanks for having the RNZ logo up there next to the title Propaganda…when it comes to geopolitics RNZ pretty much does nothing but regurgitate western propaganda….and just look at their outrageous bias when it comes to covering Trump vs Biden…it is jaw dropping, well actually it isn't any more because they have been doing it so long now that their bias is just normalized..and consumed mindlessly by most of their lazy politically lobotomized Liberal audience.

    Kim Hill and NZ have never offered an apologized to it's listeners for pushing the totally debunked Trump/Russia conspiracy for years on end..and never will….talk about propaganda.
    • Incognito 14.1

      20 June 2023 at 9:26 am

      Of course, you completely missed the point of the Post and its provocative title. Or you were just looking for an excuse to lash out and attack your usual targets because you cannot stand them or rather their views & narratives.
15. Karl Sinclair 15

    19 June 2023 at 10:36 am

    Adrian Thornton, I agree that “when it comes to geopolitics RNZ pretty much does nothing but regurgitate western propaganda”

    Having been an avid listener to RNZ I use to think it was balanced, objective and fair in it’s reporting. However, if you take the time to contrast RNZs narrative with independent analysis you very much become distrustful of our own legacy media. I suspect that’s why the disinformation project has been activated.. to ensure the proletariat stay on track.

    The below links discussing the Ukraine War will give you an example of how neutered RNZ is. Unfortunately, I think it has become a mouth piece for the US Democratic Party (aka NEOCONS) and/Republicans.

    As for Peanuts check out RNZs previous CEO salary range

    Cavanagh had been RNZ chief executive for 10 years. In RNZ's annual report for 2011/2012 his remuneration was in the $340,000-$350,000 range. I wonder what Radio NZ has head-hunted Fairfax Media editorial boss Paul Thompson gets currently (not peanuts…. maybe gold McNuggets?)

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8795664/RNZ-names-Fairfax-boss-as-new-CEO

    Examples contrasting RNZ coverage of Ukrainian War

    Rus Claims Massive Ukr Losses Failed Offensive; Putin Shows Africa Leaders Draft Treaty US/UK Vetoed

    Rus Claims Massive Ukr Losses Failed Offensive; Putin Shows Africa Leaders Draft Treaty US/UK Vetoed

    Overnight, the Western Press Radically Rewrote the Truth About Ukraine to Serve Biden's Endless War Policies | SYSTEM UPDATE #92

    Security guarantees w/ Jeffrey Sachs (Live)

    https://www.youtube.com/live/tm1bIzxkpm0?feature=share
16. Tiger Mountain 16

    19 June 2023 at 10:46 am

    Well, Radio New Zealand was under attack from the Natzos for years with frozen funding. When John Campbell was briefly there it looked like they operated from a beligured bunker with fold out desks if you watched the video.

    Yet, the top echelon was full of Torys and fifth columnists, as were a number of their alumni over the years–closet nats that came out–Sean Plunket, Mike Hosking, Maggie Barry, and it has to be said that Kathryn Ryan and Guyon Espiner are prime suspects in that regard also.

    Intelligent, ethical Subediting is a bygone thing, farmed out to online contractors or sidelined. But hey, I have no complaints with an individual straightening up some of Reuters shit flow.
    • Karl Sinclair 16.1

      19 June 2023 at 10:52 am

      Tiger Mountain… you said

      “But hey, I have no complaints with an individual straightening up some of Reuters shit flow.”

      So eloquently said…. couldn’t agree more.

      Maybe you could get a gig at RNZ 😬

      [Please correct your username in your next comment, thanks – Incognito]
      • Incognito 16.1.1

        19 June 2023 at 11:54 am

        Mod note
17. Jono letts 17

    23 June 2023 at 11:17 pm

    GEE..how naughty of an editor to change a pro-Washington slanted bias article masquerading as journalism. By printing the reverse narrative…simply proves how difficult it is to find any objective print.
    • Incognito 17.1

      24 June 2023 at 5:04 pm

      Please go back to school and don’t comment again under my Posts until you can figure out that secretly altering or manipulating text, including adding false facts, does not constitute ‘objective print’.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS