IF NEWSTALK ZB is the blunt instrument of conservative politics, then the country’s mainstream press and broadcasters are the velvet glove. They don’t shout quite as loudly as Mike Hosking or Heather du Plessis-Allan, but the ideological work they perform is no less significant. The New Zealand Herald, Stuff, and TVNZ all present themselves as neutral arbiters of public debate. Yet scratch beneath the surface and you find the same assumptions, the same framing, and the same narrowing of political possibility. The illusion of balance is one of the most effective tools of the status quo.
Take the Herald, NZME’s flagship newspaper. Its editorial line dovetails neatly with the politics of its radio sibling, Newstalk ZB. Day after day, its opinion pages are stacked with columnists who recycle market orthodoxy: growth is good, redistribution is dangerous, and the private sector knows best. Several of these columnists, like Heather du Plessis-Allan, also peddle their conservative politics on Newstalk ZB.
When Labour or the Greens propose even modest reforms, readers are met with dire warnings about 'business confidence' or 'fiscal responsibility.' Meanwhile, tax cuts and deregulation are treated as common sense. The Herald doesn’t need to sound like Hosking because it performs the same ideological function in print: normalising conservative economics and rejecting alternatives.
Stuff, for its part, has cultivated a reputation for progressive gestures. Its climate coverage is more serious than most, and its decision to stop publishing climate denial was a welcome step. Yet when it comes to politics, Stuff bends over backwards to appear 'balanced.' That balance, however, is a trap. It means giving equal weight to unequal arguments, treating evidence-based progressive policies as just another 'viewpoint' to be weighed against conservative talking points. The result is a flattening of debate, where the radical urgency of climate action or redistribution is diluted into a polite exchange of opinions. We have seen that most recently in its refusal to acknowledge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Balance becomes bias, because it privileges the status quo over transformation.
TVNZ, the state broadcaster, is perhaps the most insidious of all. Its political coverage is framed as impartial, but its very structure reflects decades of neoliberal reform. Operating as a commercial entity, TVNZ is driven by ratings and advertising revenue. That imperative shapes its news values: conflict over substance, personalities over policies, soundbites over structural critique. Political debates are staged as gladiatorial contests, with the moderator as referee. The framing is always the same: who 'won,' who 'lost', who looked 'prime ministerial.' The deeper questions—about inequality, climate breakdown, or the failures of the market—rarely make it to the screen.
This is the illusion of balance in action. The mainstream outlets don’t need to openly endorse the government of the day. They simply reproduce the ideological assumptions that underpin it. They treat neoliberal economics as the baseline, and anything outside that frame as radical or unrealistic. They elevate 'business confidence' as a measure of national well-being, while treating poverty statistics as unfortunate but peripheral. They frame Maori aspirations for tino rangatiratanga as a 'debate' rather than a matter of justice. In doing so, they shape the boundaries of what is politically possible.
The consequences are profound. When the Herald, Stuff, and TVNZ all reinforce the same frames, they create a media environment where conservative politics appear natural and inevitable. Opposition parties that challenge those frames are cast as reckless or extreme. Progressive policies are pre-emotively discredited before they can gain traction. The public is left with the impression that there is no alternative, that politics is simply a matter of managing the existing order more competently.
This is not neutrality. It is complicity. By presenting themselves as balanced, these outlets mask their role in reproducing inequality and stifling democratic debate. They comfort their audiences with the illusion that all sides are being heard, when in reality only one side—the side of capital, of market orthodoxy, of conservative common sense—is consistently amplified.
The task for the left is to expose this illusion. It must show that balance is not the same as fairness, and that neutrality in a context of inequality is itself a political choice.It must call out the Herald’s editorial bias, Stuff’s centrist flattening, and TVNZ’s ratings-driven superficiality. And we must build alternatives that refuse to play by those rules.
We also should remember that the majority of the public is on our side; trust in the mainstream media continues to plummet. And as Bryce Edwards has noted it is generally perceived as 'distant, elitist, and conformist'.
The truth is this: the mainstream media does not simply report on the news. It shapes it. It sets the terms of debate, defines the boundaries of the possible, and polices the limits of dissent. If we want a politics that can confront inequality, climate breakdown, colonial injustice and capitalism itself, we cannot rely on outlets whose business model depends on maintaining the very order we seek to change.
The illusion of balance is powerful, but it is not unbreakable. By naming it, challenging it, and building our own platforms, we can puncture the facade and open space for genuine democratic debate. That is the task of the next media generation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.