"We get [accused of political bias] from both sides in equal measure, so that makes me feel like we're getting things about right."
What's clear from the overwhelming response to the Q&A is that our readers are keen to understand how the NZ Herald newsroom works and what informs our editorial decisions.
That's why we'll be running more Q&As with our newsroom leaders in the weeks and months to come - and addressing some of the topics raised by our subscribers.
Here's a roundup of Friday's discussion. Thanks to everyone who took part.
Ros D: Clearly the media industry has a major problem with large portions of the population having a lack of trust in their ability to remain impartial and without bias in the reporting of news. This lack of trust has been further enhanced with the Government funds. My question to the NZ Herald and other media outlets is what are you planning to do to turn this situation around and look to gain the trust of the readers/subscribers/customers?
Shayne C: Hi Ros. The media's role has never been more important - and the NZH audience numbers are now at record levels. More than ever, people are trusting us to deliver factual, timely and balanced news. Unlike social media channels they are reading content compiled and presented by editorial staff who have spent hours verifying and checking facts. That's not to say say we don't have a focus on reinforcing our quality and trust principles - our newsroom teams are committed to this. Please see below for more on this.
Mike H: Having a quick skim over the comments, the distrust felt is very clear. Myself included. I believe the issue is somewhat like sport and referees. You listen to supporters of the two teams debating the ref's decisions, and both sides are absolutely certain they're right. Much of political commentary could be viewed alike. A huge proportion of it is opinion. Not black and white fact. If the media are to regain trust, they must be impartial. Taking money from the govt, or worse putting govt paid editors in editorial roles within publications does the exact opposite.
Shayne C: The Herald has received funding from all sorts of avenues and advertisers (including the Government) for more than 158 years. On no occasion has that influenced our journalism or editorial endeavour - our newsroom is fiercely independent. Our news-editing decisions are made by journalists committed to uncovering the truth and holding the powerful to account. As for editors being paid for by the Government? They aren't, of course. Clearly we need to do a better job explaining our roles and how we operate. Hopefully this Q&A and replies below have given you a small glimpse of our commitment.
Steven W: I don't believe the Herald, or most mainline media in this country, publish propaganda. However, they can use alarmist headlines and carefully edited articles to sell newspapers. I get that. When articles are political, the results can be dramatic. Look at what's happening right now with empty shops, cafes, offices etc. A large amount of people are afraid of Omicron because of what they've seen on TV or read in the paper. The government and their advisors obviously have their own agendas too. It's up to us to decide how to filter it.
Murray K: Thanks Steven. We try very hard not to publish alarmist headlines etc. We do appreciate your main points, however.
Sean M: In today's world of the citizen journalist and immediate access to events via social media, the Herald and other mainstream media have a duty of care to make sure their reporting is accurate. There have been many instances of a rush to get onto the "story" without having all the facts or an accurate view. Will the Herald acknowledge when they get it wrong and print corrections, and also take more care to ensure they have the facts before reporting? Case in point with the protest and "acid" being thrown at police, which multiple sources proved to be pepper spray from the police themselves.
Murray K: Kia ora Sean. You make very good points. It can be very difficult to tell fact from fiction on social media, even more so in deadline-driven environments like ours. We have a duty to try to verify all information we receive, even when that is being provided by government agencies, private businesses or respected individuals. Like all responsible media organisations, we do publish corrections and clarifications as required.
Stuart P: How do you quantify bias or impartiality in your reporting team? Do you use [Statistics NZ] percentages to allocate opinion space? Atheist vs religious, Labour vs National or is it more popularity / notoriety based? When presenting minority views how do you find the broadest view or do you prioritise the most shocking?
Murray K: Hi Stuart. We don't edit by statistics. We consider a range of matters before publishing material or pursuing topics, including newsworthiness, relevance, our own experience and judgement, and editorial ethics.
Karen P: The [fourth] estate is meant to help hold the Govt to account. It seems of late that the Govt only takes questions from "friendly" reporters, and I cannot remember a probing question leveled to the PM. How and when will NZH start to hold the Govt to account by using hard hitting questions?
Shayne C: I can assure you we ask tough questions of the Government every day, Karen. That work goes well beyond the 1pm press conference - this seems to be a flashpoint where many people have formed a view on journalists' work. In reality, the 1pm press conference is a small part of the painstaking work our editorial staff do every day - knocking on doors, calling contacts and, yes, asking hard questions of those in power.
Louis H: When choosing to apply for money from the Public Interest Journalism Fund, was any consideration given to the impact the funding would have on perceptions of pro-Government bias?
Murray K: Hi Louis. A really good question - thank you. We do carefully consider such matters when we choose to apply for funding. I accept we perhaps haven't done a good job of explaining our independence - that's one of the reasons we are doing this Q&A - but I hope you believe us when we say we will always report without fear or favour. To do otherwise would sound our death knell, in my view.
Timothy S: There may be sound reasons for Government funding, and indeed we have happily accepted funding of RadioNZ and TV1 for decades. However it needs to be transparent. Why is the only record of Public Interest Journalism Fund payments found on a right wing blog site? Please publish regular updates of the funding and who received it, and identify articles by journalists in state funded positions. And please never allow government department advertising , or promotion of political candidates, to masquerade as news content again.
Shayne C: Thanks for your comment. You'll see that all of our Open Justice articles – written by our new 15-strong reporting team from around NZ – are labelled as a PIJF/NZ on Air initiative. Similar labelling and acknowledgment will occur for the cadets' work when it starts appearing this year. But I accept your point that we should explain how much funding has been received in total – and for which initiatives – and we'll do this next week. PS: while the PIJF funding is helpful, it is only an incredibly small percentage of the overall cost of running a 24/7 news operation.
Richard C: Can you describe how the public interest journalism funds are awarded to media? These are government funds, the government MUST make decisions on which organisations get what share of them. They MUST decide what articles warrant funding. How therefore can they be impartial? It is madness to think a government official would approve an allocation from this fund to a media organisation that say wrote an article on the incompetence or bias of funding allocations under the public interest journalism fund, despite poor government decisions being very much in the interest of the public.
Miriyana A: Hi Richard. Media can apply for funding several times a year, and apply where they see fit. NZ on Air reviews all application and makes its decision - and it says it is impartial, and judges the applications on merit.
Wayne M: What ( if any) are the key major accountability measures provided by NZME or the Herald to the government to ensure on going access to the media fund? How often must these measures be submitted and to which agency?
Shayne C: We don't necessarily require ongoing access to the fund, Wayne. We pitch specific projects - and advise NZ on Air on the audience engagement.
John G: I run a small local media business that considered options of funding grants through this Government's funding. We ended up withdrawing from funding as it required a clear bias towards support of Government policy specifically in regard to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. If you look at grants provided from media funding, there's a clear bias towards certain media organisations and a negative bias against others. Your funding gives you an ability to operate at costs that we're unable to match, you're using Government money to squeeze out competitors with no funding. Makes holding your funder hard to do?
Shayne C: Hi John, there is no requirement to support Government policies. The PIJF is independent of the Government, and our editors and newsroom would simply walk from any funding agreement that tried to influence our editorial coverage. One of our flagship PIJF schemes is Te Rito - a cadetship programme to introduce 25 new journalists to our industry. They are a diverse, wonderful group of future journalists - 10 different languages among them! - who would not otherwise have come through the traditional tertiary education pathway (for various reasons). Neither NZ on Air nor the Govt will dictate how and what they cover. But they will certainly be offering a broader, more diverse portfolio of stories that reflect New Zealand's multicultural fabric.
I'm not sure there has been a bias towards certain media organisations. What I can say is that the funding we have received is a tiny percentage of our overall newsroom budget - well under 5 per cent - and is by and large incremental to our costs. But I understand and hear your concerns.
Una G: To get the fund you must "show a clear and obvious commitment or intent for commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo Māori." Is that why so many media outlets are changing the name of our country and English named cities like Auckland? And secondly is that why you refuse to represent the concerns of many who are critical of the Government's interpretation of the Treaty...?
Murray K: We can't speak for other media organisations. However, we refer to New Zealand as New Zealand and, on occasion, Aotearoa. We treat the names of cities and towns around the country in the same way. You'll note the name of our flagship is the New Zealand Herald. We do want to become known as New Zealand's Herald - and we are doing a lot of work internally to ensure our staffing, our learning and development, and journalism/content reflects this country in all of its wonderful diversity.
We were well on this path before the $55 million fund was devised - but it has certainly helped us - for example - in finding and funding 25 wonderful new cadets who might not otherwise have followed the traditional tertiary education path that's normally required to be a journalist. Regardless, the fund in no way dictates or guides the topics we or the cadets cover. And of course we accept opinions and report views from very many people, representing diverse schools of thought and experience. We're a broad church, as has always been the case. Some of those views you may agree with. Others you will not. That's one of the joys of reading the Herald. Thanks for your question.
Alfred T: Ironically, my comment runs counter to the comments of others, but here goes! On a very regular basis (every week) we have opinion contributions written by people with openly professed political bias against the government, such as Hooton, Joyce, Prebble, occasionally Key. Other pieces come from your stablemates on ZB - like Hosking, whose position has been made clear. Throw in similar stuff from Woodham, Soper, du Plessis-Allan et al and it can appear rather one sided, almost overwhelming. What consideration is given towards ensuring that there is a balance of these "guest" opinion pieces?
Miriyana A: Hi Alfred. We absolutely do give balance to a range of views - and we're constantly checking to ensure that continues, and that we constantly seek new voices in all kinds of areas. You'll see some of my replies to others in this trail - it feels about right to me when we get equal criticism from those from the left and right. You know what they say about not being able to please all of the people all of the time ...
Potter O: Why do caricatures hardly ever show up inconstancies and controversies of our own government's behaviour any more? They used to be witty, critical and amusing once upon a time. And why is there silence around He Puapua ? Last why does child abuse as a national issue get so little press coverage?
Murray K: Hi Potter O. Our editorial cartoons are deemed to be opinion, and reflect the cartoonist's opinion on a certain subject. In fact, such cartoons are legally protected as an expression of honest opinion. With cartoons in general, offence - or praise - is always in the eye of the beholder. The Media Council has regularly ruled that readers do not have the right to be offended by an opinion article or cartoon. As to your other questions, we work hard to cover as many topics as we can, depending on newsworthiness, capacity and relevance. Thanks for your questions.
Brett P: Hi, why is The Herald ... a left leaning publication?
Miriyana A: Hi Brett, thanks for your question. We're not a left-leaning - or anything-leaning - publication. We publish the news, straight up. It's our job to hold the government of the day to account, which we do irrespective of who's in the Beehive. I see we're also being asked about our pro-National bias in this stream, and that about sums it up. We get this from both sides in equal measure, so that makes me feel like we're getting things about right to be honest. When it comes to opinion - very clearly marked, and not news - we do publish views from across the political spectrum.
Rick F: Is the Herald's right wing bias ... a result of their ownership and sources of their "advertising" revenues, require counterbalancing support to other media outlets to ensure more balanced political reporting?
Shayne C: Rick, you'll see from some of the other comments here that some people believe we're actually left-wing, and in the pocket of the Government as a result of the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund. People's views of the Herald's position differ depending on their own perspectives and political biases. That's only natural.
In truth, our reporting is fiercely and proudly independent – we are not swayed by our advertisers, our shareholders, or the Government. An independent newsroom pursuing stories of public interest is critical to ensure our business survives and our newsroom thrives. Many advertisers actually support us for this reason. If any of our journalists sensed we were being influenced in any way, shape or form, there'd be a walkout. Our reporting is also independent of our own newspaper's editorial stance on issues.
On a similar note, the Herald, in its editorial positioning, is actually very centrist - liberal on some issues, conservative on others. New Zealand is a small market – unlike the UK and to a lesser extent the US, we don't have major mastheads – such as The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph or some of the tabloids - that are clearly more politically positioned.
Our reporting will cover the Government as critically as the opposition – there will, naturally of course, be more focus on the Government of the day's policy and performance, especially in heightened times of a pandemic. Thanks.
Dion D: Why does the MSM in New Zealand only show part of the story most of the time nowadays? Partically with emotive news? I thought the news was objective. Just showing the facts. Way [too] many opinion pieces to wind us up.
Murray K: Hi Dion. The MSM in New Zealand generates hundreds of news items every day. If you don't wish to read or watch opinion pieces, please exercise your right not to. I hope you can accept though that many other people do engage with such pieces. Thanks for your interest.
Michael B: Why didn't [the NZH] run a story about the Roy Morgan Poll in February that has National now overtaking Labour?
Murray K: Hi Michael. The NZ Herald's policy for political polls is to report only on polls by companies which have signed the New Zealand Political Polling Code. Australian-based polling company Roy Morgan is not a signatory and therefore the Herald does not use their poll results in news stories. Thanks for your interest.
Colin L: Will your paper be reporting critically, if at all, on the report of the Public Service Commissioner into the conduct of Kaianga Ora in relation to ariticles it sponsored with NZME in relation to Kaianga Ora's development at Hobson Point?
Murray K: Hi Colin. Yes we certainly will, as reporting resource allows.
Mark C: Why do you never cover the devastating Australian floods? Instead apart from the Ukraine crises , you only cover myopic NZ stories?
Miriyana A: Hi Mark. I appreciate this could have been missed given the crazy news period it has been, but we most definitely have covered the awful Aussie floods. And it's not true to say that apart from Russia's invasion of Ukraine that we don't publish other international news - every day there are plenty of international stories getting coverage, including from some of our great partners - the Financial Times and New York Times among them.
David S: Why is it that every time I read an article about Chris Luxon, after every 20 lines or so I get to see a picture of Jacinda Ardern? I could name the journalists that do it consistently but this not the time. but my argument is why does the same thing not happen in reverse.
Shayne C: Hi David, I have to be honest ... this is not something I've noticed. We'll keep an eye on it, but we'd normally have images of the key protagonists.
Stuart P: Is there a regular process used to critique and improve your content and headlines? Subjectively it appears headlines are often misleading or can be interpreted multiple ways. Is there any research into how many headlines are read versus the actual content? Headlines alone used to catch attention may be significant contributors to perceptions of bias and misinformation.
Shayne C: Hi Stuart - short answer, yes. There's a major focus on our quality, trust and audience engagement metrics. With so much misinformation and fake news swirling around on social media, our journalism - and the presentation of that work - becomes even more vital. Our headlines need to be enticing and elegant - but not inaccurate or misleading. As a newsroom, and as a business, we want to ensure our work is gold standard - from simple grammar and spelling to fact checking and presentation. And to ensure our journalism explains and - where applicable - offers solutions.
Peter D: Why do you have so little objective analysis of Three Waters? You print repeats from Mahuta's press release about how many "jobs" it will create without pointing out that these are actually rates-funded civil servants which is hardly "job creation", you repeat the figures about how much three waters will "save" ratepayers without any analysis of other much simpler governance models that would save even more while retaining stakeholder ownership, and I don't recall you ever mentioning that the Three Waters governance model seems to many to be a back door avenue to pay water royalties to iwi?
Miriyana A: Hi Peter. Quite a few comments around Three Waters. I see we need to do more in this space and will discuss with the team. Thanks.
Raven D: Why are some comments shut down so abruptly when the majority of comments are critical of an article that is pro government or pro Māori?
Miriyana A: Comment moderating is an inexact science and we won't always get it right - but we do our best to maintain a fair, open and safe space for our subscribers to share their views. Comments are usually closed because of time or moderating resource constraints (moderators need a lunchbreak, and don't work 24/7!). We occasionally also close comments early because the debate is going nowhere, or a high proportion are breaching our House Rules, which are linked at the top of every comments section.
And a quick PS - I take my hat off to our moderators actually, as they do a brilliant job of handling hundreds of comments every day. So actually - a plea here from me on their behalf to our subscribers, please play the issue, not the person!
Joseph C: I understand that a lot of Q&A time with politicians is devoted to reporters that ask the "right" questions. Is it feasible to publish a list of the questions that were ignored or unable to be asked so we can start to see our understand both sides of the ledger, not just the side that the bread is buttered from?
Miriyana A: Thanks Joseph. We could more than fill a newspaper with the questions that we can't get answers to! As an aside, I'm chair of the Media Freedom Committee, and this is one of the common frustrations from our members - the ongoing frustration at getting information out of our public officials. We are working with the Ombudsman on this, and will keep it firmly in our sights.
James H: I am triple vaxed, not an anti vaxer, but the media just does not come across as being balanced. For example the majority of msm painted all the Wellington protesters as extremely alternative (in a very negative manner), yet a quick search of YouTube showed videos of ppl walking around the protest site talking to ppl, which painted a very different picture. (yes there were some extremely alternative ppl, but that was very far from the overall picture).
Murray K: Hi James. There were multiple pieces from multiple viewpoints published during the 23-day protest. The people attending the protest were clearly a diverse bunch, and many pieces made that clear.
Ruth J: I have lost so much faith in the impartiality of the NZ Herald. I am triple vaxxed but among other things, after the Herald was the key player in the 90 percent project I realised that there would not be any impartial articles on the topic. It has been a real sadness for me to realise the Herald is simply a government mouthpiece with occasional paywalled critical articles. What do you say about the widespread lack of confidence in your paper?
Miriyana A: Hi Ruth. We are in no way a mouthpiece for the government. We are proud of our 90% Project - at a time the government would not set a vaccine target, we felt it was important we use our platforms to support a vital health measure. The science clearly states vaccination is the best protection against Covid.
Mark X: Why is it that when the PM is being criticised and performing badly, an article or opinion piece appears trying to deflect away from the PM? An example is yesterday's piece on Luxon's performance in the house. Also, there was an opinion piece from Lady Deborah Chambers last week criticising the government but was hidden behind the paywall, why? Shouldn't all opinions be made available to the public, not just premium subscribers?
Miriyana A: Hi Mark. You see a conspiracy where there isn't one, promise! Regarding your point re subscribers and Premium, I don't want to bore you with the economics of the news business, but with Premium, this is an essential way for us to sustain journalism. It costs good money to produce great content - and we need to future-proof ourselves to keep doing that. If we don't, we die - and I reckon it's never been more vital for a strong press given the times we're living in.
And a bit more - the vast majority of our news coverage is freely available to all, but yes, the wonderful 140,000-plus Premium subscribers are paying us their hard-earned cash, so they get access to more content. I'd also love to correct a misconception that because a story is paywalled it doesn't get read. As mentioned, we already have more than 140k Premium subscribers and the column by Lady Chambers was read by more people than many of our free stories published that day.
Richard M: Will the NZ Herald please consider time limiting its paywall so that after say 5 days everything is open access? In principle this inclusive initiative would help build public awareness of important issues and perspectives.
Miriyana A: Hi Richard. As I replied to Mark X, our digital Premium subscription model is designed to help sustain journalism. This tactic wouldn't really support that. We have plenty of coverage on all issues that is freely available for all to read.
Louis H: Government departments are spending more than ever on advertising, the latest obvious example being the 'Road to Zero' road safety campaign. Can you quantify the extent of revenue the Herald receives from the Government via advertising?
Murray K: Hi Louis. I don't know the answer to this question. The figure is irrelevant to us, because it has no influence over our decision-making or editorial direction.
Anthony C: How much financial advertising has the Herald received from this Labour Green Govt regarding specifically Covid advertising? ... Was any advertorial provided in return?
Murray K: Hi Anthony. If you're asking if advertising material was disguised as editorial and published, I can assure you that has never been the case. If material is ever published on a commercial basis, it is clearly labelled as advertortial, sponsored content or similar.
Bart D: My question is why [does the] NZ Herald always refer to Christopher Luxton's Christianity as a bad thing. Are you anti Christian?
Shayne C: Hi Bart - no we are not.
