Monday, June 12, 2023

RNZ's non-exposé of the year

It’s hard to imagine a more spectacularly pointless exercise than RNZ’s “investigation” of the language used by National leader Christopher Luxon.

Pointless, that is, unless the objective was to discredit Luxon by presenting him as a reciter of repetitive, predictable and boring election-year rhetoric – or worse, as an unscrupulous dog-whistler trying to exploit public anxieties.

In fact, RNZ’s research findings confirm that Luxon is doing what all opposition leaders do and have always done: namely, zeroing in on areas where the government is perceived as vulnerable. Quelle surprise!

RNZ journalists Farah Hancock and Guyon Espiner trawled through 28 hours of interviews from between July 2022 and May 2023. In a report misleadingly headlined What hours of interviews reveal about the obsessions of our political leaders (misleading because it's almost solely concerned with only one party leader), they breathlessly inform us that Luxon used the word “tax” 233 times – about three times as often as Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins over the same period.

Conclusion: Luxon thinks talking about tax might be to National’s advantage while Labour leaders tend to avoid the subject because it’s not in their interests to draw attention to it. Astonishing!

But wait, there’s more. Luxon said “spending” 179 times – nearly five times more than his opponents. He used the word “crisis” 91 times whereas Ardern used it only 11 times as prime minister and Hipkins hasn’t mentioned it at all.  

Luxon also referred to the cost of living 86 times and on 49 occasions described it as a “cost of living crisis”. A key theme, Hancock and Espiner concluded, is “Luxon’s relentless use of words associated with basic economics”. Shame! 

Presumably we're supposed to be surprised - perhaps even shocked - that the leader of the opposition is hammering issues that polls reveal to be uppermost in the minds of voters. 

Hang on – it gets worse. Luxon brought up words like “health”, "hospitals”, “education” and “teacher” far more often than Ardern or Hipkins. Who’d have thought? What gives Luxon the right to emphasise policy areas where he thinks the government’s record is weak? Off with his head!

In another “Eureka!” moment, RNZ’s incisive investigative journalists noted that the National leader was happier talking about farming than Ardern or Hipkins, who used the word only eight times between them (to Luxon's 114). Hancock and Espiner described it as “startling” that the Labour leaders avoided talking about farmers and farming. But startling to whom? Of course Ardern and Hipkins don’t want to talk about farming, and with very good reason. Why risk drawing attention to the fact that farmers, who generate most of this country’s wealth, regard the government as hostile?

RNZ doesn’t explain why it decided to embark on the complicated and unprecedented (its own word) exercise of analysing more than 200 interviews and breaking its findings down into multiple charts likely to be of interest only to political obsessives. More important, neither does it explain why Luxon appears to have been chosen as the focus of the investigation rather than Ardern and Hipkins, who - as the people in power - are the politicians whose actions and statements call for closest critical scrutiny.

Of course RNZ can (and probably will) argue that this was a legitimate journalistic project aimed at analysing political rhetoric in a totally neutral and objective way without seeking to influence how we think about our political leaders.

Unfortunately, that’s not how it’s likely to be seen. Rather, it will be widely perceived as a heavy-handed and unsubtle hit job on Luxon.

That impression is reinforced by the opinions of the “experts” RNZ invited to comment on the findings. Josie Pagani, who has historically been associated with Labour, rather disdainfully dismissed Luxon’s apparent preoccupations as “National’s classic hits”.

Pagani pointed out that Luxon rarely used terms like “inequality” or “working-class”. But someone who has made a career of following politics, as Pagani has, would know that those words are not part of the vocabulary of the National Party. Almost by definition, anyone who uses them is likely to be on the left of politics. No blinding insights there, then.

RNZ also went to media trainer Janet Wilson, who has worked for the National Party but couldn’t, judging by her newspaper columns, be described as a National supporter. She took a swipe at Luxon for using corporate jargon such as “outcomes” and “going forward”. But given that these terms are routinely used by public servants, academics and politicians of all shades, it seemed a carping criticism. Yes, Luxon does speak the bloodless language of the Koru Club, but voters are likely to have noted that for themselves.

Question: was RNZ unable to find a single “expert” who was prepared to point out the obvious – namely, that Luxon is doing what all politicians do, which is highlight opponents’ weaknesses and by so doing, present themselves as offering a better alternative?

Whether intentionally or not, the story was presented in such a way as make Luxon look bad. The implication seemed to be that he was seeking to manipulate public opinion by the repeated use of key phrases (RNZ used the emotive term “carpet-bombing”, which is loaded with negative connotations), as if this was somehow underhand and improper. In fact it’s just politics as normal. They all do it.

Regular readers of this blog will know I'm no admirer of Luxon,  but he's entitled to expect fairer treatment than this, especially from a publicly funded broadcaster. 

On a day when RNZ’s reputation is, by its own admission, damaged by the revelation that stories on the Russian invasion of Ukraine were tampered with, apparently by a rogue employee, the Hancock-Espiner project was an additional hit to its credibility that was entirely self-inflicted. If there were an award for Non-Exposé of the Year, RNZ would have it in the bag.

 

 

 

13 comments:

  1. It is remarkable how often the Opposition opposes the Govt, and the Govt supports the Govt. Surely there's a story there for these intrepid RNZ 'journalists'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What I am most surprised by is Bishop Espiner taking time away from telling us what is sinful, maybe he has managed to tick off all the big ones this year (gambling, alcohol, and drugs).

    Still, it makes a nice change from RNZ promoting the Espiners' various books, and I suppose we could call it news adjacent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And it gets worse Karl - there is another pathetic hit job on Luxon in Stuff today, suggesting that he has a conflict of interest worse than Michael Wood because National are now supporting a housing policy which will apparently make the properties Luxon owns more valuable.

    But the current policy, which allows for intensification, would actually work more in Luxon’s interests as he could easily rebuild a three storey property on his land and realise a big profit. Under the new policy, Luxon would not be able to do that anymore. But that obvious fact is forgotten in the rush to condemn the Opposition Leader.

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am sure RNZ will ensure no employee inserts National Party propoganda into its reports

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only surprise to me is that anyone is surprised or disturbed about Radio New Zealand's rogue editing.

    I get to listen to RNZ news when I stay at my sister's.

    RNZ's news bulletins are grammatically superior to, say Newstalk ZB's. But that's about it.

    RNZ's biases about climate change have been evident for years, for example.

    RNZ, like the rest of the media in this country, joined in the media pile-on concerning Posey Parker. (I should add that I have some sympathy for trans people; I have a nephew who is one.)

    But she was reviled and smeared. Similarly the protesters at Parliament were overwhelmingly smeared and reviled. I didn't agree with all their protest - I was vaccinated - but I know people who were not and the Ardern government's behaviour to them just hardened their resolve.

    A few years ago I was talking to a former diplomat who'd served in Moscow during the Soviet era.

    He said that one of the signs a Politburo member or some other functionary was out of favour was when articles attacking him began to appear in Pravda and/or Izvestia and other publications.

    Our media is beginning to function like that. Our hacks and hackettes who purport to be journalists are acting like their Pravda and Izvestia counterparts.

    How else are we to view their behaviour in the last few days? Christopher Luxon makes a throwaway - apparently - comment about how people should have more babies.

    Some of the hacks lose their shit over this and the high point [?] of that was Cushla Norman's Lebensborn programme of the Nazi German era comparison.

    Jack Tame 'interviews' Luxon in such a way that his biases override any impartiality of the programme.

    I used to be a journalist for most of the first 20 years of my working life. Until 10 or so years ago I used to get the morning paper once known as The Dominion Post.

    I barely look at it now except for the death notices.

    I rarely watch the TV 'news'. Does anyone take 'Jessica' seriously any more?

    If I want to follow what goes on overseas I tend to turn to Al Jazeera. It does better than most, including the over-revered Beeb, to steer a straight journalistic path.

    No wonder so many Kiwi journalists end up there.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's evident now that Labour are slipping in the polls that the State-funded media are ramping up their attacks on Luxon. Cushla Norman of TVNZ took the cake when she portrayed Luxon's off-the-cuff remarks about New Zealand's low birth-rate with the Nazis' eugenics programme, "Lebensborn". I think most people with an IQ of 100 plus can see that the media have "jumped the shark". The rest will support the Labour-Greens (and TPM) nightmare for another three years which will likely finish off the country. What really annoys me is that all this is being done on the taxpayers' dime.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RNZ's so-called 'current affairs' a shonky fiasco?
    Hugh

    ReplyDelete
  8. I tend to agree Karl, on two counts. Discourse analysis can offer useful insights but simply quantifying lexical items doesn’t say all that much, beyond the obvious. And the aim of the exercise does seem rather disingenuous.

    The RNZ report does have reference to metaphor, as a kind of window into what individuals think and/or aim to represent. The examples used were “the squeezed middle” and “going backwards” (or “having gone backwards”). Identifying the metaphors used by politicians, in a comparative sense, would have offered far more insight into political intentions but may well have uncovered as many similarities as differences. But metaphor analysis takes a bit of time and expertise and can’t easily be done using the software used by the two journalists.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And yet I'll bet you National does nothing to change RNZ when they get back into government. "Too disruptive", as former National Cabinet Minister said in the context of mass layoffs of Wellington bureaucrats.

    After all, their leader ran Air NZ, so why regard RNZ/TVNZ as any different?

    As such, although I should be sympathetic to National about this, I'm not. They should have dealt to RNZ and TVNZ years ago by selling the bastards but they're either terrified of the MSM/Left reaction that will, as always, dredge up the ghost of Rogernomics OR they're naive enough to think that while privatising power stations matters, this doesn't because it's just the MSM.

    That MSM is a big part of the reason why National is on the back foot over so many issues and why it shrugs its shoulders and bends to the latest move in the Overton Window. Idiots - although I assume some National Party MP's are comfortable with that because they may well agree (on things like Climate Change and TOW "partnership" for example).

    ReplyDelete
  10. The problem Radio and TV interviewers have is that some of National’s frontline campaigners are nowadays presenting their policies and views in much more understandable terms. Is that why the media are now dealing out so many “demolition jobs”? This past weekend I took in Luxon's interview on Jack Tame's Q&A.

    It was so sad, I tuned out part way through. Luxon was exceedingly patient and articulate at the same time. He might not be quite the work in progress many are describing him as. But, he still doesn’t impress me as an action man. More a chairman of the board type.

    The villain was Jack Tame. Always, always, he is the proverbial dog with a bone asking “gotcha questions” and accusing the interviewee of not answering the question. The topic with Luxon was Genetic Modification and Genetic Engineering where there are no easy answers for a non-scientist to put up. Not surprisingly Jack Tame did not offer any real answers to his own questions.

    The previous week Jack Tame interviewed Chris Bishop on National’s housing policy. Jack Tame’s gotcha style was in play and Chris Bishop was equally as patient and articulate as Luxon. Jack Tame could not accept that National’s line was to be a lot more flexible in housing policies.

    Ok, all policy pronouncements for any party at this point in campaigning are “aspirational” – a cliché often used by John Key.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm always suprised when people say they watch people like Jack Tame. Watching drain unblocking videos on YouTube is more entertaining and more of a learning opportunity. Or if you are more high brow, digger rescue.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wish a political party would mount a campaign for Radio New Zealand to receive no Government funding and rely totally on advertising, sponsorship and donations as stations such as radio Rhema do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just a reflection on the media and the policy agendas emerging from the various parties, we are getting the kind of debate we might expect. This is because the media are playing gotcha as Eamon notes, and the pollies are buying into the game.

    Tame's researchers had turned up the 2003 story of the escape of roundup resistant bentgrass, destine for high end golf courses. The tale seems to be reported in a relatively evenhanded way at https://hygeia-analytics.com/2018/07/06/fifteen-years-later-glyphosate-resistant-creeping-bentgrass-is-still-creating-problems-in-oregon/. The story here is poor regulation.

    An issue to expose and debated if we are contemplating changes in our regulatory framework, not something that is helped by a gotcha headline introduction with no background in the midst of an interview on this subject.

    A debating point by a protagonist rather than helping the audience's understanding.

    ReplyDelete