Newsrooms of old were apparently more impartial. But that’s only because everyone shared the same biases, argues Madeleine Chapman.
Last week, the Herald’s Media Insider (AKA editor-at-large Shayne Currie) reported on some shocking news. Top TVNZ executive Nevak Rogers had taken annual leave from her job as chief content officer to join her whānau on the hīkoi heading for parliament. It was scandalous and worth reporting for two reasons, apparently. One was that Rogers might soon take over the TVNZ newsroom and work in a news role. This hasn’t happened yet, and may never happen, but the fact that she is being considered for the role makes her choice of activity last week newsworthy, according to Currie.
And the second reason: “Just three months ago, the state broadcaster was championing the importance of the impartiality of its newsroom, releasing an editorial policy to enhance its ‘transparency’ and ‘inspiring trust in news’.”
The fact that Rogers is not currently part of the newsroom didn’t seem to matter. Two anonymous TVNZ sources voiced their disapproval of Rogers’ decision, with one saying they mostly disagreed with her posting on her personal Instagram about it.
At the same time, RNZ confirmed that a photo of Mihingarangi Forbes smiling with a hīkoi leader would be removed from Instagram following complaints of bias directed at the national broadcaster. Forbes is a co-host of the Saturday show but was reporting from the hīkoi in her capacity as host of Mata Reports, a series of longform investigations on Māori topics, platformed by RNZ. Mata Reports had posted the photo of Forbes with the captin “TOITŪ TE TIRITI”.
Earlier in the year, RNZ had also abruptly pulled an episode of It’s Personal With Anika Moa, saying it “did not meet our editorial policy with regards to impartiality”.
The message is clear: if you work in journalism, you shouldn’t have personal opinions. Or if you do, at least have them in private. If not, expect trust in your ability to report the news to diminish.
Here’s a personal opinion for you – that’s bullshit and always has been. And to suggest that voicing an opinion in a personal capacity reflects an inability to be impartial in a news setting is giving away one’s own bias when that question only ever seems to hang over Māori, particularly Māori women.
No one is impartial. We all have a position on everything. Some might say they don’t, but that means their position is to not deem the issue worthy of a position. “Having no position” has been the standard for news media for as long as it has existed. Impartiality, neutrality. Political reporters like Guyon Espiner and Duncan Garner will say they don’t vote, as if by not participating in democracy they have somehow wiped their brain of thoughts. It’s all a farce.
On Thursday evening, following the haka in parliament during the first reading of the Treaty Principles bill, senior political correspondent and former longtime political editor for Newstalk ZB Barry Soper shared his thoughts on air with his wife, Heather du Plessis-Allan. He called the actions of the opposition, particularly Te Pāti Māori, who started the haka, “an absolute disgrace”. He was clearly voicing his opinion, and that morning had published a short column on the Herald criticising the hīkoi. His views, if not of the bill then at least of the response to it, are crystal clear. But if that is his opinion, would he still be considered impartial enough to report on the bill or response again, or other political matters? Or is this simply his “neutral” opinion?
When you have never felt anything personal at stake in politics, it’s easy to have no position. When you’re straight, it’s easy to have no position on a gay marriage bill (though thousands still did, and horrific ones at that). When you’re a man, it’s easy to intellectualise debates about abortion. When you’re financially stable, it should be easy to not mind beneficiaries getting more support but we all know that’s often not the case.
For decades, the most privileged people in our society have had the loudest opinions, and most of those opinions have been along the lines of “things are fine for us so why are you complaining?”
The same has been the case for news media “impartiality”.
The men (mostly straight, mostly white) who made up the vast majority of news media a few decades ago didn’t have a neutrality problem, apparently. But they were only considered impartial because everyone agreed.
Some would say the examples noted above are from RNZ and TVNZ, state-owned broadcasters, and therefore standards of impartiality should be impeccable. But again, it never has been, so what standard are we trying to return to? It was simply accepted more then because the bias came from the majority.
When Stuff issued its historic apology in 2020, it drew examples from more than 100 years of racist portrayals of Māori in its papers, with many coming from as recent as the early 2000s during the foreshore and seabed hīkoi. The obvious reason behind the racism? A clear lack of Māori journalists in major newsrooms, particularly in decision-making positions. And a lack of feedback from (mostly white) readers disagreeing with their approach.
Now, there is more disagreement in newsrooms thanks to people with (slightly) different lived experiences working in the media, and there’s a constant feedback loop from readers all over the country thanks to the internet. Which means people who disagree will accuse you of bias. Impartiality hasn’t gotten worse, news just isn’t a monolith any more. And that’s a good thing.
The Treaty Principles Bill is divisive. David Seymour may have accused Jenny-May Clarkson of bias for describing it as such but that’s not an opinion, it is true. There wouldn’t be tens of thousands of people marching to parliament as I type if it wasn’t divisive.
It is a bill that is being personally felt by a huge number of Māori. Those who are not feeling impacted by it are typically those choosing to actively ignore it for their own sake. Journalists and those in media can’t ignore it because it’s everywhere in their jobs. I would assume (perhaps falsely, but likely not) that every Māori journalist is in broad agreement when it comes to this bill. That is not bias or a lack of consideration. That is a personal response to a personal attack.
If there was a bill to reverse the marriage equality law pulled from the biscuit tin, it would be controversial. There would be protests and plenty of op-eds explaining why such a bill would be a backwards step for gay rights in New Zealand. There would be stories about how this bill would affect queer New Zealanders and their place in our society. There would probably be rainbow stickers and pins worn by people all over the country, standing in support of their neighbours.
And if there was an event to raise awareness for the cause, would it be controversial for gay journalists to be there? Would they be expected to present the issue neutrally at all times and just pretend this was hypothetical and not something that would have a direct impact on their lives? Probably not, but it helps that Pākehā would be impacted too. That makes the issue suddenly more real than just Māori complaining again.
This is the problem with impartiality. It’s not an equal effort. If you are part of a marginalised community that’s still fighting for equity, it’s a lot harder to “see both sides”, particularly when one side has been the lone voice for centuries and the other side is feeling all the negative effects of it. We aren’t seeing a rise in bias, we are instead seeing a long overdue balancing of what was previously considered neutral but was in fact an extremely one-sided, two-dimensional view of the world.
Anyone who has read my writing for eight years will know where I stand on any number of issues. That does not lessen my ability to investigate a story or write a reported feature. In fact, I believe it helps to build trust in readers when they can assess the merits of the work, and the context in which it was written, themselves, without everyone pretending it appeared out of thin air.
Because while editors of old can moan on and on about the “mix of opinion and reporting” (they do have a point here, I spend a lot of my time editing opinion out of feature writing), it’s rare to find a truly impartial journalist or a truly impartial piece of journalism, no matter how it’s dressed up. Choosing to write or publish something at all requires a hierarchy of what’s deemed important or worthy of attention. That in itself is a massive bias.
The Media Insider is a reported column. It’s not marked as opinion and is presented as media industry news. Currie is the former editor and current editor-at-large at the Herald, very much part of the newsroom. He followed all the standard “rules” of news by seeking comment from detractors and from TVNZ. And yet I knew exactly what he wanted me to think of Rogers while reading it.
Doesn’t seem very impartial to me.
PS In the print edition of the Herald that same day, there was a full page ad promoting the Treaty Principles Bill. A line at the top identified it as an “advocacy advertisement” paid for by Act New Zealand, but will anyone know the difference?