I shudder at the sheer horror of it all!
There we were: Stuck in a remote part of East Cape with no cellphone coverage, no satellite tv feed, and a radio that did no more an emit an angry hiss.
We were victims of news deprivation – a cruel form of externally imposed news avoidance.
I know that some people would relish the thought of finding themselves in a news blackout but, like people suddenly deprived of their daily tonnage of caffeine, we get withdrawal symptoms if we are deprived of the news media’s daily version of reality.
The fact you are reading this commentary confirms that we did survive the ordeal. Our travels took us further down the East Coast of the North Island and normal services were resumed. Now we are back home.
Our personal news desert meant I did not see or hear coverage of JMaD’s 2025 Trust in News report until I was reintroduced to my computer (any attempt to take it on holiday would have had unfortunate consequences).
I was pleased to see a slight drop in the number who sometimes avoid the news – down from 75 per cent to 73 per cent. I now know what they are missing.
Media coverage of the JMaD report was much as I expected. Some news outlets put their own interests first by either trumpeting improved positions on the various ladders that are regularly included in the report by AUT academics Dr Merja Myllylahti and Dr Greg Treadwell, or by discreetly minimising any deterioration.
The exception was Colin Peacock of RNZ’s Mediawatch. He provided a detailed report that set out all of the report’s key findings after perceptively noting that New Zealand’s media now awaited the annual Trust in News report “with trepidation” as it has become a stick with which to beat them.
He went on to provide the topline result – the percentage of the population who trust news media generally had dropped by only one percentage point to 32 per cent. That is a much better result than last year when there was a 20.9 per cent drop from the previous year.
Only in the sixteenth paragraph did Mr Peacock report that his own organisation is now the most trusted news brand in the country – pipping last year’s top brand The Otago Daily Times with a score of 6 over the Dunedin daily’s 5.9.
Other media had no intention of showing displays of modesty, false or otherwise. They found the rays of sunshine that showed them in the best light.
The ODT salvaged its position by stating up front that it was still the most trusted newspaper in the country (true) and gave the outlet scores – without actually saying that it had been displaced by RNZ from the overall perch it occupied last year.
National Business Review, which came third equal with TVNZ in the overall trust rankings, improved its position by stating it was “New Zealand’s most trusted business news publication”. That said, NBR then went on to provide comprehensive coverage of the JMaD report.
The New Zealand Herald had a middling result in the survey, but its editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness clutched at a straw: “I note the Herald is rated New Zealand’s most politically balanced media outlet”.
The Post could not find a particular ray of sunshine in which to bathe Stuff, so it noted that the JMaD report had found that trust in individual outlets had increased after five years of decline. Those results were, indeed, encouraging. Whakaata Māori showed a year-on-year improvement of almost 27 per cent while five other outlets showed trust improving by around 20 per cent between 2024 and 2025. Sixteen of the 17 outlets surveys showed improved levels of trust. The sole exception was The Listener and that was because it had been included for the first time this year.
What those numbers did not show, however, is the fact that our news media have some way to go to recover the levels of trust enjoyed before the Covid pandemic. The same chart from which the year-on-year improvements were taken, also showed that none of the seven outlets consistently surveyed over the past six years has completely recovered its position. TVNZ remains 17.6 per cent below its 2020 position, RNZ 14.3 per cent, Newsroom 14.1 per cent, NewstalkZB 12.9 per cent, NZ Herald 12.7 per cent, Stuff 9.8 per cent, and The Spinoff 1.9 per cent.
Some coverage also noted the slight drop in those who said they actively avoided the news. The Herald’s Media Insider, Shayne Currie, repeated some of the comments by focus group members on why they avoided the news but the (unreported) comment that resonated most with me was from a 25-34 male: “It is bad for my mental health – especially news which is written in a way that is intended to produce outrage.” That struck a chord, and I made a mental note to apply an ‘inbuilt outrage’ check to my daily news intake.
Most coverage acknowledged accusation of bias in news, but the fact that the report found those accusations labelled media both left-wing and right-wing suggests such bias is in the mind of the beholder. What contributes to it, however, is the mixing of reportage and reporter opinion in the same story.
That tendency was not highlighted in coverage of the report. Nor was the final outcome from the focus groups that had been created to discuss the fundings from last year’s trust survey. The 2025 report concluded with this statement: “To regain public trust, focus-group members thought journalists should strengthen factual journalism, improve community and grassroots reporting, and move away from clickbait.”
How much of that our mainstream media takes on board remains to be seen. However, they would do well to pore over the fine detail of the report. It contains very strong indicators of the directions media must take if they are to regain the public’s trust. Indeed, they need these changes in order to survive.
Two of the many charts in the report stood out for me.
The first illustrated the responses to the question: Which of the following types of news, if any, are you interested in? It provides strong indications of where news media should place their priorities. I am far from certain their current priorities reflect much more than the results of algorithms created by others. It is obvious to me that cost-conscious content sharing at the expense of news-about-where-I-live does not meet audience needs. Here is the chart.
The second chart illustrated responses to the question: How important are the following to you when it comes to deciding which news outlets to trust?
Transparency, quality, and balance were the key requirements and there was a time when journalists might expect that to be taken for granted. Those days have gone and now nothing can simply be assumed. There is a clear message that not only must those qualities be inherent in all that journalists do, but that they must be seen to be practicing them.
The chart says to me that the mixing of reportage and reporter opinion must stop. Give a separate space for comment to those who merit it and tell the rest to do their damned jobs – seeking out and reporting facts with demonstrable professionalism. It also says the audience now expects media outlets to routinely disclose how and why they are covering the news – or not.
I think it also says media organisations must be more open and honest about themselves. Too often they report only the positives. And they must stop trying to turn vinegar into wine where their own activities are concerned.