BBC’s response to Trump must be ‘We fight…We fight like hell’

It was as obvious as hair dye and fake tan: Donald Trump was always going to sue the BBC, irrespective of whether the broadcaster made a grovelling apology for its astonishingly stupid video editing of a speech delivered shortly before the Capitol was stormed.

Even a plausible offer of compensation – had it been made – would have been insufficient to stay the hand of the man who has already caused immense harm to the public broadcasters of his own country and who has sued American media for billions. The opportunity to strike what he hopes is an existential blow against the progenitor of public broadcasting was irresistible.

There was, therefore, no surprise in his announcement on Saturday that he will sue the BBC for between $US1 billion and $US 5 billion over the clip in a 2024 Panorama programme. I doubt it is a coincidence that $US5 billion almost matches the income the BBC will receive this financial year from public licence fees (the bulk of its annual income) or that $1 billion is the annual corporate cost of running the public broadcaster. Continue reading “BBC’s response to Trump must be ‘We fight…We fight like hell’” →

What do our early teens do in the digital shadows?

The parent of children entering their teens soon learn they are operating in an environment fraught with hidden dangers.

We can be reasonably certain teenagers do not turn into vampires, but what 12 to 14 year olds do in the digital shadows should be one of the hazards on parents’ danger lists.

Last week, funding agencies NZ on Air and Te Māngai Pāho released the results of research – undertaken by Verian on their behalf – that provides numerous insights into children’s media use. It is part of the ‘Where Are The Audiences?’ series of studies that provide broadcasters and content providers with invaluable information that can inform future inputs and outputs.

The research is based on insights from media diaries to capture children’s media use across a week, 20 two-hour in-home interviews in five centres across the country, and a quantitative survey of 1024 parents and their children. You can access the reports here.

Among the findings was a clear need to do more to attract early teens and their younger siblings to local content. They are more drawn to trendy offerings on international platforms, particularly YouTube.

As a result, NZ On Air has announced the launch of a new hub for local children’s content on YouTube and YouTube Kids called KIDOGO.

Content funded by both agencies can now be found on two YouTube channels aimed at distinct age ranges. KIDOGO Junior has content for pre-schoolers, while KIDOGO is aimed at primary-school kids. The channels provide an additional avenue for content discovery, complementing local platforms.

The logic appears to be that, if children are attracted to local content while at primary school, they will continue that interest into their teens and beyond. It is sound thinking.

The research also contains warning signs over unsupervised online activity as children get older and enter their teenage years. Continue reading “What do our early teens do in the digital shadows?” →

Solutions to declining trust are staring news media in the face

Three-quarters of New Zealanders who experience an event which improves their trust in news media are  likely to believe it continues to be better. So why do our media ignore such crashing statements of the obvious and continue to lose credibility?

The statistic is drawn from a new study commissioned by the Broadcasting Standards Authority on trust in media. Carried out by The Curiosity Company, it draws on both focus groups and an online opinion survey. Most of its findings reinforce what we already know, and that begs the question: Why do news outlets continue to exhibit the sort of behaviour that contributes to declining trust when the solutions are so obvious?

This is the quotation that leads the BSA report: “If it tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in news reports, clearly separating opinion and content, I am more likely to trust the provider.”

Yet every day we see example after example of fact and opinion being mixed together in what is presented as news stories, with the audience finding it increasingly difficult to differentiate between reportage and comment.

Yes, in an age when anyone has the ability to spread their views (however asinine) through a digital megaphone, it is only natural that news media believe the opinions of their informed journalists should also be heard. Not, however, in the same breath or paragraph as the facts they are reporting or events they are relaying.

We see regular examples of click-bait headlining and story selection – particularly on news sites that use artificial intelligence, algorithms, and analytics to curate content–that leaves the audience feeling both cheated and intellectually belittled.

The 66-page BSA report canvasses broad consumer views of news and information, factors that promote trust, and factors that drive distrust. It reinforces other studies such as those by AUT’s Research Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy the Reuter’s Institute in the United Kingdom, and the Pew Center in the United States. Continue reading “Solutions to declining trust are staring news media in the face” →

AN ADDRESS TO THE NELSON BRANCH OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 29 OCTOBER 2025

Misinformation and disinformation are often confused. So, to start, let’s be clear on what we are talking about. Misinformation is false or misleading information that has been created inadvertently and includes honest mistakes. Disinformation is false or misleading information deliberately spread to manipulate a person, social group, organisation – or, indeed, an entire country. It is sometimes called malinformation.

  We are not concerned here with honest mistakes or sloppy inaccuracies. We are talking about disinformation. There is another phrase to describe it: Weaponized lies.

This may be seen as a 21st century scourge, but disinformation goes back a very long way.

In fact, disinformation is as old as antiquity.

Julius Caesar was a fast and loose player with the truth, particularly in demonising the Gauls. His heir, Octavian, waged a concerted disinformation campaign against Mark Antony, characterizing him as a drunk and a womanizer who had been corrupted by the Egyptian queen Cleopatra. He didn’t have newspapers, so he used speeches, writings, graffiti and even meaningful symbols on coins. And if you think Nero fiddled while Rome burned, you are probably wrong. There are reports that he rushed back from his villa outside the city when he heard news of the fire. The fiddling stigma is what has endured.

That is because disinformation can be enduring. Continue reading →