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 →

Trump pointer: NZ media should not take access for granted

Take out your Donald Trump’s Cautionary Tales exercise book and turn to the next blank page. At the top write the word ‘Accreditation’. Today we are going to talk about ways this process has been weaponised to silence journalists who might say nasty things about the American president.

Like other entries in your exercise book – yes, I know there aren’t many empty pages left – it will serve as yet another warning about the ways the levers of government and democracy can be manipulated to serve the ends of unscrupulous leaders. You may remember that, previously, we talked about the lessons for other democracies that have been coming out of the White House and referred to the application of these lessons as ‘The Trump Filter’. It applies a simple question: “Could this be misused or abused by a future government or leader, the nature of which we do not yet know?”

Today we are going to talk about the ability of governments to grant or withhold access for journalists to the agencies of state. One way or another, it is accreditation. I say ‘one way or another’ because granting it can be direct or indirect, and it may be used not only to silence journalists but to manipulate what the public gets to see and hear.

Accreditation has a long history. In England in 1557, the Company of Stationers received a charter (the 16th century equivalent of accreditation) conferring on its members the exclusive right to own a press. It not only confined printing to London but also conferred powers of search and seizure to confiscate unauthorised books and pamphlets – monopoly in exchange for censorship. Although he almost certainly is ignorant of that history, Mr Trump is currently employing updated forms of licensing and coercion in pursuit of a ‘tame’ media.

Write in your exercise book: “Accreditation is a form of licensing”. You might add a footnote that licensing of the presses ended in England in 1695 but that other forms of accreditation have endured there and elsewhere ever since. Continue reading “Trump pointer: NZ media should not take access for granted” →

BSA’s mission creep could prove to be its nemesis

The New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority may be about to learn that mission creep never ends well. Its provisional decision to claim jurisdiction over Sean Plunket’s online entity The Platform has far-reaching implications.

Its interlocutory decision was marked ‘Not for publication’: That was as naïve as thinking that old warhorse Plunket would meekly accept its finding that the BSA had jurisdiction over online broadcasts. The decision inevitably was published, and there were predictable reactions from the Platform’s owner and from the leaders of the two coalition partners with an inordinate influence on the actions of the present government.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters posted on social media, saying “Why does the Broadcasting Standards Authority think they can make up their own rules in secret meetings to act like some Soviet era Stasi.” ACT MP Todd Stephenson – no doubt acting on instructions from party leader David Seymour – complained to Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith and intimated that ACT is considering a private member’s bill seeking the BSA’s abolition. Goldsmith batted the complaint away as an operational matter.

Both coalition parties see the BSA’s decision as mission creep and, by implication, an attempt to do something that is the prerogative of Parliament. It is for a majority of the House to determine the jurisdiction of its statutory regulators through legislation, not the body empowered by that legislation. Continue reading “BSA’s mission creep could prove to be its nemesis” →