All elections have targets. They include anyone or anything that might be perceived as a threat. I have a nasty feeling that in the 2026 New Zealand general election our news media will be one of those targets.
My premonition is driven by two factors. The first is the emboldening effect of the American president’s unremitting and debilitating war against journalists who do not kowtow. And the second is the growing belief that various forms of social media and AI-driven search engines have diminished the politician’s need for news media to reach constituents and they are therefore dispensable.
Attacks on the media by politicians are nothing new and they can be part of a healthy contesting of ideas and views. News media are – and rightly should be – as accountable as those they hold to account. However, when those attacks diminish or undermine the role of journalism itself, politicians and would-be politicians risk damage that extends well beyond their own self-serving aims. Continue reading “Politicians target news media at our collective peril”→
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.
I have a morbid fear that we Kiwis are not sophisticated enough to know disinformation when we see it. Worse, I worry that we don’t care.
The combination of dramatic advances in artificial intelligence and alarming declines in trust and social cohesion produce a dangerous mixture in which ‘reality’ can become a construct of what we want to believe, and what others may manipulate us into thinking.
Last Sunday, TVNZ screened the documentary Web of Chaos, which took viewers on a journey from the innocent early days of the digital highway to the sewer that part of it has become. Along the way, we saw its power to influence, corrupt, and deceive. In many respects it looked like a descent into madness. In fact, disinformation expert Dr Sanjana Hattotuwa described it as “an algorithmic amplification of psychosis”.
He was not speaking of a few unfortunates working through their mental issues on the Internet. He said there were 350,000 people in this country using alternative social media platforms – or what he called a “hellspace” – in a toxic mix of extreme attitudes, violent language and disinformation.
In the programme, Disinformation Project director Kate Hannah told how the Covid pandemic had drawn larger numbers of New Zealanders into “the disinformation space” and had led to a broadening of conspiratorial thinking. The documentary showed in graphic detail how that phenomenon had manifested itself near the end of the occupation of Parliament’s grounds. Continue reading “‘I know the truth when I see it’ … yeah, right.”→
There was a reassuring sense of common purpose in a joint media release this week by the four bodies charged with keeping the next election’s media campaigns honest. So why did I get a feeling it was like a rerun of the League of Nations in the 1930s?
The media release announced a short video described as a consumer guide to complaints processes during the election. The video explained the roles of the Electoral Commission (NZEC), Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), and New Zealand Media Council (NZMC) in the complaints process. The four bodies also helpfully provided an infographic on who does what.
Each organisation has specific jurisdiction during elections and rules that must be followed. The Electoral Commission has comprehensive rules for political parties, candidates, and third party promoters on everything from hoardings and flyers to how much can be spent on advertising. Both the Advertising Standards Authority and Broadcasting Standards Authority have comprehensive rules, guides, and a stack of past rulings that light their path. The Media Council simply requires election editorial coverage to comply with its 12 principles of good journalism.
The release carried a solemn statement from the four bodies:
“Political speech and election related content, which includes campaign material and commentary on advocacy groups, politicians, political parties and their policies, are vital components of the right to freedom of expression and a democratic election process. We are committed to supporting all those who publish or promote election related content to comply with the standards expected within New Zealand, and encourage members of the public who view, read or hear content that concerns them to raise this with us.”
Now, all this is very reassuring and New Zealand does have a good working model for ensuring election advertising and media coverage is above board. Electors have been reasonably well served in past elections and over time a system has developed that allows for fast redress on matters requiring urgent attention.
