First points to Hooton for daily editorials in The Post

Aristotle may have warned us that one swallow does not make spring, but Matthew Hooton’s first-week-in-the-chair decision to reinstate daily editorials in The Post is a welcome portent of things to come.

So, too, is his decision to establish an Editorial Leadership Team to “guide the daily leaders on the issues that matter to New Zealand and New Zealanders”. In other words, Hooton has sent the strongest signal that the daily editorial will not be simply a re-masted version of his now-discontinued opinion column in the New Zealand Herald.

Announcing the move last week, The Post said Hooton will chair the team along with associate editor Luke Malpass and national affairs editor Andrea Vance. The other members of the team suggest the spectrum of editorial subjects will be wide-reaching. Its full membership includes chief arts correspondent André Chumko, political editor Henry Cooke, Auckland business editor Dita De Boni, assistant editor Kelly Dennett, chief sport news director Mark Geenty, chief Wellington news director Marc Greenhill and Auckland editor Amelia Wade. Others will contribute as required on specialised topics.

The first editorial, published yesterday, was a well-researched and well-articulated critique of failed government projects – large-ticket items that had produced little or nothing in spite of having public money thrown at them. The peg on which it was hung was the outrageous immigration facial recognition software scandal now subject to an enquiry by the State Services Commissioner.

The leader was measured but pulled no punches: “…failure has ceased to be an exception. It has become a governing philosophy. That is a far graver scandal than any single abandoned project.”

It was prominently displayed across the top half of a page and was attributed to “The Post Editorial Leaders Team”. The aim is to produce editorials based on team consensus but Hooton has taken the highly unusual step of allowing dissenting members of the team to disassociate themselves publicly from the collective point of view. Continue reading “First points to Hooton for daily editorials in The Post”

AI-created editorials: What in HAL’s name was the Herald thinking?

Integrity is the most valued element of a news organisation’s reputation. Without it, it cannot expect its audience to lend credence to what it publishes or broadcasts. So, the New Zealand Herald has dealt itself an awful blow.

Its admission that it used generative AI to scrape content and then create an editorial about the All Blacks came only after it was caught out by Radio New Zealand. RNZ’s subsequent revelation that it may have found another three robot editorials in the Herald was met with sullen silence.

All the country’s largest newspaper will say its that it should have employed more “journalistic rigour”.

That is not good enough. It does not explain why the paper made the bizarre choice to employ Gen AI to create what should be its own opinion. It does not explain why there was no disclosure of its use (although to do so on an editorial should raise more red flags than a North Korean Workers Party anniversary). It does not tell us how widespread the practice is within publications owned by NZME (the Herald editorial was reprinted in its regional titles). It does not explain why even the most basic sub-editing was not applied to an obviously deficient piece of writing when editorials have previously been checked and rechecked to prevent the most minor of errors. And it does not reveal what went wrong in the editorial chain of command to allow all or any of the foregoing to occur…or not. Continue reading “AI-created editorials: What in HAL’s name was the Herald thinking?”