Entry 2430, on 2026-02-18 at 14:48:38 (Rating 3, News)
I often rant about the poor state of the media. It's not that most media companies are lying to us, it's more that they are biased, opinionated, and selective in what they tell us.
For example, every time Trump is mentioned on left-oriented outlets like RNZ and TVNZ (while I am concentrating on New Zealand media here, a similar argument applies to other countries) there is an explicit or implied criticism of him in various ways. I could say it is subtle, but when you are alert to this it really isn't: anything which is clearly positive is ignored while anything the media disapprove of is reported with a negative spin.
So the media are reporting fairly factually, but they are selective in which facts they report, when they have opinions they are almost always from one perspective, and instead of just reporting the facts they can't help adding some sort of moral judgement as well.
Here are a few examples...
The negative effects of climate change are constantly reinforced, but any positives are completely ignored. So we might hear that we expect more people to die from the effects of extreme heat, but we don't hear how currently about ten times as many die form extreme cold and this number is likely to reduce.
And the negative effects of increased CO2 are openly reported, even when some of them have become more uncertain, but the greatly increased plant growth and forest cover which has appeared over the last 10 years is never mentioned.
I'm sorry to be repetitive about this disclaimer, but I need to say again I am not denying that climate change is happening and is likely significantly caused by human activity, but I am debating the net effect of it, and I am debating the effectiveness of the steps taken to allegedly mitigate it.
Here's another one I saw recently on social media, which I think has some merit: "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners and bikers by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works." (relating to recent events in Australia).
In other words, when a Muslim carries out an atrocity it is not connected (by the mainstream media) to their religious beliefs so the bigger picture is ignored, but when a crazy person uses a gun to murder someone that is connected to the alleged underlying cause: too many guns.
And from the same post: "Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare and illegal immigration support running out of money? What's interesting is that the first group worked for their money, but the second group didn't."
TO be fair we would need to know the cost of each of these schemes before reaching a conclusion based on practicality, but to reach one based on morality I think is fairly clear that this biased reporting is deeply problematic.
How much reporting do we see on the current civil unrest in Iran? Considering the number and type of casualties there why is it that we hear almost nothing compared with the war in Gaza when it was at its height? Gaza was a real war where the target was terrorists, Iran involves a government murdering thousands of its own citizens for protesting.
And the general state of dysfunction in many other Islamic countries is also ignored, or at least minimised. Why? Surely this doesn't represent a genuine effort to present the news in a factual way. It seems more likely that it is a deliberate effort to emphasise news which fits the ideology of the news source while ignoring the news which contradicts it.
And then there is news which is not even news, but fits a woke agenda. I often see items about people who are pursuing some sort of activity which is seen by the media as admirable but is actually quite inconsequential, and shouldn't really be classified as news at all.
For example, a presenter on a local TV channel decided to leave her job to study the Maori language full time. This was news, apparently. But if the person had not been part of the media in-group or had been studying a language not currently seen as significant to the woke majority in the media, would it have been news? I can't prove a counter-factual but we all know it would have been ignored, don't we.
I do have to admit that there are exceptions where some news sources do make some sort of effort to present all sides of a debate. For example, my local newspaper, the Otago Daily Times, has published two quite significant articles defending a mining company involved in what is probably the biggest current controversy here: new gold mining activity in Central Otago.
I should add though that even when I am complimenting them there is still an apparent bias against the mining company, because more items against the mining are published and they tend to be in more prominent locations. Still, at least we heard both sides, so well done the ODT.
So how do we overcome this problem? Well, I'm not suggesting not consuming news from mainstream sources, because they do an adequate job on non-contentious issues, and they do present controversial material which is at least worth considering. But we should be doing two things: first, don't believe everything they say; and second, try to get contrary opinions from alternative media (which we should also be suspicious of).
I really think that critical thinking skills should be taught at schools. Not only are these useful for any further study but they are also essential for functioning in modern society. I don't think I would have gained these skills at all if I hadn't taken a couple of psychology papers at university which emphasised them. But most people don't to that, so they are more susceptible to media inconsistency.
Comment 1 (8539) by EK on 2026-02-18 at 19:45:26:
One has to be very naive to think that the media (even in the West, let alone in authoritarian countries) are even-handed and fair, or all-covering, all-seeing, unbiased and wise. You would be talking of divine qualities. Ownership, money, political allegiance, backroom dealings, etc. all come to play out in it. The ructions with the Washington Post have shown that very clearly. You can only counterbalance that by consulting as many sources as possible and preferably in more than one language – but this where the problem lies in NZ.
And as to a critical and inquisitive sense to instil in youngsters, this is where the humanities and social sciences come in usefully, or would do, but these cognitive faculties have fallen out of favour in the current political climate of populism.
Comment 2 (8540) by OJB on 2026-02-18 at 20:51:33:
Yes, I partly agree. It is unrealistic to expect complete neutrality in the media, but the extent of the bias is more than I think is acceptable. Also, state owned media, like RNZ and TVNZ have a greater responsibility to maintain balance, which they clearly fail at.
I think philosophy in particular should be a good subject for gaining skills in skepticism, although as I said, I got it more through psychology. Science also teaches these skills, or should. As far as this falling out of favour because of populism, I see it quite differently: I think it is postmodernist ideology which has been the big problem - but you already know how I feel about postmodernism and woke ideology!
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
Latest Site News and Notifications (Desktop): You are currently viewing OJB's web site, version 2.4 which has some major changes, and possibly errors! Please report any problems to ojb@mac.com.
BLOG PAGE
