Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[wizard of Tauranga]

Called the facts so must be so? All journalists were sent a survey and this the outcome, guess we just trust what they saying is true regarding their findings. Wouldn’t mind seeing some proof before trusting that these guys are legitimately the crusaders for truth and unbiased journalism

Based on those biased folks at Massey university and curio research.

As shown on the graphs

 

[Noitall]

Based on those biased folks at Massey university and curio research.

As shown on the graphs

I saw all I needed to see pretty quick and didn’t bother reading on. Was there a copy of the survey sent out to the journalists to understand what type of questioning involved to reach that outcome?

 

[Mr Drag]

So the answer is shrug your shoulders and belittle? I'll take this as an acknowledgement from you that the right are indeed toxic and are indeed pushing an agenda that fucks all of us bar the very rich and entitled.

Oh and

Politicians need to belittled! So do the sheep who think they will save them! Lucky us Panda's are more clever than that!

 

[Noitall]

Politicians need to belittled! So do the sheep who think they will save them! Lucky us Panda's are more clever than that!

Unfortunately one sets the policy and rules, being the politicians. Who are the pandas apart from Chinese bears?

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Called the facts so must be so? All journalists were sent a survey and this the outcome, guess we just trust what they saying is true regarding their findings. Wouldn’t mind seeing some proof before trusting that these guys are legitimately the crusaders for truth and unbiased journalism

Everytime someone posts something, I treat it the same. I look at who wrote it and what was written. A quick skim showed that it was self reported. Pretty hard to argue bias in that case. Also zero reason to suspect manipulation. In fact 2/3rds seems low based on real world observation.

 

[Inruin]

Everytime someone posts something, I treat it the same. I look at who wrote it and what was written. A quick skim showed that it was self reported. Pretty hard to argue bias in that case. Also zero reason to suspect manipulation. In fact 2/3rds seems low based on real world observation.

And it was posted as a rebuttal to a claim that showed zero evidence to support that claim.

 

[Noitall]

Local politics - all parties are going very focused on what’s best for their voters rather than all NZers. And they are actively targeted the oppositions voters to fund their ideas. Eg take from one to give to the other - ultimate division.

Eg labour clearly focused on:

City people over rural/ farmers
Tenants over landlords
Employees over employers
Maori over others
Public transport over car drivers
Etc, etc

All the left loves it and the right hated it.

Now we’ve literally swapped the above and the right love it and the left hate it.

Division where govts (both left and right) are governing for their narrow voting pool over everyone and controlling by using intervention to force benefits away from the oppositions voters to your own.

This is exactly the same in international politics. The US has governed ‘the world’ in their own narrow interests doing the exact same things - forcing benefits away from others to your own countries benefit.

It’s obvious and makes sense to ‘buy’ your support and shaft the oppositions. But it’s divisive and doesn’t help all people.

Clark’s and Key were more central lifting all boats. Jacinda took it to the extreme targeting her voting pool. Highlighting how extreme Jacinda was is when National has simply reversed a lot of those changes back to pre Labour levels (tax rates, brightline, public servant numbers, raise speed limits, etc) they are being called divisive and extreme.

The US governed the world because that’s what the superpower of the world does whether it’s rightly or wrongly in your view how they do it. When we hear make America great again, or even make the world great again, what part of history are we referring to? Because history is very toxic the further we go back for some ethnicities, genders, orientations, species and poverty stricken. That’s not to say we haven’t progressed, and not to say we haven’t got some way still to go so many more are brought along for the ride and not a select few. Also not to say I don’t believe in more self awareness in lifting oneself out of their situation whatever that may be and whether it’s achievable. Ardern may not have reached her goals set, but I believe they were set for the betterment of the country. I don’t believe city were prioritised over farmers, but believe when looking at the state of some of our waterways that farmers are at the mercy of those dragging the chain in regards to what’s expected. Not only farmers either as big polluters. Tenants over landlords, I still see rent as being too high as it has been for what the money rents. I understand that the state some were left in by tenants probably contributed to this, but would rather have seen something created blacklisting poor tenants. Employees over employers. Being that inflation wasn’t in NZ alone but most of the world to varying degrees, I can only imagine it would have been worse with the likes of the 30c minimum payrise recently given. Though I doubt what they did receive really shifted the dial. Māori over others? Gizza bit more on that reasoning? Public transport over cars seems smart to lower congestion in particular places like Auckland roads

 

[Noitall]

Everytime someone posts something, I treat it the same. I look at who wrote it and what was written. A quick skim showed that it was self reported. Pretty hard to argue bias in that case. Also zero reason to suspect manipulation. In fact 2/3rds seems low based on real world observation.

Methodology as listed on page 2 of the report:
“Journalists from all known media organisations were sent an email invitation to an online survey.”
“Approximately 1200 invitations were sent. Of these, 359 completed the full survey, a response rate of 29.9%.”
“We estimate we have a confidence interval of 4.56% at the 95% confidence level, giving a margin of error of + or – 2.25%.”
“We base this on an estimated population of 1600 full-time print (inc online) and broadcast journalists.”
“This is the population as recorded in the most recent NZ Government census (2018), which recorded approximately 1200 print and 400 broadcast journalists.”




Under the methodology given on how they reached these findings, 359 out of 1200 invitations have participated, so out of the 29.9% the rest is just guesstimates. Then goes on to say it’s based on 1600 full time print and broadcast journalists from the 2018 census. Sounds like a kids homework project

 

[Tragic]

• 65.2% of NZ journalists self-identified their political views as being left of centre (scores 0-4)

Joe Rogan and Walt Disney of Tauranga identify as left leaning.
It all depends on what you consider the centre.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Do I REALLY have to point out that what is reported by the actual outlet often has nothing to do with a journalist's own personal leanings? And fact.nz is a site driven by the right in NZ. It's not politically neutral itself.

This is blatantly bullshit



and who owns curia? Oh look, it's that far right stooge David Farrar, supported by the nz initiative

 

[Inruin]

Methodology as listed on page 2 of the report:
“Journalists from all known media organisations were sent an email invitation to an online survey.”
“Approximately 1200 invitations were sent. Of these, 359 completed the full survey, a response rate of 29.9%.”
“We estimate we have a confidence interval of 4.56% at the 95% confidence level, giving a margin of error of + or – 2.25%.”
“We base this on an estimated population of 1600 full-time print (inc online) and broadcast journalists.”
“This is the population as recorded in the most recent NZ Government census (2018), which recorded approximately 1200 print and 400 broadcast journalists.”




Under the methodology given on how they reached these findings, 359 out of 1200 invitations have participated, so out of the 29.9% the rest is just guesstimates. Then goes on to say it’s based on 1600 full time print and broadcast journalists from the 2018 census. Sounds like a kids homework project

So, every survey and poll would be considered the same then? I don't think it's inappropriate to post this survey as a rebuttal to an unsubstantiated post claiming the media is predominantly right biased. Considering the majority of articles this year have seemed to be anti the government and their policies, I'm not seeing any justification for the original post.

 

[Damo]

I don't know anything about the facts website, but Curia had complaints upheld against them and resigned from the Research Association of NZ before they were going to be suspended/expelled. Doesn't seem the most reliable polling company

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Under the methodology given on how they reached these findings, 359 out of 1200 invitations have participated, so out of the 29.9% the rest is just guesstimates. Then goes on to say it’s based on 1600 full time print and broadcast journalists from the 2018 census. Sounds like a kids homework project

Same way they can project elections with a fraction of the vote counted.

They sent 1200 invitations but adjusted data based on the per capita number. Not that complicated

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Do I REALLY have to point out that what is reported by the actual outlet often has nothing to do with a journalist's own personal leanings? And fact.nz is a site driven by the right in NZ. It's not politically neutral itself.

This is blatantly bullshit

This is worse than conspiracy theorists and venturing into flat earth territory. Shifting from there's "no evidence" to "the evidence is false" is wild esp when the evidence is a self reported survey on an individuals beliefs

 

[MrFrankWhite]

But lets entertain the counter factual hypothesis; NZ journalists are right-wing learning.. Where's the supporting evidence? Apart from Kuzzy Marx's expert opinion...

 

[Damo]

I don't know anything about the facts website, but Curia had complaints upheld against them and resigned from the Research Association of NZ before they were going to be suspended/expelled. Doesn't seem the most reliable polling company

In saying that, they were essentially the closest to being correct in the '23 election:


View: https://x.com/Economissive/status/1720269289226461587

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Methodology as listed on page 2 of the report:
“Journalists from all known media organisations were sent an email invitation to an online survey.”
“Approximately 1200 invitations were sent. Of these, 359 completed the full survey, a response rate of 29.9%.”
“We estimate we have a confidence interval of 4.56% at the 95% confidence level, giving a margin of error of + or – 2.25%.”
“We base this on an estimated population of 1600 full-time print (inc online) and broadcast journalists.”
“This is the population as recorded in the most recent NZ Government census (2018), which recorded approximately 1200 print and 400 broadcast journalists.”




Under the methodology given on how they reached these findings, 359 out of 1200 invitations have participated, so out of the 29.9% the rest is just guesstimates. Then goes on to say it’s based on 1600 full time print and broadcast journalists from the 2018 census. Sounds like a kids homework project

Political polls have 1000 people out of 5m and are usually pretty accurate. The university level pollsters who are trained in statistics well above us, give a margin of error of only 2.25% so pretty conclusive.

Just say you don’t agree and post some university level counter facts if you wish…

 

[Damo]

Political polls have 1000 people out of 5m and are usually pretty accurate. The university level pollsters who are trained in statistics well above us, give a margin of error of only 2.25% so pretty conclusive.

Just say you don’t agree and post some university level counter facts if you wish…

The point was it wasn't 1000 people, it was 359...

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

I don't know anything about the facts website, but Curia had complaints upheld against them and resigned from the Research Association of NZ before they were going to be suspended/expelled. Doesn't seem the most reliable polling company

But they are just writing an article based on Massey university polling and research…

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

The point was it wasn't 1000 people, it was 359...

So the university doesn’t know what it was talking about and doesn’t understand statistics

Post some facts then to support your case. I’m open to it…