>has sparked a range of talkback calls to Newstalk ZB
I'd like a Venn diagram of these people and people who complained about 'media bias' when there was negative coverage of the previous government. I'm guessing there wouldn't be any overlap whatsoever.
On the other hand, a Venn diagram of these whiny babies and people who gleefully cheered every negative poll result for the previous government would be... a circle.
>has sparked a range of talkback calls to Newstalk ZB
Dunning and Kruger, after realising that they'd been unfollowed, unfriended, shadow-banned, or just plain ignored by the few remaining sane folk on social media, called Newstalk ZB to share the devastating news that elsewhere, media had given prominence to a story they didn't like.
Is it really that shocking when the government goes to war on the middle and lower class to pay for tax cuts for the rich, their approval rating goes down? The bubble these people live in, they are completely out of touch.
I really think these soft, right-wing cunts need to harden the fuck up. Maiki Sherman is doing her job. It is definitely news when a poll has a first-term government doing this shit.
Chris Luxon actually went on TV last night and said "no one's doing it tougher than me" in response to getting a pay rise, because it's really hard to make tough decisions and cut jobs. He really said that.
I think Luxon is mentally trapped in some kind of magical balloon, and no matter how hard he tries (not very hard), he just can't escape.
He's not even good at faking relatability. I don't know what Key told him about being PM, but whatever it was, I don't think he was listening.
Yeah, I went to watch it after reading this and it was the fairly standard “dramatic poll result” reporting the political reporters love to do and have done for years. Not sure what the trouble is.
And if there is any sort of "but but it is nowhere near election time, so this is just being mean" response from them...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2020-labour-down-and-nz-first-up-in-final-poll/RUAOVF45J256TSZTXT34TE6NDA/
(16 Oct 2020)
Or publish editorials on why National will win the next election...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/ashley-church-why-national-will-form-the-next-government/24LBMG3EDJ2Z33AAMRDOXZJB3A/
(24 Feb 2020)
edit: I only searched within the NZH, and not TVNZ, but this was just a quick check for NZ journalism in general.
It would have been the same over the top narrative if it was a Labour-led Coalition Government with such a poor poll. News agencies put the breaking news banner up for anything these days. I once saw one for a crash on the Auckland motorway.
The Reality Check Radio supporters were seething at the reporting, calling it paid for biased news reporting by the global elitist lefts, and have strengthened their calls for fundraising to get independent free thinkers like Chantelle Baker back on air.
Source: their socials
Ah yes, the scary, powerful, and moneyed global elitist leftists controlling everything - who are also somehow young, weak snowflakes, with no jobs or experience
Paywall.
I don't like the current government, but that "breaking news special" hosted by Sherman was extremely hyperbolic. Recently there's been talk about why trust in mainstream media is dropping, presentations like Sherman's are examples for why. Every statistic used was within the margin of error - there's no certainty that any of the hyperbolic statements used were true.
That all said, it's also funny to see fans of the current government get into a tissy over it. The media has been doing this against Labour for years and it's not like it's been veiled.
Highly doubtful that this is why trust in the media is dropping, imo. The people who complain most about it don't replace *'MSM'* with credible, hard-nosed, objective reporting. They replace it with conspiracy-addled nonsense like Reality Check Radio or The Platform. People being upset that 'the media' isn't catering more to their own biases (and are ipso facto therefore biased) also isn't new.
As usual, if this stuff bothers you, the audience is actually the problem. The polling story was the most popular on 1News the entire day yesterday.
Plus, the poll result is actually newsworthy separate to the result itself. I posted this yesterday in the other thread, but will re-post for context:
- This is the lowest PPM result for a National PM in the 1News poll since Jim Bolger scored 20% in August 1997.
- This is the shortest amount of time in MMP history where a post-election poll shows that the opposition would be able to defeat the newly-formed government (6 months).
Source: https://twitter.com/120Aotearoa
For the record, thanks for the reasonable response. I don't think this example is the primary driver, but I do think it is still applicable towards the cause.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018933239/people-s-trust-in-news-has-tumbled-over-the-past-year-survey-shows#:~:text=The%20fifth%20annual%20Trust%20in,to%2033%20percent%20this%20year.
Only 33% of people trust media in 2023/24, according to this research. The definition for not trusting media was: "Those who say they don’t trust and/or avoid the news are most concerned about the negativity of news, including its impact on their mental health, and what they perceive as political bias and opinion masquerading as news,”
Relating this to the breaking news political poll, given the stats for the poll all fell comfortably within the margin of error, this would fit into the perception of political bias and opinion masquerading as news. People who understand maths would see the issue in being hyperbolic when using numbers as indeterminate as the ones used in the latest polls.
Whether the story had a high level of engagement is neither here nor there. Anyone who doesn't like this government would be attracted to the idea of the story. Also given the hyperbolic presentation of the story, it would naturally generate clicks and attention. It isn't until you read into the numbers that what we're seeing actually isn't likely to be accurate with the degree of confidence it was being presented with.
>For the record, thanks for the reasonable response. I don't think this example is the primary driver, but I do think it is still applicable towards the cause.
>[https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018933239/people-s-trust-in-news-has-tumbled-over-the-past-year-survey-shows#:\~:text=The%20fifth%20annual%20Trust%20in,to%2033%20percent%20this%20year](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018933239/people-s-trust-in-news-has-tumbled-over-the-past-year-survey-shows#:~:text=The%20fifth%20annual%20Trust%20in,to%2033%20percent%20this%20year).
>Only 33% of people trust media in 2023/24, according to this research. The definition for not trusting media was: "Those who say they don’t trust and/or avoid the news are most concerned about the negativity of news, including its impact on their mental health, and what they perceive as political bias and opinion masquerading as news,”
That's a pretty loose definition, imo. And I'd be pretty cautious lumping it all together. The '*negativity of news*' has basically nothing to do with whether it's trustworthy, accurate or biased. Likewise, someone avoiding news because they think it's better for their mental health also says nothing about the above.
What's also pretty revealing is the extent to which the qualitative comments in that study give *diametrically opposite and mutually exclusive* reasons for why they don't 'trust' the news. This includes comments that make it pretty clear they want news to better reflect *their own* biases.
>Relating this to the breaking news political poll, given the stats for the poll all fell comfortably within the margin of error, this would fit into the perception of political bias and opinion masquerading as news. People who understand maths would see the issue in being hyperbolic when using numbers as indeterminate as the ones used in the latest polls.
Like I said, though - objectively this result is different for the reasons I listed above. It's also the first poll result (backed up today by a second poll) that shows the governing coalition out of power (in the context of the poll).
We've also had previous polls (after the election) showing change within the margin of error that didn't deviate much from the outcome of the election. Those didn't generate this coverage because they're not as newsworthy.
Somewhat ironically, if they *didn't* give this poll result more emphasis - that could very arguably have been a biased approach. Ignoring something that's objectively different because you're trying to maintain a false equivalence/balance *is* bias.
>Whether the story had a high level of engagement is neither here nor there. Anyone who doesn't like this government would be attracted to the idea of the story. Also given the hyperbolic presentation of the story, it would naturally generate clicks and attention.
It's a feedback loop, the stuff that gets the most engagement is what drives editorial decisions.
Matt Yglesias has a good article about this phenomenon in the US [here](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-biggest-problem-in-media-is-the). It might be paywalled, unfortunately. It's the same almost everywhere.
It's not really that strange, either - [we are two times more likely to choose information that confirms our beliefs](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-09537-004), after all.
>It isn't until you read into the numbers that what we're seeing actually isn't likely to be accurate with the degree of confidence it was being presented with.
How is it not accurate? They reported the result of a poll. How is it inaccurate?
Won't respond to most of what you've written but it was interesting and will give the link a read.
"How is it not accurate? They reported the result of a poll. How is it inaccurate?"
Given the hyperbolic language, coupled with the moe, the meaning of the results given to viewers was inaccurate. "Turbulence ahead, buckle up and brace for impact!", "Pow! NZ first down!", "there it is, a nightmare poll for the government!", "..comfort food after a pummeling in the polls". All hyperbolic nonsense used within the 90 seconds of the 1news report. All the figures used are within the margin of error. It is inaccurate to present only a 2% drop with a 3% margin of error as a "nightmare" or shocking which was also used. This type of outcome is entirely predictable, potentially even expected with a sample size of 1000.
It's the glammed up presentation which makes this seem far far worse than it actually is which makes the report inaccurate. For a different context, imagine a sports commentator describing a team that lost by 2 points as having experienced a pummeling, shocking performance, or a nightmare game. It's hyperbole and it's meant to drive a reaction more than accurately reflect the fact that it was a very closely fought game
>Given the hyperbolic language, coupled with the moe, the meaning of the results given to viewers was inaccurate. "Turbulence ahead, buckle up and brace for impact!", "Pow! NZ first down!", "there it is, a nightmare poll for the government!", "..comfort food after a pummeling in the polls". All hyperbolic nonsense used within the 90 seconds of the 1news report. All the figures used are within the margin of error. It is inaccurate to present only a 2% drop with a 3% margin of error as a "nightmare" or shocking which was also used. This type of outcome is entirely predictable, potentially even expected with a sample size of 1000.
>It's the glammed up presentation which makes this seem far far worse than it actually is which makes the report inaccurate.
Nothing you've described here is inaccurate, though. Editorial framing is different to inaccuracy or bias. I don't necessarily disagree with you about that - I also think the '*breaking news*' banner is over-used and the hype can get silly, but that's a different issue.
And as I've explained, this result is *actually* objectively different. The previous post-election poll results didn't have all this hype when it was reported - why do you think that is?
I'm not sure why you're ignoring the important differences in the poll result while clinging to the MOE? MOEs are a standard part of any survey methodology, but the actual outcome of the poll is what's newsworthy (or not).
This type of outcome is not at all "entirely predictable", either. The whole reason it's being given more prominence is precisely *because* it's out of the ordinary. As I pointed out:
* This is the lowest PPM result for a National PM in the 1News poll since Jim Bolger scored 20% in August 1997.
* This is the shortest amount of time in MMP history where a post-election poll shows that the opposition would be able to defeat the newly-formed government (6 months).
>For a different context, imagine a sports commentator describing a team that lost by 2 points as having experienced a pummeling, shocking performance, or a nightmare game. It's hyperbole and it's meant to drive a reaction more than accurately reflect the fact that it was a very closely fought game
You'd need more context. For example, who played, what were the past outcomes of the games they've played, what was the expectation pre-game? And so on.
Do you think the All Blacks only beating Namibia by 2 would be reported and discussed as a run of the mill, closely fought game? Their previous game was 71-3. The one before that was 71-9, and the one before that was 58-14.
Good points and was interesting to read.
On the context example, the assumption based on past performance would suggest it would be a nightmare, but it could potentially be more to do with the All Blacks putting out a development team like the team they sent to Japan last year. So it's an either or. The point I was trying to make is the language used does change the meaning of the information and sports commentators doing it for shock value is an easy example.
Describing survey results which aren't entirely determinate as being so obtusely poor lowers the integrity of the statement by making them inaccurate. It would've been more accurate to state the results were within moe, instead of calling it a nightmare, for instance. It would've been more accurate to describe these results as a tipping point rather than a pummeling. Strap in and brace for impact, or take stock and read the signs. There were better ways, specifically more accurate ways of portraying this information without verbosity that worsens the results in watchers minds.
You're describing what you would have found more appealing as framing, though. I'm not sure we can ascribe that to any larger group of people.
I can think of lots of ways I'd prefer to change editorial framing, but I'm not necessarily who they need to win over to make their business sustainable.
As I said, the audience is often the problem, and with a free news model, they have to boost engagement. This is the type of stuff that boosts engagement, for better or worse.
Most people glaze over if stories actually make all the necessary caveats and contextualise all the necessary nuances. We have very clogged information ecosystems!
> hyperbolic
(of language) deliberately exaggerated.
Complaining the media is "extremely hyperbolic"? while the politicians are saying things like...
"New Zealand has become a lawless country" Labour has a “culture of extravagance and excess”, its “war on plastic”, and “war on landlords”, who are treated “like al-Qaeda”. (David Seymour)
Or comparing co-governance to Nazi Germany (Winston Peters)
Or talking about Jobseeker benefit "described the system as "catastrophic" and "fragile" " (Christopher Luxon)
and the media is obliged to report those comments.
and then those same politicians, and their supporters, make official complaints when the media use much milder language to criticise them?
Get real
You seem to be drawing a false equivalence which doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Politicians will use words to describe things, yes we can agree the language used by the current government is not based in reality alot of the time.
The specific presentation we're talking about here, one which is falsely presenting a statistical insignificance enthusiasticly as absolute fact despite it being well within the moe, should be called out for what it is. I am also commenting on the degradation of public trust in mainstream media, something which gives politicians more wiggle room to be equally if not more hyperbolic in order to be heard.
> the degradation of public trust in mainstream media
is because politicians around the world say 'fake news', and in some countries they do not have laws to prevent 'news' media spreading absolute lies, and in other countries they openly censor the news, and there's the issue of new types of media not governed by current laws.
NZ traditional media is held accountable by laws - as clearly indicated by the headline saying "50 formal complaints".
I note your comment "falsely presenting" and disagree. They are presenting the results of a poll, which indicates a level of dissatisfaction against a new gov't never seen before, and clearly stating it's margin of error.
'Politicians will use words to describe things' while true, is not a defense. Media will use words to describe things too. However in NZ traditional media are bound by law to try and be fair, and can be punished if not.
We have politicians openly lying (NZ is not lawless) - be upset about that. Not our law-abiding media reporting an exciting poll.
They are falsely presenting - the results of the poll all fall well within the margin of error for the polls themselves. That is a significant piece of information you're ignoring, it means the hyperbolic language used does have any true legitimacy. If there's 3% margin of error, and the outcome is inside that, the numbers cannot be relied upon for absolute certainty. This is basic maths you are choosing to ignore.
Again, we can agree that the language used by the current government is bad. There is no denying that. They're the worst NZ has seen. But let's keep focus, this discussion is a result of a mainstream media outlet, presenting a political poll as breaking news and using hyperbolic language to describe statistics which are well within the margin of error. It is political porn at best. It degrades trust in media which creates space for the loony right wingers to spill their garbage.
The margin of error is arbitrary. 3% is simply the point where there is a 95% statistical probability that the true value falls within that range. They could use a lower probability to reduce the margin of error, maybe going off 90% probability, or even 85% instead. If they did that and the margin of error came down to just 1%, would you be satisfied?
No poll is 100% accurate, so if you believe that poll results that have a margin of error cannot be reported on, then you must believe no poll results can *ever* be reported on.
It's not falsely presenting. The 3% margin of error is on the total poll results, specifically the 47-48% split between right and left leaning blocs respectively.
It's not a 3% margin on NZFs polling results of 4%. It does not mean NZFs polling results were between 1-7%.
NZFs polling was still under 4% which is \*very significant\* because unlike TPM who have māori roll seats that 4% translates to zero parliamentary seats. This would give the left leaning block the majority in parliament if that poll was the election result. That 3% margin does not change the headline story and it is totally correct for news to report it as that.
> This is basic maths you are choosing to ignore.
I don't think you understand what that margin of error means. It's the normal way of indicating a chance of error on a 95% sure poll.
"A margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level means that if we fielded the same survey 100 times, we would expect the result to be within 3 percentage points of the true population value 95 of those times."
And there's been other reports indicating similar drop in popularity...
[Jenna Lynch analysis: Second poll confirms Labour could take back power, Newshub understands](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/04/jenna-lynch-analysis-second-poll-confirms-labour-could-take-back-power-newshub-understands.html) (i note the couched language tho')
[Consumer confidence down](https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/anz-roy-morgan-new-zealand-consumer-confidence-down-8-1-pts-to-86-4-in-march)
Roy Morgan’s March survey found for the first time since the change of Government more Kiwis thought the country was on the “wrong track” (54%) than the “right track” (35%).
I think it's kinda obvious that the government would be losing popularity right now given the outrageous lies they say, and their policies affecting many thousands of kiwis lives for the worse.
And to be fair to our media - perhaps they've decided to stir things up a bit presentation-wise to try and keep relevant in the face of media companies going bust. That certainly seems to be working with the level of discussion going on.
>If there's 3% margin of error, and the outcome is inside that, the numbers cannot be relied upon for absolute certainty. This is basic maths you are choosing to ignore.
No one takes these polls as "absolute certainty". It's only been 6 months ffs we've still got 2 years. These polls are always taken with a grain of salt for that reason, people don't fully believe them until it's close to election time. Why are you acting like everyone takes every word as law and that no one is capable of coming to the same, or different, conclusion as you?
The media has *always* been hyperbolic in terms of word choices. Guaranteed you go look at articles from the 50s and you'll find hyperbolic language. The big thing that you're ignoring? You won't find hyperbolic ***context***, the language might be a bit out there but the topic and the arguments usually are not
The other guy has already pointed out things that make this poll significantly different from previous ones which is what makes it more newsworthy. I've yet to see you refute any of those things as not good enough reasons
It reminded me of Newshubs poll reporting where every result was a “bombshell”.
What’s worse was they then reported on it again the next day!
It’s an interesting result for certain, but over reporting it is not doing them any favours.
And yet only *this* one has the PM getting his panties in a twist, and lots of very sensitive right-wingers making formal complaints.
I agree that the reporting of polls in general is often over-the-top, but it's funny that it's only a problem when the poll in question shows the right doing badly.
I think the overreporting is somewhat justified due to the seething from right wingers over it. It wouldn't have been extremely newsworthy if the right didn't overreact to the poll and have Seymour and Luxon desperately trying to do damage control.
It’s worth remembering that the quoted margin of error applies to a party polling at 50%. The further away from 50%, the lower the MoE. So the MoE on say, NZ First, who polled 4% in this poll, is 1.2%, so technically their result in this poll is outside of the margin of error.
>The report, and the language used, has sparked a range of talkback calls to Newstalk ZB, letters to the editor of the *NZ Herald* and a range of complaints directly to TVNZ from viewers.
[https://archive.is/q07SL](https://archive.is/q07SL)
That's a very long and excited report to repeatedly say what seems like not much about someone else's report that it says people are complaining was too long and excited for saying not much.
Good. I watched that item and it was 15 minutes of over the top hyperbole. 15 minutes dedicated to a poll that counts for bugger all and will mean diddly squat in a week or two. I don't have a bias left or right to be honest, but I do have a bias against this sensationalist reporting just to make themselves sound 'on-the-pulse' when there's nothing of real note there.
Just report the numbers if you must and move on. We don't need to hear your opinion of what's going on in some political group chat.
I thought the same. And I'm a historic green voter so it really has nothing to do with being a "rightwing wingey whiner" as other people are stating. I didnt understand how the poll was "breaking news".
>has sparked a range of talkback calls to Newstalk ZB I'd like a Venn diagram of these people and people who complained about 'media bias' when there was negative coverage of the previous government. I'm guessing there wouldn't be any overlap whatsoever. On the other hand, a Venn diagram of these whiny babies and people who gleefully cheered every negative poll result for the previous government would be... a circle.
>has sparked a range of talkback calls to Newstalk ZB Dunning and Kruger, after realising that they'd been unfollowed, unfriended, shadow-banned, or just plain ignored by the few remaining sane folk on social media, called Newstalk ZB to share the devastating news that elsewhere, media had given prominence to a story they didn't like.
Is it really that shocking when the government goes to war on the middle and lower class to pay for tax cuts for the rich, their approval rating goes down? The bubble these people live in, they are completely out of touch.
I really think these soft, right-wing cunts need to harden the fuck up. Maiki Sherman is doing her job. It is definitely news when a poll has a first-term government doing this shit.
it was a fairly standard delivery of poll results for nz tv news i thought.
Yep. The reaction from conservatives - from heads exploding to denial and excuses - to standard TV news delivery is priceless.
Chris Luxon actually went on TV last night and said "no one's doing it tougher than me" in response to getting a pay rise, because it's really hard to make tough decisions and cut jobs. He really said that.
I think Luxon is mentally trapped in some kind of magical balloon, and no matter how hard he tries (not very hard), he just can't escape. He's not even good at faking relatability. I don't know what Key told him about being PM, but whatever it was, I don't think he was listening.
It's almost like conservatives are giant whiny fucking babies.
I believe the term you're looking for is 'snowflakes'...
Yeah, I went to watch it after reading this and it was the fairly standard “dramatic poll result” reporting the political reporters love to do and have done for years. Not sure what the trouble is.
And if there is any sort of "but but it is nowhere near election time, so this is just being mean" response from them... https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/election-2020-labour-down-and-nz-first-up-in-final-poll/RUAOVF45J256TSZTXT34TE6NDA/ (16 Oct 2020) Or publish editorials on why National will win the next election... https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/ashley-church-why-national-will-form-the-next-government/24LBMG3EDJ2Z33AAMRDOXZJB3A/ (24 Feb 2020) edit: I only searched within the NZH, and not TVNZ, but this was just a quick check for NZ journalism in general.
Nash is right the reporting was very melodramatic, to the point that some may question the impartiality of the reporter
It would have been the same over the top narrative if it was a Labour-led Coalition Government with such a poor poll. News agencies put the breaking news banner up for anything these days. I once saw one for a crash on the Auckland motorway.
I bet there weren't any complaints from them when the polls had National in front
When Nation was in front, there weren’t any weird, gloaty news segments
Well, Stuart Nash is a lobbyist now and probably positioning himself as centre-right, so I'm not surprised he would be critical.
He really got the pip and turned, aye?
Stuart's always been a Red Tory, his family connection to Labour is about the only reason he didn't defect to the right years ago.
The Reality Check Radio supporters were seething at the reporting, calling it paid for biased news reporting by the global elitist lefts, and have strengthened their calls for fundraising to get independent free thinkers like Chantelle Baker back on air. Source: their socials
Ah yes, the scary, powerful, and moneyed global elitist leftists controlling everything - who are also somehow young, weak snowflakes, with no jobs or experience
Paywall. I don't like the current government, but that "breaking news special" hosted by Sherman was extremely hyperbolic. Recently there's been talk about why trust in mainstream media is dropping, presentations like Sherman's are examples for why. Every statistic used was within the margin of error - there's no certainty that any of the hyperbolic statements used were true. That all said, it's also funny to see fans of the current government get into a tissy over it. The media has been doing this against Labour for years and it's not like it's been veiled.
Highly doubtful that this is why trust in the media is dropping, imo. The people who complain most about it don't replace *'MSM'* with credible, hard-nosed, objective reporting. They replace it with conspiracy-addled nonsense like Reality Check Radio or The Platform. People being upset that 'the media' isn't catering more to their own biases (and are ipso facto therefore biased) also isn't new. As usual, if this stuff bothers you, the audience is actually the problem. The polling story was the most popular on 1News the entire day yesterday. Plus, the poll result is actually newsworthy separate to the result itself. I posted this yesterday in the other thread, but will re-post for context: - This is the lowest PPM result for a National PM in the 1News poll since Jim Bolger scored 20% in August 1997. - This is the shortest amount of time in MMP history where a post-election poll shows that the opposition would be able to defeat the newly-formed government (6 months). Source: https://twitter.com/120Aotearoa
For the record, thanks for the reasonable response. I don't think this example is the primary driver, but I do think it is still applicable towards the cause. https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018933239/people-s-trust-in-news-has-tumbled-over-the-past-year-survey-shows#:~:text=The%20fifth%20annual%20Trust%20in,to%2033%20percent%20this%20year. Only 33% of people trust media in 2023/24, according to this research. The definition for not trusting media was: "Those who say they don’t trust and/or avoid the news are most concerned about the negativity of news, including its impact on their mental health, and what they perceive as political bias and opinion masquerading as news,” Relating this to the breaking news political poll, given the stats for the poll all fell comfortably within the margin of error, this would fit into the perception of political bias and opinion masquerading as news. People who understand maths would see the issue in being hyperbolic when using numbers as indeterminate as the ones used in the latest polls. Whether the story had a high level of engagement is neither here nor there. Anyone who doesn't like this government would be attracted to the idea of the story. Also given the hyperbolic presentation of the story, it would naturally generate clicks and attention. It isn't until you read into the numbers that what we're seeing actually isn't likely to be accurate with the degree of confidence it was being presented with.
>For the record, thanks for the reasonable response. I don't think this example is the primary driver, but I do think it is still applicable towards the cause. >[https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018933239/people-s-trust-in-news-has-tumbled-over-the-past-year-survey-shows#:\~:text=The%20fifth%20annual%20Trust%20in,to%2033%20percent%20this%20year](https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018933239/people-s-trust-in-news-has-tumbled-over-the-past-year-survey-shows#:~:text=The%20fifth%20annual%20Trust%20in,to%2033%20percent%20this%20year). >Only 33% of people trust media in 2023/24, according to this research. The definition for not trusting media was: "Those who say they don’t trust and/or avoid the news are most concerned about the negativity of news, including its impact on their mental health, and what they perceive as political bias and opinion masquerading as news,” That's a pretty loose definition, imo. And I'd be pretty cautious lumping it all together. The '*negativity of news*' has basically nothing to do with whether it's trustworthy, accurate or biased. Likewise, someone avoiding news because they think it's better for their mental health also says nothing about the above. What's also pretty revealing is the extent to which the qualitative comments in that study give *diametrically opposite and mutually exclusive* reasons for why they don't 'trust' the news. This includes comments that make it pretty clear they want news to better reflect *their own* biases. >Relating this to the breaking news political poll, given the stats for the poll all fell comfortably within the margin of error, this would fit into the perception of political bias and opinion masquerading as news. People who understand maths would see the issue in being hyperbolic when using numbers as indeterminate as the ones used in the latest polls. Like I said, though - objectively this result is different for the reasons I listed above. It's also the first poll result (backed up today by a second poll) that shows the governing coalition out of power (in the context of the poll). We've also had previous polls (after the election) showing change within the margin of error that didn't deviate much from the outcome of the election. Those didn't generate this coverage because they're not as newsworthy. Somewhat ironically, if they *didn't* give this poll result more emphasis - that could very arguably have been a biased approach. Ignoring something that's objectively different because you're trying to maintain a false equivalence/balance *is* bias. >Whether the story had a high level of engagement is neither here nor there. Anyone who doesn't like this government would be attracted to the idea of the story. Also given the hyperbolic presentation of the story, it would naturally generate clicks and attention. It's a feedback loop, the stuff that gets the most engagement is what drives editorial decisions. Matt Yglesias has a good article about this phenomenon in the US [here](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-biggest-problem-in-media-is-the). It might be paywalled, unfortunately. It's the same almost everywhere. It's not really that strange, either - [we are two times more likely to choose information that confirms our beliefs](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-09537-004), after all. >It isn't until you read into the numbers that what we're seeing actually isn't likely to be accurate with the degree of confidence it was being presented with. How is it not accurate? They reported the result of a poll. How is it inaccurate?
Won't respond to most of what you've written but it was interesting and will give the link a read. "How is it not accurate? They reported the result of a poll. How is it inaccurate?" Given the hyperbolic language, coupled with the moe, the meaning of the results given to viewers was inaccurate. "Turbulence ahead, buckle up and brace for impact!", "Pow! NZ first down!", "there it is, a nightmare poll for the government!", "..comfort food after a pummeling in the polls". All hyperbolic nonsense used within the 90 seconds of the 1news report. All the figures used are within the margin of error. It is inaccurate to present only a 2% drop with a 3% margin of error as a "nightmare" or shocking which was also used. This type of outcome is entirely predictable, potentially even expected with a sample size of 1000. It's the glammed up presentation which makes this seem far far worse than it actually is which makes the report inaccurate. For a different context, imagine a sports commentator describing a team that lost by 2 points as having experienced a pummeling, shocking performance, or a nightmare game. It's hyperbole and it's meant to drive a reaction more than accurately reflect the fact that it was a very closely fought game
>Given the hyperbolic language, coupled with the moe, the meaning of the results given to viewers was inaccurate. "Turbulence ahead, buckle up and brace for impact!", "Pow! NZ first down!", "there it is, a nightmare poll for the government!", "..comfort food after a pummeling in the polls". All hyperbolic nonsense used within the 90 seconds of the 1news report. All the figures used are within the margin of error. It is inaccurate to present only a 2% drop with a 3% margin of error as a "nightmare" or shocking which was also used. This type of outcome is entirely predictable, potentially even expected with a sample size of 1000. >It's the glammed up presentation which makes this seem far far worse than it actually is which makes the report inaccurate. Nothing you've described here is inaccurate, though. Editorial framing is different to inaccuracy or bias. I don't necessarily disagree with you about that - I also think the '*breaking news*' banner is over-used and the hype can get silly, but that's a different issue. And as I've explained, this result is *actually* objectively different. The previous post-election poll results didn't have all this hype when it was reported - why do you think that is? I'm not sure why you're ignoring the important differences in the poll result while clinging to the MOE? MOEs are a standard part of any survey methodology, but the actual outcome of the poll is what's newsworthy (or not). This type of outcome is not at all "entirely predictable", either. The whole reason it's being given more prominence is precisely *because* it's out of the ordinary. As I pointed out: * This is the lowest PPM result for a National PM in the 1News poll since Jim Bolger scored 20% in August 1997. * This is the shortest amount of time in MMP history where a post-election poll shows that the opposition would be able to defeat the newly-formed government (6 months). >For a different context, imagine a sports commentator describing a team that lost by 2 points as having experienced a pummeling, shocking performance, or a nightmare game. It's hyperbole and it's meant to drive a reaction more than accurately reflect the fact that it was a very closely fought game You'd need more context. For example, who played, what were the past outcomes of the games they've played, what was the expectation pre-game? And so on. Do you think the All Blacks only beating Namibia by 2 would be reported and discussed as a run of the mill, closely fought game? Their previous game was 71-3. The one before that was 71-9, and the one before that was 58-14.
Good points and was interesting to read. On the context example, the assumption based on past performance would suggest it would be a nightmare, but it could potentially be more to do with the All Blacks putting out a development team like the team they sent to Japan last year. So it's an either or. The point I was trying to make is the language used does change the meaning of the information and sports commentators doing it for shock value is an easy example. Describing survey results which aren't entirely determinate as being so obtusely poor lowers the integrity of the statement by making them inaccurate. It would've been more accurate to state the results were within moe, instead of calling it a nightmare, for instance. It would've been more accurate to describe these results as a tipping point rather than a pummeling. Strap in and brace for impact, or take stock and read the signs. There were better ways, specifically more accurate ways of portraying this information without verbosity that worsens the results in watchers minds.
You're describing what you would have found more appealing as framing, though. I'm not sure we can ascribe that to any larger group of people. I can think of lots of ways I'd prefer to change editorial framing, but I'm not necessarily who they need to win over to make their business sustainable. As I said, the audience is often the problem, and with a free news model, they have to boost engagement. This is the type of stuff that boosts engagement, for better or worse. Most people glaze over if stories actually make all the necessary caveats and contextualise all the necessary nuances. We have very clogged information ecosystems!
> Every statistic used was within the margin of error You don't understand how margin of error works.
> hyperbolic (of language) deliberately exaggerated. Complaining the media is "extremely hyperbolic"? while the politicians are saying things like... "New Zealand has become a lawless country" Labour has a “culture of extravagance and excess”, its “war on plastic”, and “war on landlords”, who are treated “like al-Qaeda”. (David Seymour) Or comparing co-governance to Nazi Germany (Winston Peters) Or talking about Jobseeker benefit "described the system as "catastrophic" and "fragile" " (Christopher Luxon) and the media is obliged to report those comments. and then those same politicians, and their supporters, make official complaints when the media use much milder language to criticise them? Get real
You seem to be drawing a false equivalence which doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Politicians will use words to describe things, yes we can agree the language used by the current government is not based in reality alot of the time. The specific presentation we're talking about here, one which is falsely presenting a statistical insignificance enthusiasticly as absolute fact despite it being well within the moe, should be called out for what it is. I am also commenting on the degradation of public trust in mainstream media, something which gives politicians more wiggle room to be equally if not more hyperbolic in order to be heard.
> the degradation of public trust in mainstream media is because politicians around the world say 'fake news', and in some countries they do not have laws to prevent 'news' media spreading absolute lies, and in other countries they openly censor the news, and there's the issue of new types of media not governed by current laws. NZ traditional media is held accountable by laws - as clearly indicated by the headline saying "50 formal complaints". I note your comment "falsely presenting" and disagree. They are presenting the results of a poll, which indicates a level of dissatisfaction against a new gov't never seen before, and clearly stating it's margin of error. 'Politicians will use words to describe things' while true, is not a defense. Media will use words to describe things too. However in NZ traditional media are bound by law to try and be fair, and can be punished if not. We have politicians openly lying (NZ is not lawless) - be upset about that. Not our law-abiding media reporting an exciting poll.
They are falsely presenting - the results of the poll all fall well within the margin of error for the polls themselves. That is a significant piece of information you're ignoring, it means the hyperbolic language used does have any true legitimacy. If there's 3% margin of error, and the outcome is inside that, the numbers cannot be relied upon for absolute certainty. This is basic maths you are choosing to ignore. Again, we can agree that the language used by the current government is bad. There is no denying that. They're the worst NZ has seen. But let's keep focus, this discussion is a result of a mainstream media outlet, presenting a political poll as breaking news and using hyperbolic language to describe statistics which are well within the margin of error. It is political porn at best. It degrades trust in media which creates space for the loony right wingers to spill their garbage.
The margin of error is arbitrary. 3% is simply the point where there is a 95% statistical probability that the true value falls within that range. They could use a lower probability to reduce the margin of error, maybe going off 90% probability, or even 85% instead. If they did that and the margin of error came down to just 1%, would you be satisfied? No poll is 100% accurate, so if you believe that poll results that have a margin of error cannot be reported on, then you must believe no poll results can *ever* be reported on.
It's not falsely presenting. The 3% margin of error is on the total poll results, specifically the 47-48% split between right and left leaning blocs respectively. It's not a 3% margin on NZFs polling results of 4%. It does not mean NZFs polling results were between 1-7%. NZFs polling was still under 4% which is \*very significant\* because unlike TPM who have māori roll seats that 4% translates to zero parliamentary seats. This would give the left leaning block the majority in parliament if that poll was the election result. That 3% margin does not change the headline story and it is totally correct for news to report it as that.
> This is basic maths you are choosing to ignore. I don't think you understand what that margin of error means. It's the normal way of indicating a chance of error on a 95% sure poll. "A margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level means that if we fielded the same survey 100 times, we would expect the result to be within 3 percentage points of the true population value 95 of those times." And there's been other reports indicating similar drop in popularity... [Jenna Lynch analysis: Second poll confirms Labour could take back power, Newshub understands](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/04/jenna-lynch-analysis-second-poll-confirms-labour-could-take-back-power-newshub-understands.html) (i note the couched language tho') [Consumer confidence down](https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/anz-roy-morgan-new-zealand-consumer-confidence-down-8-1-pts-to-86-4-in-march) Roy Morgan’s March survey found for the first time since the change of Government more Kiwis thought the country was on the “wrong track” (54%) than the “right track” (35%). I think it's kinda obvious that the government would be losing popularity right now given the outrageous lies they say, and their policies affecting many thousands of kiwis lives for the worse. And to be fair to our media - perhaps they've decided to stir things up a bit presentation-wise to try and keep relevant in the face of media companies going bust. That certainly seems to be working with the level of discussion going on.
>If there's 3% margin of error, and the outcome is inside that, the numbers cannot be relied upon for absolute certainty. This is basic maths you are choosing to ignore. No one takes these polls as "absolute certainty". It's only been 6 months ffs we've still got 2 years. These polls are always taken with a grain of salt for that reason, people don't fully believe them until it's close to election time. Why are you acting like everyone takes every word as law and that no one is capable of coming to the same, or different, conclusion as you? The media has *always* been hyperbolic in terms of word choices. Guaranteed you go look at articles from the 50s and you'll find hyperbolic language. The big thing that you're ignoring? You won't find hyperbolic ***context***, the language might be a bit out there but the topic and the arguments usually are not The other guy has already pointed out things that make this poll significantly different from previous ones which is what makes it more newsworthy. I've yet to see you refute any of those things as not good enough reasons
It reminded me of Newshubs poll reporting where every result was a “bombshell”. What’s worse was they then reported on it again the next day! It’s an interesting result for certain, but over reporting it is not doing them any favours.
And yet only *this* one has the PM getting his panties in a twist, and lots of very sensitive right-wingers making formal complaints. I agree that the reporting of polls in general is often over-the-top, but it's funny that it's only a problem when the poll in question shows the right doing badly.
I think the overreporting is somewhat justified due to the seething from right wingers over it. It wouldn't have been extremely newsworthy if the right didn't overreact to the poll and have Seymour and Luxon desperately trying to do damage control.
It’s worth remembering that the quoted margin of error applies to a party polling at 50%. The further away from 50%, the lower the MoE. So the MoE on say, NZ First, who polled 4% in this poll, is 1.2%, so technically their result in this poll is outside of the margin of error.
I wonder how much of this is the "brown lady has opinion" factor
>The report, and the language used, has sparked a range of talkback calls to Newstalk ZB, letters to the editor of the *NZ Herald* and a range of complaints directly to TVNZ from viewers. [https://archive.is/q07SL](https://archive.is/q07SL)
That's a very long and excited report to repeatedly say what seems like not much about someone else's report that it says people are complaining was too long and excited for saying not much.
Good. I watched that item and it was 15 minutes of over the top hyperbole. 15 minutes dedicated to a poll that counts for bugger all and will mean diddly squat in a week or two. I don't have a bias left or right to be honest, but I do have a bias against this sensationalist reporting just to make themselves sound 'on-the-pulse' when there's nothing of real note there. Just report the numbers if you must and move on. We don't need to hear your opinion of what's going on in some political group chat.
I thought the same. And I'm a historic green voter so it really has nothing to do with being a "rightwing wingey whiner" as other people are stating. I didnt understand how the poll was "breaking news".