Karl du Fresne on TV3
Karl du Fresne blogs on TV3:
In a post on this blog site yesterday I mentioned my reluctance to accuse media organisations of political bias. I have seen those allegations hurled about far too often and far too loosely, invariably by politically aligned people frustrated that their side wasn’t the only one getting newspaper space or air time. But in the past couple of weeks I have begun to wonder seriously whether TV3 is running some sort of political agenda.
Karl gives several examples of what he sees as a political agenda:
- Scare-mongering over the PM meeting the boss of a global oil company
- Making a meeting with Lord Ashcroft sound sinister
- Coverage of Labour’s welfare policy
- General commentary on the election
- The TV3 debate where every issue chosen was a negative one for National
- The Inside Child Poverty Documentary, being the last straw
For my 2c I don’t think TV3, or its political staff, are deliberately biased against National.
The criticism I would make is more the tendency to sensationalise stuff such as the Ashcroft meeting. The impact of the tendency to sensationalism tends to end up as more anti-Government stories because most events are about the Government. This applies no matter which party is in Government.
I agree with Karl on the so called documentary that had no balance at all and was propaganda. Showing this in election week was an appalling decision.
On the topics for the TV3 debate, I think that is also a valid point. In fact the TV3 commentators even acknowledged that after the debate. Why was there no topic on the health system? National has a great story to tell there, so naturally not chosen. Why now law & order? Labour is pledging to repeal the three strikes law. Let’s hear Phil Goff explain why someone who rapes for a third time should be eligible for parole after just a few years? But no that wasn’t chosen either. Last night’s TVNZ debate was far better balanced with topics.
Now again this may not be bias. It is probably more that they don’t see any ratings in having the Government able to talk about areas where it has been a real success story. But in terms of balanced coverage and a balanced debate, I don’t think it qualifies.