Hard News: Garbage in, garbage out
57 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Timely: Sarah Wilson revisits the bogus benefit numbers also aired during this year's election campaign.
-
And I’d wager that there might well be a few more stories to be found in interrogating the data that governments and ministers offer to justify their actions.
The way you've phrased that sentence highlights exactly what the problem is.
Politicians seem to view data as a means "to justify their actions", rather than trying to collect accurate data to determine the best action to choose.
-
Really interesting listening to an older RNZ podcast of an interview with Mike Joy (Massey uni water scientist) who was saying that Ministry for Environment used a 10-year timeframe and declared that water quality was “stable” in most rivers (since when does ~12% of a sample constitute "most"?) when the scientifically-accepted test for quality stability wasn’t used and a longer timeframe showed, at best, statistically-insignificant levels of change that may or may not have indicated stability.
That shit could have lead to a heap of stories, probably on a number of topics, but if it did they passed me by. Nailing the government and its agencies over loose language and dodgy reporting timeframes doesn’t require any politicians to talk. -
Sacha, in reply to
Nailing the government and its agencies over loose language and dodgy reporting timeframes doesn’t require any politicians to talk.
Exactly. And call their bluff. Don't offer interviews if politicians refuse to approach them honestly. Terminate the conversation at the first sign of misbehaviour. Tell the audience what is going on.
I recommend reading Giovanni's post about dirty journalism.
However the greater issue is the sheer weight of what hasn’t changed: on the wake of a scandal which engulfed the media, there have been no resignations among executives or reporters, nor to my knowledge has any print, radio or television editor signalled a change in the way things will be done and who will be asked for comment on politics and policy.
In no particular order: Rachel Glucina is still employed by the newspaper she was using as a mouthpiece for the Minister of Justice. Cathy Odgers was approached by the New Zealand Herald to comment on the political campaign, and the column might well have gone ahead if she hadn’t pulled out herself. Matthew Hooton admitted to Kathryn Ryan his role in the ‘chop chop for Nicky’ affair, and has kept his half-dozen jobs as a political commentator and columnist, including on the public airwaves. Jim Mora continues to invite representatives of a Tory front organisation and the likes of Stephen Franks – whose legal firm made use of Whaleoil – on his popular show at Radio New Zealand. Cameron Slater remains a commentator for Newstalk ZB (which led Wendyl Nissen to resign her job at the station), as is Jordan Williams (which led Helen Kelly to resign), as is David Farrar.
...
There has been some excellent reporting done on dirty politics, but it counts for little so long as some of the main players in the story – all of whom have been variously shown to be in the business of manipulating as opposed to informing the public – are going to continue to occupy their privileged, unchallenged platforms. It does not serve either balance or plurality for us to continue to hear from them.
If our media professionals want to be taken seriously, they have some trust to regain. Part of that might be standing up for the integrity of their craft against those who deliberately and relentlessly undermine it. And some ethics refresher training.
-
The modern approach to political management. It doesn't matter how bogus are the numbers used to provide support for your policy because by the time the true numbers are revealed, we've "all moved on...nothing to see here''... bullshit prevails.
Most people who are engaged with politics rely on media to inform us and the fourth estate has a responsibility beyond just making money but is clearly compromised when the making money side favours government policy (whether as an employer or as a means to better headlines) and seems to be increasingly overruling the (once-upon-a-time) independent journalist side.
I fucking despair.
-
Fat wallets = bigger PR budget = bigger ability to make shit up and get away with it.
-
Obvious question: did the police - who get millions of dollars of new funding from this policy - lie deliberately, or are they just morons?
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
The modern approach to political management. It doesn't matter how bogus are the numbers used to provide support for your policy because by the time the true numbers are revealed, we've "all moved on...nothing to see here''... bullshit prevails.
Yes. To them, facts are just a rhetorical prop, not a basis for or means of informing policy.
-
"And I'd wager that there might well be a few more stories to be found in interrogating the data that governments and ministers offer to justify their actions."
I think it was in his Bruce Jesson lecture in 2012 that Hager first suggested that sorting through this kind data - by splitting the sheer work it takes, and that is often beyond the capabilities of individual journalists or newsrooms - could be a good and straightforward use of a crowd of volunteer investigative journalists.
-
(Also: thank you Sacha.)
-
"Ironically, we had a hell of a job trying to get the Herald to stop using the bogus figures the minister's office had handed out. They were even quoted twice in editorials."
You, me and Alanis Morissette need to finally have that conversation about the meaning of irony. What you were going for here I believe is "Unsurprisingly..."
-
Sacha, in reply to
Thought it was the Minister’s office who misinterpreted the stats they were given by police? Thank goodness she’s not in charge of anything important this term, eh.
-
Journalists are notoriously innumerate and people who are good at numbers are not often good writers. The development of electronic and social media has improved the testing of numbers used by politicians significantly because it allows people other than journalists or writers of letters to the editor to share their views on the quality of that data and for the rest of us - including journalists - to have access to those views and conversations. It's not quite the best of times but it is significantly better than it once was. Also, lots and lots of government data is poorly collected and then poorly used with little consistency from agency to agency as to what is being counted or recorded. Sometimes it is not about an intent to deceive but people who are using data without understanding the assumptions and practises built into its collection.
-
andin, in reply to
Journalists are notoriously innumerate and people who are good at numbers are not often good writers.
Any other broad strokes of your brush you'd like to share, Hmmm?
-
Broad strokes of the brush based on lots of time in newsrooms and lots of time with people good at numbers, an empirically based observation in other words.
-
Pleased to see the Herald investing in some data journalism. And some more.
-
andin, in reply to
empirically based observation in other words.
its still only anecdotal, no matter how you see it, based on your experience.
Numeracy is not occupation based... -
Misinformation is the norm, I fear, and our present government, that one since 2008, has transformed media releases and media policy to near perfect, very sophisticated propaganda. The fact that few journalists have the resources, time and experience to dig deeper, is being exploited ruthlessly. David Fisher has the experience, skill and dedication to dig deeper, and he deserves much credit and praise for this.
As for those welfare or social security recipient figures Sarah Wilson rightly stated, this post explains in part, how WINZ operate now. Sandra Kirikiri, Director for Welfare Reform was on Nine to Noon on RNZ a couple of times, but as of recent seems to be more media shy:
They are conducting virtual experiments with sick, injured and mentally ill, and while that may bear risks, sole parents seem the "safest way" to apply more pressures, and get people forced into whatever "suitable" part time work.
I dread what the future will bring, with that 25 percent target to get people off benefits, same as with selling up to 20 percent of state housing.
-
Sacha, in reply to
that 25 percent target to get people off benefits, same as with selling up to 20 percent of state housing
Some easy data journalism stories right there, you'd think? No need to 'interview' a Minister or CEO to reveal what those numbers really mean.
If you're ready, journos and editors and publishers. Or you could let us know your job has changed..
-
What surprises me is that confronted with a Poly who just refuses to answer questions or blatantly prevaricates, so-called journalists just roll over and piss in the air. It should immediately set alarum bells ringing "what is this bastard trying to hide?" "Go for his jugular!!"
To be fair, they may be constrained by higher-ups who don't want to rock the boat or who are sucking up to a teat somewhere pulling them off the story. It's a sad commentary on modern media. -
BenWilson, in reply to
And I’d wager that there might well be a few more stories to be found in interrogating the data that governments and ministers offer to justify their actions.
The way you've phrased that sentence highlights exactly what the problem is.
Be careful calling a wager bollocks
-
Can I ask a question? I've been overseas for a long time so it's hard to gauge the broader sentiment in New Zealand...
The lack of ability or will among the media to hold politicians and officials to account has been a constant theme here on Public Address, particularly since the Dirty Politics story broke. So, my question is this: Is there not a mainstream market for proper investigative journalism in New Zealand? If, for example, someone set up a new newspaper, TV news venture, or some other form of news, would the general population not support it to the same level as the existing mainstream media?
[Sorry if that's a no-brainer. I really have been a way for a long time...]
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
If, for example, someone set up a new newspaper, TV news venture, or some other form of news, would the general population not support it to the same level as the existing mainstream media?
It would seem no. New Zealanders earned the name Sheeple a long time ago. Now it seems to have come to pass. Nicky Hager's book, "Dirty Politics" is a perfect example of how futile his hard work became once the Government took steps to suppress the truth. What you get on PAS is not an average persons interest.They seem to like Slater scum or so the figures are supposed to be (although debatable I'm sure) RB is one of the few people asking questions. The truth doesn't come with winning lots of bling. That market has just got bigger on TVNZ. The Herald doesn't even have NZ proof readers, How can anyone come up with a new or fresh venture when the numbers don't add up? It's all about profit margins. I wish it weren't so but there it is and here we are trying to figure out why nonsense gets more attention.
Interestingly tonight an Ebola threat in Parliament followed one at the Herald. I guess someone is trying to make a point and it has got to this stage now. Someone has had enough and does not want to put up with it any more. -
BenWilson, in reply to
Is there not a mainstream market for proper investigative journalism in New Zealand?
There's a market, but it's not a mass market.
-
One of the things I wish RNZ would do would count the number of times a minister didn't come on air when asked. Something like "since the last election the the Minister for Justice has been unavailable for interview X times". Once people start realising how ofter ministers/pollies are ducking being asked questions by journalists they pollies might start fronting up.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.