Geoff Neal against Radio New Zealand

Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published an article on December 14, 2025, titled Media in the middle of fudge stunts, debate drama and ‘right v left’ rows.

The article was a written version of the Mediawatch broadcast titled Mother of all debates’ & right v left polarisation of news. It began by reporting how the news media had handled a spat between Finance Minister Nicola Willis and a former National Finance Minister Ruth Richardson who chairs the Taxpayers’ Union. It went on to report that two Listener columnists had written about the rise of radical conservatism and commentary on the impact of populist politics made at the Journalism Education Association conference and an Aspen Institute seminar.

Geoff Neal complained the article breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance as a fair voice was not given to both the left and right sides.

“While the article briefly acknowledged criticism from multiple directions, the substantive analysis focused overwhelmingly on right-wing and far-right influence. There was no meaningful examination of the widely debated and well-documented claim that mainstream media in New Zealand exhibit left-leaning bias.

“That omitted perspective is central to the public debate about media trust. It cannot reasonably be characterised as fringe. In an article expressly framed as a “right v left” analysis, the failure to meaningfully examine one of the dominant viewpoints results in a materially incomplete presentation of the controversy.

“Merely acknowledging that disagreement exists is not equivalent to giving a fair voice to the opposing view. In this context, the omission amounts to misleading readers by omission.”

Mr Neal lodged his complaint with the Media Council after RNZ rejected an earlier complaint that the Mediawatch programme breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards.

In its response to that complaint RNZ said the material broadcast was consistent with the legitimate functions of an analysis and commentary programme and did not breach the Code of Broadcasting Standards.

“Mediawatch is a long-running RNZ programme which provides analysis and commentary on how media operate and how news stories are framed or reported. It is not a news and current affairs programme under the Code. The standards on accuracy and balance therefore apply with a different threshold than would apply to factual news reporting.

“As an analysis and opinion segment, Mediawatch allows producers and contributors to examine editorial trends, quote viewpoints, and provide commentary within the bounds of fairness and editorial judgment. The commentary of producers or interviewees is not required to achieve exact numerical or ideological parity across all perspectives, provided that significant viewpoints are acknowledged and the overall approach remains fair and informative.

“RNZ editorial policy requires its programmes to cover a wide range of perspectives over time. We do not accept that the Mediawatch broadcast reflects an institutional bias, but we acknowledge your interest in seeing greater discussion of research on journalistic demographics and audience trust, which may be considered for future coverage where editorially relevant.”

The Media Council believes RNZ’s response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint is also relevant to this complaint as it covered the same material and arguments. The relevant standards are also similar.

Although the Mediawatch article was described by RNZ as analysis/commentary, the Media Council saw it essentially as fairly straight forward reportage.  It set out how other media had reported the Willis/Richardson (Taxpayers’ Union) clash over Government spending and debt. It also reported what two Listener columnists had written on the rise of radical conservatism and what some people had said at a journalism conference and at a seminar on the loss of trust in the news media.

It covered a lot of ground as it reported many different voices and opinions on how a political debate was generated and handled. It also went on to report discussion on possibly related political movements.

Mr Neal was disappointed that the article did not include “meaningful examination of the ... claim that mainstream media in New Zealand exhibit left-leaning bias.” Essentially, he was complaining it did not cover an issue that he wanted the article to discuss.

Trust in the Media and the way in which reporting takes place in New Zealand and worldwide, is a long running issue.  The Media Council saw no need in an article on a particular sequence of facts and reactions as to how the Media reported, for a general traverse of the way in which the New Zealand Media might lean overall, and no evidence that the article was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced.  Indeed, comments from both a left- and right-wing perspective are quoted.

The role and future of mainstream media in a fractured and largely uncontrolled digital world, growing political polarisation, the spread of misinformation, accusations of bias and the undermining of public trust in the media have all been the subject of long running debate. It is not practical to expect all viewpoints on these matters to be covered on every occasion.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.