FAMILY FIRST: Analysis of Media Coverage of Parliament Protest 2022
- Administrator
- Mar 2, 2023
- 2 min read
A new report has reviewed the media coverage of one of the most significant events in 2022 – the Parliament Protest which lasted almost four weeks - and finds that the media failed in its duty to present the Protest in a fair and balanced manner.
The report reviewed 599 news and op-ed pieces over a 22-day period and concludes:
“The coverage was curated to focus on the fringes and avoid the key questions at the centre of the protest. The public were never invited to draw their own conclusions but were fed a pre-determined diet of anti-protest content. We believe the majority of politicians were equally remiss, and responsible for creating the environment for this approach to prosper. Finally, the protestors must acknowledge that opting for a ‘grassroots’ style event made it harder for the media, and made space for the wrong voices to dominate.”
Key findings are:
72% of media coverage made no attempt to report the concerns, and many of those articles which did mention their concerns reported them alongside critical commentary.
around 20 stories (just 3% of the total 599 reviewed) featured quotes from protestors, many of whom were happy to be named. There were only a couple of stories that profiled protesters in any depth.
the direct coverage of the protests focused on the more controversial and possibly fringe elements of the group. Little effort was made to report the impact mandates had had on the lives of the protestors or the validity of questioning the use of mandates.
the media failed to do a true assessment of what kind of people made up the protest and their motivation to be there. Most protesters were motivated by opposition to mandates, support for freedom of choice, concerns about children being vaccinated, and the loss of jobs.
just under half of all coverage of the protesters’ concerns was by those speaking about the protest rather than to the protestors directly. Nearly all the commentary was negative and critical, at times derisive and dismissive.
It is our view, and we believe the view of most New Zealanders, that when significant social issues are being discussed and debated in our nation, the mainstream media should report the full debate – not lead it – and leave the public to come to their own conclusions. The media should present both sides, actively seek out those countering viewpoints, and refrain from focusing on the fringes which are rarely representative of mainstream viewpoints on the key issues. Sadly, many of our recent social debates have shown that it is difficult to trust the mainstream media to participate in social debates in a non-partisan way.
Read the full report here
Sean Plunket on Platform praised RNZ documentary The Boiling Point about the last day of the protest.
The only honest media who covered this horror live was Counterspin Media. At least they provided an honest service, I watched most of it. The protest was about the right to personal choice not Ardern/Mallards take on it.
The police too were seen to be bullies. They walked as teams and selected out person to assault. One would nod indicating the victim and others would lunge forward and drop them on the ground with the risks involved. No one could say that the victims were dangerous standing in line with others, at worst they might have sworn. They hospitalised several persons. I believe they lit the fire too at the end. I saw no fire, then there were Police entering…
The sad thing is that this is true also of retrospective coverage after one year when there is enough evidence that mandates were against basic human freedom and that the benefits of pfizer vaccinnes are more than doubtful.
Defund RNZ. Defund NZ on Air. Remove the PIJF.
This isn't a new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. The mass corporate media don't exist to convey unbiased descriptions of the facts to facilitate public understanding. Their role is to present (or even construct) a pseudo-reality in such a way that reinforces and maintains a status quo that benefits Power. While the principle applies in New Zealand as much as any other contemporary complex society, let's take the paradigm example of the United States: the apparent distinctions between government, legacy media, social media and other large corporations is so non-existent that it is really a distinction without a difference. Collectively, these elements represent a self-perpetuating power structure whose interests completely coincide.
Therefore, what is covered by "approved" or…