OWEN JENNINGS: When Bias becomes a Dangerous Absurdity

Editors who invite reader’s contributions usually make it clear they reserve the right to not publish any particular letter and normally they refuse to give reasons or even acknowledge receipt of a letter.

The NZ Herald has that policy. It’s a rather arrogant policy if letters sent in for publication are reasonable, not offensive or contrary to law. A media outlet that claims to have influence and status might relish a healthy debate, a robust challenge or comments that reflect widely held opinions in the community.

I send in occasional letters and have a very low hit rate because many of the points made are about the lack of scientific and accurate evidence of catastrophic global warming. I seek to be accurate, supported by evidence and reasoned. The Herald clearly believes it can sell more advertising and copies by pushing the narrative that we are doomed if we keep increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

An example of such a letter that failed to get printed:

“In a world where horrifying disasters seem more common and where they are beamed onto our devices in seconds it was comforting to learn that the first six months of 2025 were probably the safest in human history in terms of weather-related deaths. As anxiety levels grow, especially among our young people, it is a relief to learn from two recognised authorities – the Aon Global Catastrophe Recap and the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters’ Report that deaths due to natural disasters were well below the average of any first half of a year in this century.

At least 7,700 people were killed due to natural disasters during the first half of 2025, which is well below the 21st-century average of 37,250. The majority of the deaths (5,456) occurred as a result of the earthquake in Myanmar. That means that 2,200 people worldwide died in catastrophes related to extreme weather events during the first six months of the year. Any such death is a tragedy but human ingenuity and less extreme weather have combined to produce a surprisingly assuring result”.

That letter was factual, was referenced, and one would think would be a mature way the Herald could help reduce the levels of anxiety that persist in the community especially among our young people. Such anxiety levels are a huge, growing health problem.

Which raises the question as to what precisely is the Editor’s motive. If the Editor was ever to be transparent and engage in a meaningful debate around the subject, what on earth would be a rationale for refusing to help lower anxiety and fear when that fear is based on misinformation and is utterly groundless?

Does some level of community responsibility, when holding such a position of influence, not require a more balanced and mature position?

We should be grateful for efforts of Kiwiblog, RCR, NZCPR, Bassett Brash Hide and others that allow a more balanced output.

Owen Jennings, Former ACT MP