Table of Contents
JD
As an avid reader of and writer of (usually unpublished) letters to the New Zealand Herald opinions page, I have long had the feeling there is little balance when it comes to what gets printed and what doesn’t.
Deferring to the new analytical skills offered by AI, I asked ChatGPT to analyse the letters over a random week; the one ending 24 January this year and the results are interesting to say the least.
Firstly, on the question of letters about the government, ChatGPT determined that 64 per cent of the government-related column inches printed were anti-coalition, with only 18 per cent being pro, leading it to this interpretation.
Roughly 2/3 of political letters were critical of the National-ACT-NZ First coalition
Pro-coalition sentiment existed but was much shorter and less frequent
Secondly, moving on to climate-risk narratives, the analysis showed 22 per cent of column inch share was allocated to letters supporting the idea of climate crisis, with only six per cent to those sceptical of the idea and, again, according to the AI analysis:
Climate letters often linked extreme weather, floods, and infrastructure failures to climate change
The tone skewed toward urgency and risk amplification
Sceptical or moderating climate voices were present but limited
The following summary was then offered:
Coalition Bias
Anti-coalition letters outnumbered pro-coalition letters ~3.6:1
Negative letters were longer, more prominent, more frequently published
· Editorial Bias Index shows +46 for anti-coalition letters, indicating the NZ Herald letters page shows a VERY STRONG anti-coalition editorial skew
Climate Narrative Presence
Climate-risk advocacy = largest recurring issue theme
Sceptical climate letters were rare and shorter
Climate change was framed largely as urgent/escalating/catastrophic
· Climate Narrative Index Score CNI = +16 (Strong pro-climate-risk narrative dominance).
All of this analysis led me to the question: Maybe the pro-government, anti-climate catastrophe people just don’t write letters?
But, if my own experience is anything to go by, that’s not true. As proof I append five of my own letters written over the January period, none of which were published. Wondering why? You be the judge.
On reporting of the rare earths discussions with the USA:
Amazing. The elected government of New Zealand exercising its powers on behalf of all New Zealanders seeks to broker a lucrative minerals deal with the US, and the main focus in the headlines is “Concerns that Māori could be sidelined from discussions”.
Isn’t the government discussing this on behalf of all New Zealanders? And why are we specifically concerned about Māori being sidelined when I don’t think Indian Kiwis, Chinese Kiwis, left-handed Kiwis or residents of Hawke’s Bay like me have been consulted either, but so what?
Either the elected government is considered to speak for us all, or we have anarchy.
On the recent opinion polls:
Reporting on the recent polls from RNZ and the Taxpayers’ Union/Curia makes much of the slim majority enjoyed by the coalition being at odds with the prevailing opinion that “the country is headed in the wrong direction”, leading to a conclusion that this government may not win a second term.
However, we should consider that it’s perfectly plausible for a National, ACT or NZ First supporter, of which I am one, to hold the “wrong direction” opinion and still plan to vote for them in November.
A lot of the sentiment around wrong direction is actually caused by the country not moving in the right direction fast enough, and the alternative option of a Labour, Green, TPM coalition will simply exacerbate that risk.
On the concept of greenwashing:
“Greenwashing” as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is “The creation or propagation of an unfounded or misleading environmentalist image.”
Exactly what Labour and BlackRock were attempting in 2023 when announcing their NZD two billion “Climate Infrastructure Fund”, which has just been quietly cancelled with no projects ever funded.
But the term seems even more apt when applied to today’s Green Party under Chlöe Swarbrick’s leadership.
The party in now hard-left socialist, even communist, in some of its objectives, but still wraps itself in the righteous mantle of environmentalism.
Despite embracing every contentious issue they can find, trans-rights, universal minimum wages, new wealth and inheritance taxes on ‘the rich’, gender-affirming care, pro-Palestinian activism, cis-white male brutality, degrowth economics, etc, many people still vote for them, seeing only their claim to be “Green” and therefore good for the planet.
The environmentalist ideals on which the party of Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald was founded seldom seem to get a look in these days, but clearly Swarbrick’s greenwashing still has the necessary effect in some quarters.
On the editorial bias itself:
My, my! Again, nothing in today’s NZH letters page expressing support for the government, but over 40 per cent of the column-inches printed devoted to anti-coalition rhetoric.
And that includes one letter making the extremely optimistic claim that NZ’s problems can be fixed by “A fairer progressive coalition government of Labour and the Greens” (What, just like last time?)
It makes me wonder why the majority of Kiwis, the ones who voted for the Luxon, Seymour and Peters triumvirate, never seem to write in.
Perhaps they are too busy enjoying the benefits that continue to accrue as this government fixes up the profligate mess left by the last one?
On climate catastrophising:
From Al Gore in 2006, to Greta Thunberg in the present day (before she got sidetracked by Gaza, that is), figureheads of the climate change crusade have subjected us all, and particularly the youth of Generation Z, to a relentless stream of climate change alarmism.
But the tide may be turning. The IPCC now predicts a possible temperature rise of 2.70C by 2100, not the catastrophic 4.80C forecast in 2014 under the now discredited RCP8.5 emissions scenario.
Primarily due to the shift in the sources of energy, from the massively overstated reliance on coal and oil predicted under RCP8.5, to a more realistic mix, including the increasing growth of nuclear power, we can expect forecasts of future temperature levels to further decrease.
There is no climate catastrophe on the horizon, only climate change mitigation as human ingenuity addresses any problem.
Younger generations can rest easy, and perhaps consider voting for economic growth to fund this mitigation, rather than unrealistic attempts to de-industrialise the world instead.
