Table of Contents
Dear Editor
I got quite a shock when I saw on the Stuff website this morning “Stuff code of practice and ethics”. I thought, at long last decent, investigative, factual non-biased non-opinionated journalism was returning to Stuff and I waited with bated breath as the website loaded. So I started scrolling and was first met with this:
Accuracy
Journalists should take all reasonable steps to verify information is correct
My first thought was good, Stuff is going to stop their spreading of Fake News, but then I thought, Nah, that would be too hopeful.
Next up was this.
Balance
Journalists should strive to represent all significant sides to a story, to serve our audience with a balanced picture
By now I’m thinking man this new owner is sweeping with a new broom all right! Keep it up!
Next up…
Bias
Stuff is politically non-partisan. Journalists should take care not to allow bias
Sorry, now I’m starting to get a bit cynical. I can’t see this happening but maybe, just maybe their share of the $51M was not enough.
But then Stuff revealed its inbred hypocrisy.
Climate change
Stuff adopts a science-led approach […] We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but will not provide a venue for denialism
There are a significant number of scientists and activists who do NOT agree with Stuff’s statement above. Patrick Moore the founder of Greenpeace is just one of them. If Stuff wishes to take that approach then that is their biased and certainly non-balanced choice.
But how hypocritical of them to state on one hand that they are not biased, are accurate and are balanced when on the other hand they cheerfully admit that they are prepared to shut down one half of the argument about man-made climate change.
Either they need to change their policy on climate change or they need to seriously change their claims about bias, balance and accuracy.
Send your letters to the Editor to sb at thebfd.co.nz
Please put Letter to the Editor in the subject line.
