> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Letter to the Editor:
- URL: https://goodoil.news/letter-to-the-editor-3/
- Published: 2020-09-28T19:15:00.000Z
- Updated: 2020-09-28T10:07:20.000Z
- Author: Letter to the Editor
- Tags: Media, News, NZ, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2024-07-17 02:38

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 **bias**ed and certainly non-**balance**d 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.