> ## 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. # Our Newspaper Editors Are Biased - URL: https://goodoil.news/our-newspaper-editors-are-biased/ - Published: 2026-10-14T21:30:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-14T21:29:59.000Z - Description: This country badly needs to get some integrity back into our way of life. - Author: Reproduced with permission - Tags: NZ Politics, Media Bias [**Kerry Butler**](https://nominister.wordpress.com/2026/10/14/biased-newspaper-editors/?ref=goodoil.news) *No Minister* It is shameful the way newspaper editors use (abuse) their position of influence (power) to prevent letters from being published which give an alternate view to their personal **biased** opinion. And the worst thing is that they’re such hypocrites, e.g., allowing ‘controversial’ letters to be published, if and when, they personally happen to agree with them, i.e., when it suits ‘their’ particular sentiments. That is sheer arrogance. Editors do have the right to choose not to publish letters… but, they should in principle, be obliged to have a legitimate reason for doing so. A personal bias due to ideological convictions should not be allowed to override their judgement. The **lack of impartiality** that afflicts so many editors is especially prevalent as regards matters to do with Māori. Any mention whatsoever of that word appears to automatically raise their hackles and cause them to instinctively suppress facts by way of censorship… for no other reason than the truth hurts **them**. For example, I submitted a letter pointing out that whilst the name for New Zealand is being pushed as “Aotearoa”, this is based on the belief that it’s the original Māori title… when in truth, Māori had no name for the country as a whole. There is undeniable proof of this, because the first Māori dictionary, printed in **1844** had no entry for the word *Aotearoa*. And the te reo Treaty of Waitangi signed in **1840** makes no mention of it. But despite this, and a lot of other irrefutable evidence, editors are too biased to allow that factual letter to be published. There is a code of ethics which stipulates that: **“Media should strive to represent all significant sides to a story, in order to serve their audience with a balanced picture.”** I would suggest that if woke editors are so convinced that our country should be named “Aotearoa”, then **instead** of resorting to **censorship** of facts that go against their personal **prejudice,** they should act responsibly under a code of **ethics** and allow **fair** debate… so that everyone can have an informed opinion when it comes to a referendum (which should certainly be mandatory in a **democratic** society). Regarding the cavalier rejection of letters, a point that should be acknowledged is that most editors wouldn’t dare treat people with such **ruthless contempt** if they were in a one-on-one situation… away from the security pertaining to their position of power. In another example**,** I submitted a letter pointing out that there are **96** Acts of Parliament favouring those of Māori heritage. The editor wrote back and said there was, quote: **“No reputable source that confirms this premise.”** In other words, he was accusing me of making it up **(lying)!** And that editor obviously didn’t want to be faced with the truth over the matter, so he didn’t even offer me an opportunity to prove my case. Nevertheless, a list was supplied of not only the **96** legislative ‘rights’ but also hundreds of preferential ‘provisions’ that have been made available exclusively to Maori. But did the editor have the decency to acknowledge that he was wrong and/or apologise for doubting me? Oh no. The fact is, he was using his biased belief as an excuse not to publish the letter. And when presented with proof that what it said was factual, he still wouldn’t publish it. So, his excuse turned out to be just that… an excuse. And all this was despite me having informed him that those of Māori descent should not have preferential treatment because Article 3 in the Treaty concisely reads: **“A ratoa nga tikanga katoa rite tahi”**. Meaning: **“All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same ‘rights’**. And not only that, but the **NZ Human Rights Act** prohibits **preference based on race or ethnicity**. So, favouritism based on race is not only racism**,** but a form of apartheid… and thus technically illegal. And the worst aspect is the burden of paying between one and two billion dollars that, by one means or another, go to the elite Māori opportunists each and every year. Which is at the expense of essential aspects of life in our country such as health, education and infrastructure projects… all of which are in a pitiful state of neglect. So, this unfair **rort** of Māori favouritism should be called what it really is… a disgraceful breach of human “rights” in what is meant to be a democratic country. And the tragedy is that most people, due to complacency (ignorance) are blissfully unaware of being ripped off by what can only be described as an outrageous scam. **Unethical** editors, who in their self-appointed ‘gatekeeper’ role restrict the **truth** from being told via letters pointing out things like the unfairness of unjustified ‘rights’ advantaging Māori**,** are effectively guilty of being somewhat treasonous in regard to matters of such **national significance**. This country badly needs to get some **integrity** back into our way of life. This article was published by [No Minister](https://nominister.wordpress.com/2026/10/14/biased-newspaper-editors/?ref=goodoil.news).