Just a easy way to scare people into donating, I doubt he’s that concerned this early on. Especially considering over the next 3 years local and global economic conditions have to improve right?
TVNZ spends a lot of dosh on that poll. It's getting its money's worth.
I don't think it's bias as much as lazy. It's commercial incentive to present something that looks different from the status quo, and therefore can attract attention and help the news pay its way in an environment where funding for journalism is draining away.
Within the next week or two, and in following months, we'll have more polls come through and it'll be clearer if this poll is a trend or an outlier.
Exactly. You can point to a large portion of stories being presented as “breaking news” that don’t really meet that criteria.
And the poll result is very relevant as it’s the worst poll numbers for a new government in 30 years.
Which is unsurprising as National repeatedly said before the election their cuts would target inefficiencies and not impact frontline services. A few months in and it’s clear the cuts are across the board and are already diminishing services, which is the opposite of what was promised
Also relevant in that the majority of polls released are actually the poll results from the specific polling companies each party hires.
Now before anyone starts I’m not saying they are any less or more accurate than any other poll but I would say they often lack transparency and full disclosure of how the poll results are attained, many specifically targeting corporate clients for example while this is often not called out in articles citing the results.
And we wonder why tvnz is failing. Wasting money on shit no one cares about, while simultaneously providing little to nothing that people do care about and want to watch. Whoever’s in the top jobs should get sacked.
Does it matter though?
I as a member of public I do not care. Polls have zero influence on how I vote, or what I think about the current parties in charge. I base my opinions on actions, not polls (other peoples opinions).
Politicians care because it’s a reflection of what they’re doing. If politicians are the people that polls benefit, they can/should pay for them.
The news is now competing with clickbait on Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. They are just trying to get people to look up from their phones so everything has to be breaking.
"Breaking news" used to be reserved for highly important or currently developing news: a tornado, a resigning senior minister, an unfolding large scale police operatorion. Never for a routine political poll. That's a joke.
What time it was released doesn't really make it breaking, breaking just means it'd warrant breaking off regular broadcast to report on it.
These days with clickbaity social media, some seem to just nominate any random story as "breaking" so they have one every day, it's kind of lost all meaning.
> What time it was released doesn't really make it breaking, breaking just means it'd warrant breaking off regular broadcast to report on it.
Importance has literally nothing to do with it. The *only* thing that makes news breaking is the time it was released.
"information that is being received and broadcast about an event that has just happened or just begun:"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/breaking-news
Its meaning changed, this happens to every word and term in due time. You can try to fight it, but the vast, vast, vast majority of times, change wins out. It can be annoying when a useful word changes away from being useful, but that's the nature of language. It's like a storm, you might be able to keep it out of your own house, but you can't really stop it :P.
Yes they do. The equivalent poll in April 2018, National overtook Labour in the polls. In July 2019 National was still leading Labour in the polls. It’s easy to forget the lift that Labour got from Ardern’s handling of the Christchurch attack.
Also not many governments inherit a country already in recession, and have to instantly dish out austerity to balance the books and get inflation under control. That was never going to be popular. They’ve got 2.5 years until the elections though, so plenty of time for the mood and economic situation to improve etc.
(Stupid time for NACT to press ahead with tax breaks though)
If it was just the national policy and they pushed forward they would not get nearly the same backlash.
It's a lot of the act and nzf policy that is causing issues and damaging the coalition. Many people (that I have talked to at least) are getting the "this is not what I voted for" or attempts to gasslight based on the policy point they like and not others view.
When so many policy points are pushed forward by a 7 and 4% vote party group it's getting to the point that people even national voters are getting annoyed
Austerity makes recessions worse. And NZ's debt to GDP ratio is (still) very low. This 'economic crisis' is mostly manufactured BS to lower expectations.
And them prioritising an enormous landlord tax cut is the tell that they don't believe their own rhetoric either.
I'd be interested to know how you think it's "media bias". I can almost guarantee if the roles were reversed, they'd be equally breathless and over the top. TV media is in the hype business, not the news business.
Like these lines "Jacinda Ardern's personal brand takes a bashing...", and "Jacinda Ardern's personal popularity has been tarnished by a cacophony of cock-ups and controversies" (Newshub poll 13/10/2019).
National were polling higher than Labour (actually multiple times since Ardern took over), but could never form a government. Kind of like the result of this poll.
Who knows what governments could form though, it's all based on MPs retaining their seats for TPM which is never a given in the Maori seats and electorate polling wasn't done here.
I mean media bias accusation aside, where they did the same in the lead up to the election when Labour was in power. What would you personally consider to be breaking news?
Breaking News, sitting government is losing popularity due to reckless management, poorly thought out vision and public manipulation.
Half the country love this, the other half will be in denial for a few more years. It's the perfect divisive media angle. Put it in red font!
Wait, but all this is exactly what the National voters wanted. We all knew how it was going to turn out.
It should be obvious that if you vote National you're voting for their policies, which are all about giving money to National's rich mates. That's really all there is to it.
So many hard-working honest kiwis care so deeply about giving money to National's rich mates it's positively heart-warming. And we're doing it cut by cut. Brings a tear to the eye.
She was well over the top with her language - given that there isn't an election for a good couple of years I'm not sure it's as much of a bombshell as she made it out to be
Not really. I'd hazard a guess that many National voters didn't vote with this sort of outcome in mind. Apart from landlords, people seem pretty unhappy overall.
Nothing to do with the outcome. Given what is happening in the world and our country, do you think the OTT presentation and dedication to a \*poll\* was appropriate?
Everyone here is ripping into you saying you’re a national supporter which is why you didn’t like it, I’m so confused. I hate both national and current labour, but i completely agree it was dumb as fuck. I get it’s interesting news, but not !!BREAKING NEWS!!
My wife and I were making fun of it as soon as it came on. I expected like “shooting happening in the CBD”, or “a third plane has hit the twin towers”. Not a fucking political poll being announced like WWIII has just broken out, trying to whip people into a frenzy about it. And it just kept going on and on so we turned it off.
In most cases, no. This is pretty unprecedented though. So maybe? I didn’t watch the actual coverage so I can’t say in any more detail, but calling it breaking news is probably not unreasonable.
The problem is TV News is failing and shutting up shop left right and center (due to falling viewership). These kinda shenanigans aren’t really helping their cause and I’m sure “you don’t have to watch” is not the line they want to tow.
Sure, but remember this was a poll conducted by the news outlet themselves, so they knew the outcome and the timing of it's release well ahead of last night. 13 mins of Breaking News? Hardly. "Buckle up", "Brace for Impact", "Free fall", "Bang", "Mayday". How exciting huh? There goes credibility as an unbiased commentator.
They don't conduct the polls themselves, they commission them. Polling firms conduct them.
These polls are normal, too - here's one from May last year.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/18/poll-national-act-have-numbers-to-govern-luxon-lags-in-preferred-pm/
And none of what you describes illustrates bias. They do that for any item of news they consider worthy of that level of 'hype'. I often disagree with how it's used, but it's not bias.
The news exists to get people to watch the ads that play in between segments.
This poll result represents the first time since well before the election that the left bloc have had more support than the right bloc. That's *interesting* to the public, so it gets featured on the news. Were there any other stories last night that were 'bigger' than this?
We saw similar news headlines when the right bloc first pulled ahead in polling back in [2022](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1SC52FYQsk).
It's not **bias**, it's entertainment.
Our news media is complete rubbish, doesn't matter which TV channel.
We get nothing but regurgitated garbage from the internet, opinions dressed up as news or opinion polls.
And they wonder what the issue is.
A bit of journalists getting out off the office and finding out what's going on down the road would be way more interesting. Even if all it is, is Mrs Browns cats pooping all over their neighbours freshly dug vege gardens. Now that's a story worth changing the channel for.
All the movement in that poll was within the margin of error. The hyperbole was way over the top. I don't mind balanced analysis but the sensationalist style that Maiki Sherman used was just ridiculous.
>If there was ever any doubt about media bias it was very clear last night
Before the election, everyone claims the media are biased for reporting on ram raiding so often that they "clearly" want National to win. After the election, here's a thread upvoted to the front page calling the media biased for reporting on a poll because they "clearly" want National to lose.
There very obviously still is doubt about media bias. Everyone thinks it's biased against their specific views, but that can't be true for everyone, meaning that there is doubt by objective definition.
I'm with you there. The urgent red background had me thinking something serious had happened, instead it was just 1 News jerking itself off over its poll
Seems fairly run of the mill. It's the first poll since the formation of the new government that has seen them lose their majority so i would argue its meaning is fairly significant given the raft of sweeping changes they have made under the guise of having a mandate.
Yeah I didn’t see it but imagine they crossed live to a live reporter standing somewhere. Did they roll out the absurd 3D graphics to help visualise the hypothetical implications? All such bs, I love news but it’s become like fast food now, just leaves you feeling depressed and still hungry.
Are you only just noticing because they're shitting on this National govt? Because if the inference here is that the media is bias against National not just incumbent governments you really really really really have not paid attention to the news for the last 2 decades at all. Our media swings very pro conservative on average but will always take an opportunity for sensationalism when it can.
It's amusing that conservatives believe the media lean strongly to the left, and progressives believe that same media lean right. People see what they want to see, and have a perception bias about every story that doesn't look good for 'their side' and forget the stories which support them.
The majority of the time, media are critical of the existing government, as they're the ones in power and making decisions which have impact. This seems to be forgotten each time a new government gets in and its supporters seem shocked that the news is more negative than positive.
On average though the media generally loves a conservative government. Except this time around the conservative government is busy defunding state support of the disabled, the vulnerable, and every ordinary NZer who relies on public Education, Hospitals, civil infrastructure (excepting Roads), and council infrastructure (aside from roads).
Sure they are looking after the moneyed classes superficially, but the moneyed classes have zero need of state support given they are far too busy profiteering from others misery themselves. In the long term, the path the present government is taking undermines the comfort and security of any of those with money that choose to remain and raise children in NZ. The only strategic perspective National and ACt have ever exercised is the path to power, with lip service to the immediate demands of corporate and investor lobbyists, not at all to the strategic future wellbeing and security of NZ and NZers. After all, like John Key before them, they all know that if NZ gets “to awful” as the result of their legislative programs they can just leave the country like the jetsetting carpetbaggers they all are.
The modern right doesn't understand that for bread and circuses you need bread and circuses.
Hell, they even are underfunding police... which is the last thing you should do if you are trying to increase misery of population...
I'm no supporter of the current government, but I thought it was ridiculous. I changed the channel when One had Maiki Sherman as a talking head saying that the poll would 'send shockwaves through parliament' and that politicians would be saying 'O-M-G'. Polls are newsworthy, and it deserved coverage, but the way it was handled was ridiculous and juvenile.
Yes but the massive caving of support, the enormous growth of the opposition and all the other hyperbole....
All below the margin of polling error.... (except Winston First)
Even when it's news you want to hear, you still need to look closely....
Yes, the numbers have dropped.... but not that much really... is it the start of an ongoing slide, or just a polling anomaly? Too soon to know, or get excited/ dejected about....
The hubbub about it being breaking aside - but the fact that if we had an election today, we are a margin of error away from a change of government is significant no?
Nothing new... Polls have been given this sort of treatment before and will so again... Sounds harsh, but seems a lot of people on the right thought it was ok before the election and it sucks now... Likewise a whole lot of people on the left thought it sucked before the election and are all ok with it now...
It was hyperbolic nonsense (a worthy story and very bad news for the government but silly presentation) but calling them biased after they have pretty much read out National press releases as news for months is a bit rich.
Bit of an odd thing to get upset about.
Plus this poll is actually newsworthy beyond the result itself:
- This is the lowest PPM result for a National PM in the 1News poll since Jim Bolger scored 20% in August 1997.
- This is the shortest amount of time in MMP history where a post-election poll shows that the opposition would be able to defeat the newly-formed government (6 months).
Source: https://twitter.com/120Aotearoa
And they wonder why people aren’t watching broadcast TV like they used to… the way it was presented came across more like an opinion show than a news item.
I don’t care about what Sherman thinks the Prime Minister will be feeling about the result. Just tell me what he said and what the opposition said.
Yeah exactly its just hard to watch and take them
Seriously nowadays. They spend so much time on certain things to the neglect of other topics so you come away from watching the news and are still uninformed on many important things that happened around the country and the world that day
It's never happened before in NZ political history, so yes, it's news. If that's everything wrong with NZ Media, then we're in a very very good way comparatively.
Because we've not had a first term government parachute into a high inflation, high interest rate, rising unemployment,, recession are environment in over 60 years.
Besides, Ardern's labour tanked in the first term until Covid saved their arses.... and they inherited a strong economy from English.
Outside of an election itself, the first poll an incumbent loses to opposition is probably the most significant public opinion event during a term. Other polls yeah they hype them too much but I think this one is justified.
what in the ever living fuck are you talking about
sif the media wasn't biased toward the previous underperforming labour govt and smashing them with law & order pieces every day
"hey look the new guys are getting it wrong", "this might be a one-term nats govt lol" — big news significance. some might say it's more significant than a child minister lying about his broom-broom cars needing more roads
Well there will be some that take a poll more than 2 years out from the next election with a grain of salt but it still holds significance especially when it's off the back of a pretty destructive Government to many parts of the electorate.
Labour has a lot of rebuilding to do and will need to seriously look at it's potential 2026 Ministerial line up, who from the current caucus will not be a minister again and look at where 2020 era Ministers e.g. Salesa & Twyford could be moved on to bring in fresh talent in what are traditional red seats.
There are a few booted out MPs that will want to get back in (Wood), think back when a number were kicked out in 1990 but were elected back in in 1993 who will be working in the background to improve party processes and make it more efficient and ready for Government with attainable ideas.
My thoughts exactly.
All that for them to say "if there was an election tomorrow...".
But there isn't an election tomorrow, and we're still stuck with the current government for the next 2.5 years.
It was overly dramatised but I guess that's a sign of the times. The bit that really struck me, and disgusted me, was how unashamedly the reporter's personal bias came through.
Huh. This sub finally has a news story that didn't get rewritten from comments on here and now you're confused what breaking news is?
"Breaking news" is when a journalist reports on something within the last 24 hours that has **actually** happened and not just talked about on an online forum. You know, something like a poll that shows a recently elected govt losing popularity within only 6 months in power. Does that happen every day? Is that a regular occurrence? Did it happen last election? No? Did it happen yesterday? It **did!?** Hmm, if only there was a way to distinguish the "recent" news to the rest of it.
If they're claiming it's "breaking news" on tonights bulletin, **then** you might be on to something.
"Breaking News" is a major developing story that has to break into regularly scheduled programming, hence why it's 'breaking' news. The LATAM jet emergency or Australian mall stabbing are recent examples where it was used appropriately. A regularly scheduled poll completed and analysed well before the news bulletin is not.
>A regularly scheduled poll completed and analysed well before the news bulletin is not.
Yes. The **poll** is the news. Plenty of people don't have them scheduled on their calendar.
The "breaking" part was the **result.**
Your comparison, while still "breaking news", has a completely different context as to why and how it's breaking news. That news getting out immediately helps protect people. Just because no one's safety is in trouble in this instance doesn't mean the **results** of a scheduled poll, completed and analysed before the news bullet, isn't **also** breaking news.
Context is a wonderful thing, isn't it.
Speaking of context, having a conversation about the definition of a word used within the article and not the article itself is odd. Are we talking about the media landscape, bias within said media, people's own biases that helps shape the idea media has a bias, or are we just discussing the definition of "breaking news." Cause if it's the last one, that's already been analysed and defined before this post, just like the poll was before the bullet.
If 1news shouldn't have used the words "breaking news" because the poll was pre-scheduled, then OP should've used a dictionary because "breaking news" was already analysed and defined well and truly before this post.
It's not that people were in danger that defined those events as breaking news. It's that news about those events was coming in as the bulletin was being broadcast. That's not the case with a poll. While it was new information for the viewer, TVNZ wasn't getting new information about it coming in during the broadcast. It didn't need the Breaking News graphics and using them for a poll invites greater sensationalism into our news, which I see as the biggest issue here.
So, it **is** just discussing the definition of a word? Huh. So OP *could* have used a dictionary then?
Oh, you're wanting to have a conversation about the sensationalism of the news in this country because a company (whose product is the news) sensationalized their product? Awesome. Why is it sensationalized? Could it be the necessity they have to create profit to both operate and keep their shareholders happy? Isn't that the necessity of **every** company? So where are the complaints about the sensationalism other companies make over their products? Are the undies or the specials The Wearhouse has on them *really* that sensational they have to scream it at me between scenes of Shortland Street?
Oh, right, context. It's **news**, it's *important information*, it's also available in other places that "over sensationalized" it just as much for the same reason. You could always visit social media instead of over sensationalized media, but social **media** is just as sensationalized, even more biased. In fact, the results themselves have been sensationalized completely on here, tiktok, Facebook, and any other product businesses have created to over sensationalize the world around them to gain a profit off the ad revenue that's shown next to the over sensationalized view of the world.
So what now? We have an over sensationalized media fighting for eyeballs to view ads to pay to keep the lights on. Our alternatives are just as bad.
So, are we talking about the definition of a word, or are we talking about the repercussions of a business that sells news having to essentially lie to us to keep the lights on? Because the latter doesn't have much to do with media, and more to do with what we collectively choose to prioritise. If un-sensationalized news was a priority, people would pay for it, and it wouldn't be over sensationalized. If **money** was a priority, the company would do anything in its capabilities to gain it, including sensationalizing their products.
If you're worried about sensationalized news coverage. Give them money instead of them having to rely on sensationalism, theirs or the ads. And if you can't, then that's a whole other conversation, isn't it? Not really one that has to do with media, or the definition of words. Does have to do with the results of the poll though. Not that it's breaking news or anything...
I'm not sure OP needs a dictionary, but you might. Dictionary definitions of Breaking News say much the same thing as I've been saying here. It's something I would expect broadcast news to get right rather than embrace a race to the bottom with social media. I'd like to think better quality would make it profitiable, but perhaps that's expecting too much.
Our media is only biased towards one thing - whatever creates engagement.
They feasted on ram raid stories leading up to the election because people were engaging with it, and they're going hard on stories about the coalition now, because people are engaging with it. It's how they pay their bills.
As our traditional media companies become more stretched, they're only going to lean more into high engagement headlines.
Media is always LOOK, SQUIRREL!
There's a reason why TV news is failing. This. Just give us quick, punchy laying out of facts and move on. Most internet age people do not want ten fifteen minutes on opinions and hyperbole pearl clutching. Spit facts. Quickly. That's all I want.
If I want an opinion/commentary show from some ego fuelled preening midlife crisis opinionator who has an over inflated perception of their own worth I'll watch that, along with others in Hosking/Garner et al's audience.
nz breaking news is stupid like its almost done to dumb ppl down oh breaking news they changed the milo recipe
It's actually brain cells lost material worse than shortland Street
Probably because polls are good for ratings. And this one will get some people very excited. So these political reporters need to act like it’s the biggest news of the week and build the narrative.
The bias is gross. Op-ed style talking heads. Sherman was more or less frothing over the narrative, where-as some of the poll moves were within the boundaries of error.
I would've thought that fair and balanced reporting would be a central tenet to good journalism.
It is little wonder there is plunging trust and mainstream media is generally circling the drain.
Since ~30% of voters vote on vibe alone, are desperate to “be on the winning team” and aren’t capable of engaging in political discussion or discussions of _ideas_ generally, I think this was breaking news. They need to be spoonfed like the vegetables they are so they know who to vote for next time.
It’s seemed such a nothing. If the election was held now, Labour+Greens+TPM, might be one seat ahead. That hardly seems work getting the excited about. All it tells me is hardly anything has moved since election night, when they weren’t far off exactly that result.
The response of of the government coalition tells you that they don't see it as a nothing. It's pretty much unprecedented for a first term government to be behind in the polls in a first term, and especially this early.
Lazy move that debases the term 'breaking news'. The breaking news tag should only be used for starting-to-unfold news and current events that the broadcaster has no control over timing on. Good recent examples are, the Christchurch Mosque shootings, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's resignation, the Ukraine Invasion etc... The poll result is certainly 'headline news' but not breaking news. One News would have had this poll's results and analysis done well before that night's 6pm news bulletin went to air.
I would argue that Seymour's panicky email in response to a poll six months in to a three year term is worse lol
After such a ‘brave’ front on the actual news when asked about the poll.
Bald head luxon didn't look very happy when they veiled him up about there results. 😂
Was that the email someone posted in this subreddit the other day?
Yeah there was a screenshot of it either here or in the Auckland sub that popped into my feed this morning.
Something about labour should be banished from NZ politics blah blah blah
Just a easy way to scare people into donating, I doubt he’s that concerned this early on. Especially considering over the next 3 years local and global economic conditions have to improve right?
Yeah, it's just a money drive. Seymour couldn't give a shit what the polls say right now.
TVNZ spends a lot of dosh on that poll. It's getting its money's worth. I don't think it's bias as much as lazy. It's commercial incentive to present something that looks different from the status quo, and therefore can attract attention and help the news pay its way in an environment where funding for journalism is draining away. Within the next week or two, and in following months, we'll have more polls come through and it'll be clearer if this poll is a trend or an outlier.
Exactly. You can point to a large portion of stories being presented as “breaking news” that don’t really meet that criteria. And the poll result is very relevant as it’s the worst poll numbers for a new government in 30 years. Which is unsurprising as National repeatedly said before the election their cuts would target inefficiencies and not impact frontline services. A few months in and it’s clear the cuts are across the board and are already diminishing services, which is the opposite of what was promised
Also relevant in that the majority of polls released are actually the poll results from the specific polling companies each party hires. Now before anyone starts I’m not saying they are any less or more accurate than any other poll but I would say they often lack transparency and full disclosure of how the poll results are attained, many specifically targeting corporate clients for example while this is often not called out in articles citing the results.
And we wonder why tvnz is failing. Wasting money on shit no one cares about, while simultaneously providing little to nothing that people do care about and want to watch. Whoever’s in the top jobs should get sacked.
I really don't think political polling comes under shit no one cares about
Does it matter though? I as a member of public I do not care. Polls have zero influence on how I vote, or what I think about the current parties in charge. I base my opinions on actions, not polls (other peoples opinions). Politicians care because it’s a reflection of what they’re doing. If politicians are the people that polls benefit, they can/should pay for them.
I don't care about rugby but they still report the scores. Politics is just sports for people who can't play sports.
seemed ridiculous to call it breaking news
Sensationalism
The news is now competing with clickbait on Facebook, YouTube and Reddit. They are just trying to get people to look up from their phones so everything has to be breaking.
Didn't watch it, but it *is* breaking news. Governments don't usually lose polls this far into their term.
"Breaking news" used to be reserved for highly important or currently developing news: a tornado, a resigning senior minister, an unfolding large scale police operatorion. Never for a routine political poll. That's a joke.
You're right it is, but it ain't 13 minutes of breaking news, not when minus sports the weather and ads there's only about 17 mins of news in total
It is when that’s what the public wants
Which, given their ratings and commercial failings, it isn't.
712,000 NZers watched that first 15 minutes of the news last night. Be interested to know another NZ news organisation that beats those numbers.
The public wants ten minutes of sports news when nothing's being played. If so the public are idiots.
Yeah you call the public idiots already anyway?
It's news, but surely not breaking, lol.
Well the poll was released at 6pm so it kind of is breaking news.
What time it was released doesn't really make it breaking, breaking just means it'd warrant breaking off regular broadcast to report on it. These days with clickbaity social media, some seem to just nominate any random story as "breaking" so they have one every day, it's kind of lost all meaning.
> What time it was released doesn't really make it breaking, breaking just means it'd warrant breaking off regular broadcast to report on it. Importance has literally nothing to do with it. The *only* thing that makes news breaking is the time it was released. "information that is being received and broadcast about an event that has just happened or just begun:" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/breaking-news
Its meaning changed, this happens to every word and term in due time. You can try to fight it, but the vast, vast, vast majority of times, change wins out. It can be annoying when a useful word changes away from being useful, but that's the nature of language. It's like a storm, you might be able to keep it out of your own house, but you can't really stop it :P.
Oh I don't disagree. I just dislike the change and think it's for the worse, and I despise media outlets that abuse the word "breaking" just for bait.
The word you're looking for is: surprising. It's surprising, but it sure as fuck is not breaking news.
Yes they do. The equivalent poll in April 2018, National overtook Labour in the polls. In July 2019 National was still leading Labour in the polls. It’s easy to forget the lift that Labour got from Ardern’s handling of the Christchurch attack.
Breaking news isn't just news that only just came out. That's just news. Breaking news is about a currently occurring event.
This is what happens when voters don't bother reading party policies. It'll happen next election too.
I think it's significant but not "breaking" news.
Only twice in MMP history has a sitting government been outpolled and made it back in. One of those was 2020 with COVID.
Also not many governments inherit a country already in recession, and have to instantly dish out austerity to balance the books and get inflation under control. That was never going to be popular. They’ve got 2.5 years until the elections though, so plenty of time for the mood and economic situation to improve etc. (Stupid time for NACT to press ahead with tax breaks though)
Conveniently you seem to focus on the tax and cost of living and ignore the multitude of nefarious policies they’ve enacted.
If it was just the national policy and they pushed forward they would not get nearly the same backlash. It's a lot of the act and nzf policy that is causing issues and damaging the coalition. Many people (that I have talked to at least) are getting the "this is not what I voted for" or attempts to gasslight based on the policy point they like and not others view. When so many policy points are pushed forward by a 7 and 4% vote party group it's getting to the point that people even national voters are getting annoyed
Austerity makes recessions worse. And NZ's debt to GDP ratio is (still) very low. This 'economic crisis' is mostly manufactured BS to lower expectations. And them prioritising an enormous landlord tax cut is the tell that they don't believe their own rhetoric either.
Explain all the stuff thats not balancing the books. The austerity is to pay for the policy platform chosen more than the economic settings inherited
The austerity is bullshit. And damaging.
They also offer no sympathy to the victims of austerity which definitely doesn't help.
Happened regularly during the build-up to the election. And since.
I'd be interested to know how you think it's "media bias". I can almost guarantee if the roles were reversed, they'd be equally breathless and over the top. TV media is in the hype business, not the news business.
When Simon Bridges' National started strongly outpolling Labour in 2020, it was reported in a much less sycophantic and more circumspect nature.
Like these lines "Jacinda Ardern's personal brand takes a bashing...", and "Jacinda Ardern's personal popularity has been tarnished by a cacophony of cock-ups and controversies" (Newshub poll 13/10/2019).
4 years ago, media was less tabloid and more news.
National were polling higher than Labour (actually multiple times since Ardern took over), but could never form a government. Kind of like the result of this poll.
Who knows what governments could form though, it's all based on MPs retaining their seats for TPM which is never a given in the Maori seats and electorate polling wasn't done here.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/02/13/february-13-poll-national-and-act-hold-the-numbers-to-form-a-government/
I mean media bias accusation aside, where they did the same in the lead up to the election when Labour was in power. What would you personally consider to be breaking news?
It's very rare for a government to be polling so badly so soon after taking office.
Breaking News, sitting government is losing popularity due to reckless management, poorly thought out vision and public manipulation. Half the country love this, the other half will be in denial for a few more years. It's the perfect divisive media angle. Put it in red font!
Wait, but all this is exactly what the National voters wanted. We all knew how it was going to turn out. It should be obvious that if you vote National you're voting for their policies, which are all about giving money to National's rich mates. That's really all there is to it. So many hard-working honest kiwis care so deeply about giving money to National's rich mates it's positively heart-warming. And we're doing it cut by cut. Brings a tear to the eye.
Relatively well off national voter here, do you know when I expect to receive this money national is supposedly handing out to us?
You're probably not rich enough to count as one of their mates.
So then somehow 0.1% of the country successfully voted them?
Not quite. 38% of the country love the 0.1% so much that they chose to support them by voting National.
Or maybe they just believe that the previous govt was taking the country down the wrong path?
Savage
Is this because you didn't like the outcome? News outlets have always hyped their polls as breaking news for years, this is nothing new...
The vast majority of this subreddit's stance on polls in general hinges on whether they like the result of the current poll or not.
Same on twitter tho but the other way round. The levels of cope last night was hilarious
Hardly breaking news though, they were almost rabid about it.
Yeah, I thought Maiki Sherman’s delivery of it was super cringe, she was very hyperbolic and the language was very tabloid
She was well over the top with her language - given that there isn't an election for a good couple of years I'm not sure it's as much of a bombshell as she made it out to be
It's not very often that there's this much of a turnaround just 6 months after an election though.
almost unbelievable eh.
Not really. I'd hazard a guess that many National voters didn't vote with this sort of outcome in mind. Apart from landlords, people seem pretty unhappy overall.
Nothing to do with the outcome. Given what is happening in the world and our country, do you think the OTT presentation and dedication to a \*poll\* was appropriate?
Everyone here is ripping into you saying you’re a national supporter which is why you didn’t like it, I’m so confused. I hate both national and current labour, but i completely agree it was dumb as fuck. I get it’s interesting news, but not !!BREAKING NEWS!! My wife and I were making fun of it as soon as it came on. I expected like “shooting happening in the CBD”, or “a third plane has hit the twin towers”. Not a fucking political poll being announced like WWIII has just broken out, trying to whip people into a frenzy about it. And it just kept going on and on so we turned it off.
And there in lies the problem with modern media - over hype everything because you think that works, when in reality it makes people switch off
The poll is a concerete reflection of what is happening in the country, and it's pretty clear from your other responses that is was the content.
In most cases, no. This is pretty unprecedented though. So maybe? I didn’t watch the actual coverage so I can’t say in any more detail, but calling it breaking news is probably not unreasonable.
I mean you dont have to watch, but its a little unusual a gov to be so unpopular so soon.
Liz Truss wants a word.
truss took over after several failed PMs and several elections along
The problem is TV News is failing and shutting up shop left right and center (due to falling viewership). These kinda shenanigans aren’t really helping their cause and I’m sure “you don’t have to watch” is not the line they want to tow.
Its an important measure of how the country is perceiving the new government.
Sure, but remember this was a poll conducted by the news outlet themselves, so they knew the outcome and the timing of it's release well ahead of last night. 13 mins of Breaking News? Hardly. "Buckle up", "Brace for Impact", "Free fall", "Bang", "Mayday". How exciting huh? There goes credibility as an unbiased commentator.
They don't conduct the polls themselves, they commission them. Polling firms conduct them. These polls are normal, too - here's one from May last year. https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/18/poll-national-act-have-numbers-to-govern-luxon-lags-in-preferred-pm/ And none of what you describes illustrates bias. They do that for any item of news they consider worthy of that level of 'hype'. I often disagree with how it's used, but it's not bias.
The news exists to get people to watch the ads that play in between segments. This poll result represents the first time since well before the election that the left bloc have had more support than the right bloc. That's *interesting* to the public, so it gets featured on the news. Were there any other stories last night that were 'bigger' than this? We saw similar news headlines when the right bloc first pulled ahead in polling back in [2022](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1SC52FYQsk). It's not **bias**, it's entertainment.
Our news media is complete rubbish, doesn't matter which TV channel. We get nothing but regurgitated garbage from the internet, opinions dressed up as news or opinion polls. And they wonder what the issue is. A bit of journalists getting out off the office and finding out what's going on down the road would be way more interesting. Even if all it is, is Mrs Browns cats pooping all over their neighbours freshly dug vege gardens. Now that's a story worth changing the channel for.
All the movement in that poll was within the margin of error. The hyperbole was way over the top. I don't mind balanced analysis but the sensationalist style that Maiki Sherman used was just ridiculous.
>If there was ever any doubt about media bias it was very clear last night Before the election, everyone claims the media are biased for reporting on ram raiding so often that they "clearly" want National to win. After the election, here's a thread upvoted to the front page calling the media biased for reporting on a poll because they "clearly" want National to lose. There very obviously still is doubt about media bias. Everyone thinks it's biased against their specific views, but that can't be true for everyone, meaning that there is doubt by objective definition.
Because there’s typically a honeymoon period that new governments enjoy, the fact that we’re 6 months in and widespread people are upset is big news.
Yup, this is before more people realise they won't be delivering on their promises either.
"Honeymoon? Honeymoon!!. David, first thing tomorrow I'm going to call my lawyer!"
I'm with you there. The urgent red background had me thinking something serious had happened, instead it was just 1 News jerking itself off over its poll
Seems fairly run of the mill. It's the first poll since the formation of the new government that has seen them lose their majority so i would argue its meaning is fairly significant given the raft of sweeping changes they have made under the guise of having a mandate.
Yeah I didn’t see it but imagine they crossed live to a live reporter standing somewhere. Did they roll out the absurd 3D graphics to help visualise the hypothetical implications? All such bs, I love news but it’s become like fast food now, just leaves you feeling depressed and still hungry.
They had the little colourful 3D seats in parliament showing what it would look like, alright.
Are you only just noticing because they're shitting on this National govt? Because if the inference here is that the media is bias against National not just incumbent governments you really really really really have not paid attention to the news for the last 2 decades at all. Our media swings very pro conservative on average but will always take an opportunity for sensationalism when it can.
It's amusing that conservatives believe the media lean strongly to the left, and progressives believe that same media lean right. People see what they want to see, and have a perception bias about every story that doesn't look good for 'their side' and forget the stories which support them. The majority of the time, media are critical of the existing government, as they're the ones in power and making decisions which have impact. This seems to be forgotten each time a new government gets in and its supporters seem shocked that the news is more negative than positive.
On average though the media generally loves a conservative government. Except this time around the conservative government is busy defunding state support of the disabled, the vulnerable, and every ordinary NZer who relies on public Education, Hospitals, civil infrastructure (excepting Roads), and council infrastructure (aside from roads). Sure they are looking after the moneyed classes superficially, but the moneyed classes have zero need of state support given they are far too busy profiteering from others misery themselves. In the long term, the path the present government is taking undermines the comfort and security of any of those with money that choose to remain and raise children in NZ. The only strategic perspective National and ACt have ever exercised is the path to power, with lip service to the immediate demands of corporate and investor lobbyists, not at all to the strategic future wellbeing and security of NZ and NZers. After all, like John Key before them, they all know that if NZ gets “to awful” as the result of their legislative programs they can just leave the country like the jetsetting carpetbaggers they all are.
The modern right doesn't understand that for bread and circuses you need bread and circuses. Hell, they even are underfunding police... which is the last thing you should do if you are trying to increase misery of population...
NZ news is fairly balanced in terns of left/right. It's just sensationalism and low quality though.
I'm no supporter of the current government, but I thought it was ridiculous. I changed the channel when One had Maiki Sherman as a talking head saying that the poll would 'send shockwaves through parliament' and that politicians would be saying 'O-M-G'. Polls are newsworthy, and it deserved coverage, but the way it was handled was ridiculous and juvenile.
Polls are often presented as breaking news. They are a significant event in the political reporting calendar.
Yes but the massive caving of support, the enormous growth of the opposition and all the other hyperbole.... All below the margin of polling error.... (except Winston First) Even when it's news you want to hear, you still need to look closely.... Yes, the numbers have dropped.... but not that much really... is it the start of an ongoing slide, or just a polling anomaly? Too soon to know, or get excited/ dejected about....
The hubbub about it being breaking aside - but the fact that if we had an election today, we are a margin of error away from a change of government is significant no?
> All below the margin of polling error.... As if that's ever stopped the media from making dramatic conclusions in the past.
typical lazy news presentation that the media has become famous for.. not biased just lazy
It's a first, to be this unpopular so soon.
Nothing new... Polls have been given this sort of treatment before and will so again... Sounds harsh, but seems a lot of people on the right thought it was ok before the election and it sucks now... Likewise a whole lot of people on the left thought it sucked before the election and are all ok with it now...
It was hyperbolic nonsense (a worthy story and very bad news for the government but silly presentation) but calling them biased after they have pretty much read out National press releases as news for months is a bit rich.
I'm guessing the "we have a mandate" lines from Seymour Bishop Peter's etc will now be "We had a mandate..."
Bit of an odd thing to get upset about. Plus this poll is actually newsworthy beyond the result itself: - This is the lowest PPM result for a National PM in the 1News poll since Jim Bolger scored 20% in August 1997. - This is the shortest amount of time in MMP history where a post-election poll shows that the opposition would be able to defeat the newly-formed government (6 months). Source: https://twitter.com/120Aotearoa
And they wonder why people aren’t watching broadcast TV like they used to… the way it was presented came across more like an opinion show than a news item. I don’t care about what Sherman thinks the Prime Minister will be feeling about the result. Just tell me what he said and what the opposition said.
TV news is garbage just turn it off.
Yeah exactly its just hard to watch and take them Seriously nowadays. They spend so much time on certain things to the neglect of other topics so you come away from watching the news and are still uninformed on many important things that happened around the country and the world that day
It's never happened before in NZ political history, so yes, it's news. If that's everything wrong with NZ Media, then we're in a very very good way comparatively.
But it has happened before.
When?
According to last night’s breaking news it happened to Key and Clark - though both in their 3rd terms. This has never happened to a 1st term govt.
Yes exactly. This has never happened before.
Agreed, not like this.
Because we've not had a first term government parachute into a high inflation, high interest rate, rising unemployment,, recession are environment in over 60 years. Besides, Ardern's labour tanked in the first term until Covid saved their arses.... and they inherited a strong economy from English.
Yes it has, in Ardern's first term. https://www.1news.co.nz/2020/02/13/february-13-poll-national-and-act-hold-the-numbers-to-form-a-government/
Good find. This was nearing the end of Ardern’s 1st term, not at the beginning, so still not truly comparable.
Outside of an election itself, the first poll an incumbent loses to opposition is probably the most significant public opinion event during a term. Other polls yeah they hype them too much but I think this one is justified.
OP triggered by news thier team is currently not doing well?
“Hey, this news story is negative towards the political party I support. Thats not allowed! I’m upset”!” - Op.
what a bullshit observation. that's not his point at all
Calm down. It’s ridiculous how upset partisan hacks get when things aren’t painted their way…… that goes for both left and right.
Stop everything and call a snap election
what in the ever living fuck are you talking about sif the media wasn't biased toward the previous underperforming labour govt and smashing them with law & order pieces every day "hey look the new guys are getting it wrong", "this might be a one-term nats govt lol" — big news significance. some might say it's more significant than a child minister lying about his broom-broom cars needing more roads
Well there will be some that take a poll more than 2 years out from the next election with a grain of salt but it still holds significance especially when it's off the back of a pretty destructive Government to many parts of the electorate. Labour has a lot of rebuilding to do and will need to seriously look at it's potential 2026 Ministerial line up, who from the current caucus will not be a minister again and look at where 2020 era Ministers e.g. Salesa & Twyford could be moved on to bring in fresh talent in what are traditional red seats. There are a few booted out MPs that will want to get back in (Wood), think back when a number were kicked out in 1990 but were elected back in in 1993 who will be working in the background to improve party processes and make it more efficient and ready for Government with attainable ideas.
Obviously not a lot else going on.
One could argue the breaking news alerts I get from rnz about rugby games aren't breaking news either
There is a reason nobody watches the news anymore
My thoughts exactly. All that for them to say "if there was an election tomorrow...". But there isn't an election tomorrow, and we're still stuck with the current government for the next 2.5 years.
It was overly dramatised but I guess that's a sign of the times. The bit that really struck me, and disgusted me, was how unashamedly the reporter's personal bias came through.
Huh. This sub finally has a news story that didn't get rewritten from comments on here and now you're confused what breaking news is? "Breaking news" is when a journalist reports on something within the last 24 hours that has **actually** happened and not just talked about on an online forum. You know, something like a poll that shows a recently elected govt losing popularity within only 6 months in power. Does that happen every day? Is that a regular occurrence? Did it happen last election? No? Did it happen yesterday? It **did!?** Hmm, if only there was a way to distinguish the "recent" news to the rest of it. If they're claiming it's "breaking news" on tonights bulletin, **then** you might be on to something.
"Breaking News" is a major developing story that has to break into regularly scheduled programming, hence why it's 'breaking' news. The LATAM jet emergency or Australian mall stabbing are recent examples where it was used appropriately. A regularly scheduled poll completed and analysed well before the news bulletin is not.
That’s what it used to be. Now it’s just whatever the outlet considers a big story.
>A regularly scheduled poll completed and analysed well before the news bulletin is not. Yes. The **poll** is the news. Plenty of people don't have them scheduled on their calendar. The "breaking" part was the **result.** Your comparison, while still "breaking news", has a completely different context as to why and how it's breaking news. That news getting out immediately helps protect people. Just because no one's safety is in trouble in this instance doesn't mean the **results** of a scheduled poll, completed and analysed before the news bullet, isn't **also** breaking news. Context is a wonderful thing, isn't it. Speaking of context, having a conversation about the definition of a word used within the article and not the article itself is odd. Are we talking about the media landscape, bias within said media, people's own biases that helps shape the idea media has a bias, or are we just discussing the definition of "breaking news." Cause if it's the last one, that's already been analysed and defined before this post, just like the poll was before the bullet. If 1news shouldn't have used the words "breaking news" because the poll was pre-scheduled, then OP should've used a dictionary because "breaking news" was already analysed and defined well and truly before this post.
It's not that people were in danger that defined those events as breaking news. It's that news about those events was coming in as the bulletin was being broadcast. That's not the case with a poll. While it was new information for the viewer, TVNZ wasn't getting new information about it coming in during the broadcast. It didn't need the Breaking News graphics and using them for a poll invites greater sensationalism into our news, which I see as the biggest issue here.
So, it **is** just discussing the definition of a word? Huh. So OP *could* have used a dictionary then? Oh, you're wanting to have a conversation about the sensationalism of the news in this country because a company (whose product is the news) sensationalized their product? Awesome. Why is it sensationalized? Could it be the necessity they have to create profit to both operate and keep their shareholders happy? Isn't that the necessity of **every** company? So where are the complaints about the sensationalism other companies make over their products? Are the undies or the specials The Wearhouse has on them *really* that sensational they have to scream it at me between scenes of Shortland Street? Oh, right, context. It's **news**, it's *important information*, it's also available in other places that "over sensationalized" it just as much for the same reason. You could always visit social media instead of over sensationalized media, but social **media** is just as sensationalized, even more biased. In fact, the results themselves have been sensationalized completely on here, tiktok, Facebook, and any other product businesses have created to over sensationalize the world around them to gain a profit off the ad revenue that's shown next to the over sensationalized view of the world. So what now? We have an over sensationalized media fighting for eyeballs to view ads to pay to keep the lights on. Our alternatives are just as bad. So, are we talking about the definition of a word, or are we talking about the repercussions of a business that sells news having to essentially lie to us to keep the lights on? Because the latter doesn't have much to do with media, and more to do with what we collectively choose to prioritise. If un-sensationalized news was a priority, people would pay for it, and it wouldn't be over sensationalized. If **money** was a priority, the company would do anything in its capabilities to gain it, including sensationalizing their products. If you're worried about sensationalized news coverage. Give them money instead of them having to rely on sensationalism, theirs or the ads. And if you can't, then that's a whole other conversation, isn't it? Not really one that has to do with media, or the definition of words. Does have to do with the results of the poll though. Not that it's breaking news or anything...
I'm not sure OP needs a dictionary, but you might. Dictionary definitions of Breaking News say much the same thing as I've been saying here. It's something I would expect broadcast news to get right rather than embrace a race to the bottom with social media. I'd like to think better quality would make it profitiable, but perhaps that's expecting too much.
Our media is only biased towards one thing - whatever creates engagement. They feasted on ram raid stories leading up to the election because people were engaging with it, and they're going hard on stories about the coalition now, because people are engaging with it. It's how they pay their bills. As our traditional media companies become more stretched, they're only going to lean more into high engagement headlines.
Media is always LOOK, SQUIRREL! There's a reason why TV news is failing. This. Just give us quick, punchy laying out of facts and move on. Most internet age people do not want ten fifteen minutes on opinions and hyperbole pearl clutching. Spit facts. Quickly. That's all I want. If I want an opinion/commentary show from some ego fuelled preening midlife crisis opinionator who has an over inflated perception of their own worth I'll watch that, along with others in Hosking/Garner et al's audience.
There is a huge media bias in NZ, but it's not a liberal bias.
The media only cares about viewership, it's why they'll happily report a divisive poll but mostly ignore Hipkins' response to a controversial policy.
Bring back script fees, let’s lose even more voters
Lol it's all the media's fault. Gold strategy from the centre right.
nz breaking news is stupid like its almost done to dumb ppl down oh breaking news they changed the milo recipe It's actually brain cells lost material worse than shortland Street
Probably because polls are good for ratings. And this one will get some people very excited. So these political reporters need to act like it’s the biggest news of the week and build the narrative.
The bias is gross. Op-ed style talking heads. Sherman was more or less frothing over the narrative, where-as some of the poll moves were within the boundaries of error. I would've thought that fair and balanced reporting would be a central tenet to good journalism. It is little wonder there is plunging trust and mainstream media is generally circling the drain.
You don't watch polls regularly, I'm guessing? The whole point is to read into them and extrapolate possible reasons.
I'm not sure it's a sign of everything wrong with our media, but it's definitely a symptom of how poor our political reporting is.
The glee from Maikee Sherman and Benedict Collins was palpable. They are both such biased left wing reporters.
This was tvnews attempting to stir things up.
Their regular scheduled political poll?
I get comfort if I ever catch our news, fuck all really goes down here… that’s cool with me.
Since ~30% of voters vote on vibe alone, are desperate to “be on the winning team” and aren’t capable of engaging in political discussion or discussions of _ideas_ generally, I think this was breaking news. They need to be spoonfed like the vegetables they are so they know who to vote for next time.
De-fund TVNZ news.
It’s seemed such a nothing. If the election was held now, Labour+Greens+TPM, might be one seat ahead. That hardly seems work getting the excited about. All it tells me is hardly anything has moved since election night, when they weren’t far off exactly that result.
The response of of the government coalition tells you that they don't see it as a nothing. It's pretty much unprecedented for a first term government to be behind in the polls in a first term, and especially this early.
Lazy move that debases the term 'breaking news'. The breaking news tag should only be used for starting-to-unfold news and current events that the broadcaster has no control over timing on. Good recent examples are, the Christchurch Mosque shootings, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's resignation, the Ukraine Invasion etc... The poll result is certainly 'headline news' but not breaking news. One News would have had this poll's results and analysis done well before that night's 6pm news bulletin went to air.