"When a government becomes powerful, it is destructive, extravagant and violent; it is an usurper which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance for votes with which to perpetuate itself." - Cicero
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force." - George Washington
"In all that people can do for themselves, the government ought not to interfere." - Abraham Lincoln
"The most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power." - John Stuart Mill
"The government's role is whatever the government defines it to be." - Helen Clark

Blogarama

Review Kiwi Pundit

< ? kiwi blogs # >







inHOUSE: Software development and services, web design, computer training, crystal reports, sql, business intelligence and reporting in Wellington, New Zealand

 
Herald Bias

Is the Herald biased against Labour, at least on the editorial page? It's a reasonable question I suppose, though of course nobody accused the Human Rights Commission of mounting a campaign against the Labour government after they said essentially the same thing. Ockham's Razor would suggest that when criticisms are coming from just about everyone who doesn't directly benefit from Labour being re-elected, the best explanation is that the criticisms are true.

Anyway, searching for editorials on the Herald web site I get the following (the one line summaries and comments are mine):

13/11: There should be an open and rigorous public examination of the 'terror' evidence.
Analysis: neutral, though only the left seems to be upset about the evidence getting out.
12/11: Labour's law changes are oppressive and designed to protect incumbents
Analysis: right, assuming only the right places fairness above power
12/11: Canadians should not be allowed to invest in Auckland airport
Analysis: left, nationalist, state interference in markets, economically illiterate.
11/11: Fireworks should not be banned
Analysis: neutral, maybe slightly left as it contradicts Key's statement
11/11: Tax cuts are a good idea and we should have had them earlier
Analysis: right, especially since the editorial also points out Helen's lies about the advice from Treasury
10/11: Netball
9/11: Corrections letting murderer walk away from Wellington prison
Analysis: right, actually mostly neutral but I'm scoring it as right as he also attacks Annette King's excuses
8/11: Revised curriculum is 'impressive' and a 'catalyst for a smarter society'
Analysis: left, parrots mindless far-left dogma throughout. Even throws in a call for more teachers. No right-wing journalist would stand for reading and writing being sidelined to such an extent.
7/11: Proposed regulation of the real estate industry
Analysis: neutral, essentially descriptive and doesn't take a position on whether state regulation is the answer.
6/11: Tax cuts
Analysis: right, see above, same comments apply
5/11: Howard should have gone earlier
Analysis: left, an attack on Howard's policy not just strategy.

Out of eleven editorials, there are four right, three left and four neutral.

Hardly evidence of bias, and I somehow managed to pick a period without a single editorial pushing the global warming theory. The two tax cut ones could be read as an endorsement of Labour's proposed policy if they didn't focus on Clark's lies. Reporting on lies told by politicians really ought to be regarded non-partisan, and would be neutral in its actual effect if Labour Ministers would just start telling us the truth.

Conclusion: there's no bias on the editorial page based on this sample.