The death of independent journalism

Back in November I wrote an article outlining the extent to which State-owned Broadcasters here in New Zealand are mirroring the level of editorial bias which has been uncovered at the BBC and calling for an urgent, fully independent, inquiry. Sadly (although somewhat predictably) this was met with crickets from Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith who must now, surely, be first in line for reassignment in any upcoming Ministerial reshuffle.

Meanwhile, I’ve spent more time researching the extent and nature of media bias and have come up with the broad outline of a self-evident ‘media feedback loop’ to explain how this works, not just within the New Zealand state broadcasting system – but within many media organisations both here and throughout the western world.

It operates as a self-contained media ecosystem, one in which a powerful feedback loop has formed between mainstream media organisations, activist groups, and political actors.

It is not accidental.
It is not chaotic.
And it is not neutral.

It is a system that rewards alignment, punishes dissent, and steadily narrows the range of acceptable public debate – all while presenting itself as objective journalism.

Once you see this loop, you can’t unsee it.

How the feedback loop works

At its core, the mechanism is simple:

An external advocacy group produces a narrative →
Mainstream media amplifies that narrative, without challenge →
Politicians and public agencies respond →
The media reports that response as validation →
The original advocacy group is elevated as authoritative, credible, and influential →
The cycle repeats, stronger each time.

The loop feeds itself.

What matters is not whether the original claim is correct, contested, incomplete, or ideologically loaded. What matters is whether it aligns with the moral language, assumptions, and worldview already dominant in the newsroom.

The media’s role is not passive

This ecosystem only functions because mainstream outlets actively participate.

Here in New Zealand, mainstream media organisations are not merely reporting on events. They are selecting which voices are amplified, which are treated as experts, and which are framed as morally suspect or illegitimate.

The same external organisations appear again and again:

• quoted as neutral authorities,

• relied on to interpret complex geopolitical or policy issues,

• used to define the moral stakes,

• and then cited later as proof that “public momentum” exists.

Repetition becomes legitimacy.

Advocacy Groups as default “experts”

One of the strongest pillars of the loop is the elevation of advocacy organisations into the role of neutral expertise.

Groups with explicit ideological positions are routinely presented as objective commentators. Their advocacy role is rarely disclosed clearly. Their assumptions are rarely challenged. Alternative expert voices – legal, academic, or empirical – are often absent altogether or paid token lip service.

The loop here is tight and efficient:

• Advocacy Groups define the problem

• Media amplifies that definition

• Government responds within the same framing

• Media cites the response as validation

• Advocacy groups gain authority, funding, and influence

At no point is the framing itself properly tested.

Israel, Gaza, and the normalisation of antisemitism

 

The feedback loop becomes most dangerous when it intersects with complex foreign issues – and nowhere is this clearer than in coverage of Israel and the war in Gaza.

A familiar pattern has emerged:

• Activist groups frame the conflict through a rigid oppressor-oppressed lens

• Media adopts that framing almost wholesale and without question

• Israeli actions are moralised and personalised and implications are skewed or entirely misrepresented

• Palestinian actors are abstracted or de-emphasised

• Political responses follow the media framing

• Media then treats those responses as confirmation of public consensus

The result is not balance, context, or clarity – but narrative compression and ideological bias.

Crucial facts are routinely minimised or omitted:

• the role of Hamas as a genocidal terrorist organisation,

• the embedding of military infrastructure in civilian areas,

• the scale and intent of the October 7 attacks,

• and Israel’s right to self-defence under international law.

More troubling still is the way antisemitic tropes are allowed to re-enter public discourse, repackaged as “anti-Zionism”, and laundered through activist language.

Jewish and pro-Israel voices are frequently:

• spoken about rather than to,

• dismissed as partisan for defending Israel’s existence,

• or excluded entirely if they challenge the dominant framing.

Once again, the loop rewards alignment. Those who reinforce the preferred narrative are amplified. Those who complicate it are marginalised.

The downstream effect is predictable: the demonisation of Israel and the Jewish people becomes socially acceptable, and antisemitism rises under the cover of moral activism.

Academia amplifies rather than challenges

Universities should challenge power. Instead, they are used to reinforce it.

Academic opinion is repackaged as research and reported as consensus. Consensus is cited by policymakers. Policymaker reliance is then used to validate the original academic claim.

The ideological position of commentators is rarely disclosed. Disagreement over academic methodology is rarely explored. Counter-academics struggle to be heard.

The feedback loop turns scholarship into advocacy – with the media acting as the transmission belt.

Climate activism: escalation rewarded

Climate activism fits the same pattern, though it sits further downstream.

Disruptive protest actions – blocking roads, interrupting events, vandalising property – are all routinely framed as desperate but understandable. Coverage centres on emotional motivation rather than empirical scrutiny.

The pattern repeats:

1. Disruptive action occurs
2. Media amplifies the message while softening the disruption
3. Political leaders signal urgency
4. Media reports that response as validation
5. Activists escalate, knowing escalation guarantees coverage

The lesson is clear: the more disruptive the action, the greater the reward as measured by media coverage.

Conservative and Christian Voices: marginalised and dismissed

Within this ecosystem, conservative and Christian perspectives are not treated as legitimate contributors to public debate, but as problems to be managed.

Coverage follows a familiar pattern:

• Conservative and Christian views are framed as reactionary, dangerous, or out of step, rather than as mainstream positions held by millions.

• Moral or faith-based arguments are routinely reclassified as “hate”, “fear”, or “misinformation”, regardless of tone or intent.

• Peaceful conservative or Christian action is depicted as threatening or destabilising, while disruptive so-called ‘progressive’ activism is contextualised, excused, or celebrated.

• Conservative spokespeople are interrogated for motive and language; progressive activists are platformed for emotion and intent.

• Christianity is treated as a private eccentricity that must not inform public reasoning, while secular ideological frameworks are presented as neutral and authoritative.

• When conservative or Christian voices are included, they are often tokenised, outnumbered, or framed as the moral outlier against an assumed consensus.

The signal is unmistakable: alignment is rewarded, dissent is pathologised, and entire value systems are quietly written out of acceptable public discourse.

Manufactured public consent

Finally, consultation processes complete the illusion.

A small number of highly organised Advocacy Groups dominate submissions. Media reports “strong public support”. Politicians cite submission volume. Media reports the political response as democratic endorsement.

What is being measured is organisational capacity – not public opinion.

But the loop converts noise into legitimacy.

Why this matters

This is not a neutral systems failure or an unintended consequence of incentives.

It is ideological.

Large sections of the media no longer operate as politically detached institutions seeking truth through contest and scrutiny. They operate as gatekeepers, aligned – consciously or otherwise – with an ideological framework that treats certain beliefs as legitimate and others as inherently suspect.

Within that framework:

• Conservative and Christian values are not debated – they are pre-judged.

• Dissent is not examined – it is dismissed and demonised

• Opposition is not engaged – it is delegitimised.

The feedback loop does not merely reward alignment; it enforces it.

Journalists select sources that reinforce their worldview. Activist groups supply narratives that fit it. Politicians respond to the moral pressure generated. The media then reports those responses as validation – not because the claims are proven, but because they are ideologically comfortable.

The result is a closed system in which:

challenge is treated as threat,
scrutiny is framed as bad faith,
and repetition is mistaken for truth.

Once ideological alignment replaces editorial independence, reality becomes optional – and journalism becomes activism with a press badge.

The cost

The greatest casualty of this loop is trust – and we’re seeing the inevitable consequence of that playing out here in New Zealand right now, as trust in the media plummets to levels barely hitting 30%.

When media organisations act as participants rather than referees, they undermine their own credibility. When media newsrooms and voices become hand puppets to the views of those on the extremes they not only lose the argument – they lose the room.

Healthy democracies require friction.
This ecosystem eliminates it.

And that should worry everyone – regardless of politics.