Skip to content

Stuff admits it is a biased rag and not a newspaper


This from Stuff:

Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy. That applies equally to the stories we will publish in Quick! Save the Planet and to our moderation standards for reader comments.

This is totally disgraceful. A newspaper now saying it will censor any views that differ from the viewpoint it chooses to advocate for.

It means that all stories in Stuff should be read as opinions not as fact. It means their journalists are advocates, not reporters.

Whilst this may well have been the case for many years, their blatant disreagrd for alternative views, especially in such a public way is very concerning.

Not surprisingly we see this:-

Presumably that means James Shaw is accepting of censorship and the suppression of free speech. Why is Adam not surprised?

Will we soon see a grant from the Provincial Growth Fund, to reopen community newspapers, recently closed? No, that would be far too cynical.

Yet Stuff  should be applauded as well for openly stating their bias, but will they clearly state that bias when publishing articles on climate issues?

Clearly, they will not publish climate sceptical articles. In that regard it could well be argued, they are failing in a publication’s duty to hold authority to account.

Presumably, all Stuff journalists subscribe to this new policy, or have they just been cowed into submission.

  1. Tim permalink
    30/11/2018 19:58

    The problem is that climate change due to human activity is real. Arguments about extent and severity are fine but giving contrarian skeptics an equal voice would be like giving an equal voice to anti vaxxers or religion creationism a voice in biology lessons at school


  2. confused liberal permalink
    30/11/2018 18:49

    Hey Adam, don’t the owners of Stuff have a right to do what they want with Stuff, given that it is there private property?

    How do you suppose we should rectify this? Do you think that the State should force a private newspaper to publish certain articles? Or do you think some other body, maybe a broad coalition of workers, should seize control of Stuff to ensure it acts impartially?

    I just struggle to see how a private enterprise doing what it wants with its private property is something that liberals would take issue with?



  1. More on Stuff’s climate change conversation control | Your NZ

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: