An in-depth analysis of media coverage of the euthanasia and cannabis referendums held last year has found that, while both sides of the euthanasia referendum were given reasonably fair and balanced coverage, the “yes” position in the cannabis debate received a heavily biased share of the media coverage during the campaign period — especially from some particular media outlets and journalists.
According to a statement by Family First, the analysis looked at more than 400 New Zealand-based media articles and opinion pieces as they appeared online during the cannabis and euthanasia referendum campaign period between May and October in 2020. For the euthanasia referendum, there were 123 (75 news items and 48 opinion pieces), and for the cannabis referendum, there were 281 (203 news items and 78 opinion pieces).
In the cannabis referendum analysis:
– More than a third (36 per cent) of all headlines promoted the “yes” position, while only 18 per cent promoted the “no” position.
-Advocates promoting the “yes” position were quoted twice as often as “no” advocates.
– More than half (126) of the 203 articles did not quote anybody from the “no” side of the campaign, compared to only 64 articles not quoting someone from the “yes” side. While the “no” position was mentioned in 44 per cent of stories, it was typically deep in the story or a very small focus of the overall article. .
– 51 of all op-eds were “yes”-biased, while only 27 per cent presented a “no” position.
In the euthanasia referendum analysis:
– Across all 123 news and op-ed pieces on the euthanasia referendum, the coverage came out overall as balanced and reasonably representative of views on both sides.
– Opinion pieces were somewhat more likely to represent the “no” -vote — whereas news items leaned a little more towards representing the “yes”-vote overall.
“The media . . . seemed far more concerned about the outcome of the cannabis debate than they were the euthanasia debate. . . ,” said Bob McCoskrie, national director of Family First NZ, which commissioned the research.
He said that a cynic could suggest this was because the result of the cannabis referendum was in doubt, whereas polls indicated the outcome of the euthanasia vote appeared settled.
“The media should report the debate — not lead it,” he added.
Reader Interactions