It may be that people who don’t vote, don’t enrol, and aren’t able to enrol would be overwhelmingly opposed to national and vote for left-wing parties.
Gah I can't find it now but someone has done the analysis and that is exactly the case. National has maintained about a million voters for ever. What has changed when Labour has won elections is the number of voters, most of whom appear to either not vote or vote Labour depending on how they feel.
But this assumes we should want the media “to persuade” their audience about news stories. I don’t know how comfortable I am with that idea.
But neither do you want the media to simply pass on the media releases from whichever party. Media releases are effectively party political advertising. If the party concerned wants their statement verbatim then they should pay for the advertising and it should have the appropriate riders.
What happened all too often in this campaign was the media quoting Key or worse asking Key to submit his very own opinion pieces - with no analysis whatsoever.
For me, especially at election time, I want the media to use their resources to analyse. To use access to experts when needed to examine the things that come out of politicians mouths critically.
What we had was far from that critical, informative media.
depends on what purpose you’re using it for.
So what purpose is the MSM using the 50% figure for?
If you say "of the population" you should use ~20%
If you say "of eligible voters" you should use ~30%
If you say "of those who voted" you should use 48%
Unless you are trying to deceive, then use whichever mashup of numbers suits your purpose.
I thought ess than 1/3 of eligible voter voted National?
Yeah should've been 30% not 40% - damn editors where are they when you need them.
But if the point is to somehow undermine National’s claim to be able to govern alone, then I cry foul.
No it isn't. The point is this is simple math that is reported incorrectly all the time. I'm not saying National does not have a mandate, those are your words not mine. What I am saying is that repeating endlessly that National have the support of half of New Zealand is overstating the mandate they do have.
The question is why does the media feel the need to overstate the mandate in that way? What benefit is there for the media?
Can we say half of them didn’t?
I think, statisticaly, that is more accurate.
No, the point is just over a million New Zealanders voted for National on Saturday. In a country of 4.4 million people. That's about 40% of eligible voters and 48% of those who bothered to vote.
Paddy apologises for “tricky”
And uses his apology to call Cunliffe as many names as his thesaurus could spit out.
Honestly that was appalling.
Would you do 50-60 hour weeks for $50-60K, in Auckland?
I'm a scientist, I spent 9 years earning SFA to get a PhD which got me a job that paid $36k*, we can play this game all day and night if you like.
*I earn significantly more than that now having worked for 25 years as a scientist and consider myself to be "rich" although still well under the rich tax threshold proposed in the recent election.
people who grasp the idea that correlation does not imply causation
I can rant for hours on that. And please can people stop saying half of New Zealand voted for National ... sigh.
but I’m still struggling to see what the media could have possibly done
For me, it would have been nice if the media actually fact checked Key's quotes before they published them. We repeatedly got Key quoted front and centre and then 3 days later the retraction below the fold on page 17.
The media were all too keen to give Key airtime for denial after denial, but when later data showed the denials to be only loosely connected to reality Key was given more airtime to explain it away, usually with some "look a kitten" deflection. There were very few who ever challenged. It was easy mode news.
I get that, in the end 40% of eligible voters voted for National and SFA Labour voters got off their arses but frankly using that as proof that the media are just fine, is plain weird.