Abstract:
This research explores whether changes in New Zealand media coverage of election campaigns add support to a thesis that we have moved into a post-truth environment, considered as a retreat from policy discussion and factual verification. Changes in newspaper coverage of election campaigns in New Zealand were studied in order to assess this possibility. Newspapers were selected as the media of choice, as a benchmark or barometer of journalistic quality, with a focus on coverage of the 2008 and 2017 elections. The approach combined quantitative, qualitative, and discourse analysis. Relevant literature regarding post-truth politics was sourced from a range of fields in order to synthesise an original framework to analyse how elections are covered by the media. A methodology was developed that analysed changes in quantity of election reporting, and placement of branding of election stories, types of election coverage, and how the media dealt with claims made by politicians. The analysis was applied to coverage in the New Zealand Herald, the Dominion Post, and the Otago Daily Times, from Writ Day to the day before the election. The research found that there was a significant decline between 2008 and 2017 in election coverage. There were also a number of relevant changes in the placement and branding of election stories. The types of election coverage that were reported shifted from an approach balancing policy and non-policy in 2008, to more of a nonpolicy focus in 2017. Where journalists and commentators in 2008 fact-checked and used evidence, a judgment or a counterclaim to deal with claims made by politicians, in 2017 claims were more likely to be reported without any such responses. Based on these results, this research argues that the changes in election coverage from 2008 to 2017 add support to a thesis that we have moved into a post-truth environment.
