Editorial Reviews

In 2023 the Independent External Review Panel recommended that RNZ regularly assess aspects of its output against its editorial policy through the use of targeted pro-active reviews. 

RNZ accepted this recommendation and committed to completing at least one assessment every year.  

As well as using the assessments to help with editorial training for our kaimahi and sharing them with RNZ’s Editorial Standards Committee and interested groups, the findings will be published. 

This step is being taken because it is important that the public understands the steps we take as a public media organisation to ensure our work is always underpinned by fairness, accuracy, independence, respect, decency and diversity.  

Sources Review – released January 2026

A review of a selection of RNZ reporting from March 2025, comprising the Morning Report and Checkpoint programmes (five hours of programming on each weekday) to evaluate the diversity of coverage, including the extent to which different communities, perspectives and voices are presented. This was not a compliance review, it didn’t fact check every story or check each piece of content against editorial standards; rather its focus was on examining the representativeness of sources.

The review was undertaken by Craig McMurtrie, a former ABC Editorial Director and a journalist with a career spanning  40 years, alongside Andrew Holden who is currently RNZ’s Complaints Custodian and who has held editorial positions both in New Zealand and Australia during his long career in journalism.

Why was the review undertaken?

 This is the second such review, as part of an undertaking in response to the recommendation in the 2023 Independent External Review of RNZ Editorial Processes, to “regularly assess aspects of its editorial output against its editorial policy through the use of targeted pro-active reviews”.

Under RNZ’s Charter, the public service broadcaster has a responsibility to foster a sense of national identity by contributing to tolerance and understanding and reflecting and promoting ethnic, cultural, and artistic diversity and expression. Part of reflecting Aotearoa’s diversity is ensuring RNZ continues to feature a variety of voices. The review is a way of checking in on how RNZ is performing and seeing what changes could be made to improve its performance.  

How was the review undertaken?

 The review is in two parts. Firstly, a quantitative analysis based on coding 952 pieces of content over the month of March 2025 and analysing the 1263 sources used and pattern of perspectives to consider whether an appropriate diversity of views was provided to RNZ listeners.

The second part of the review is a qualitative analysis of significant themes which emerged from the coding process by looking at five case studies where the reviewers considered the extent to which programme choices reflected RNZ editorial values of due impartiality, open-mindedness and fairness. This included consideration of whether any relevant perspective was missed, underrepresented, or overrepresented.

What did the review find?

The full review can be read here.

No systemic issues were identified, and overall, the reviewers were satisfied that the reporting of both programmes met requirements for due impartiality, open-mindedness, fairness, and a diversity of perspectives. The conclusion of the reviewers was that both programmes do a very good job in covering a wide range of issues and seeking local voices, nevertheless the reviewers did identify some areas for improvement.

These are listed below, alongside RNZ’s response.

 

Response to recommendations

Recommendation	RNZ response	Comments
Given the frequency of Radio New Zealand journalists being called on to participate in lengthy interviews on sometimes complex stories, care must be taken to ensure that their role is not confused with that of an expert or primary source. In the framing of questions and answers, the audience should always be clear on the difference between informed reportage and expert opinion, or a principal relevant perspective.	Accepted	We agree with the need to be clear in the introduction about the role of the reporter, which is to provide information and, if within their area of expertise, further context and analysis. For general reporters, this should be limited (within reason), for example, if someone has been covering a story for a long time and has a high level of knowledge about it. Specialist reporters are freer to draw conclusions about, for example, the potential impact of what they are reporting and the reasoning for it. Correspondents and specialist reporters have more latitude when it comes to analysis, and their different role should always be made clear in the presenter's introduction. Their title prepares the audience for a conversation that would often push beyond straight news reportage.
If resources allow, the programmes should consider increasing the number of packages commissioned, which would broaden the diversity of sources heard by audiences.	Accepted	Packages can be a good way of tightly capturing a range of views and should be used judiciously. They can provide a less intimidating opportunity for those not used to dealing with the media of expressing their thoughts than a live interview . This opportunity – which may result in someone talking to RNZ who would have declined a live interview, can in itself help to improve source diversity.   Packages should be of high quality, using natural sound and face-to-face interviews wherever possible.
Further editorial refresher training should be considered to help reporters navigate the difference between informed analysis (exercising their professional judgement as journalists) and opinion.	Accepted	The RNZ Editorial Policy gives guidance on this difference and allows for specialist reporters to be able to provide “informed analysis”, versus opinion. Editorial training already covers this, but the 2026 training (Referring Up) will include a more specific emphasis.
Whilst it is understandable that members of the public are not always named in a series of speedy vox pops, the same should not apply to politicians. Care should be taken to identify the name and party of every politician who speaks, as a basic piece of information for the public who are, in the end, voters.	Accepted	Vox pops can be an effective way of presenting a range of political views on any given topic, within the time constraints of a broadcast package. There may be occasion, such as a very lighthearted topic where MPs are asked their views, where there could be a lighter touch. However, there should be a more considered approach to MP ‘vox pops’ so our audience is aware of who said what, and the party they belong to.
The programmes should consider whether their on-air naming convention for journalists could be improved to better differentiate between RNZ staff and non-RNZ contributors. Clearer attribution when agency, stringer or freelance reporters are used would better align with RNZ editorial values and assist audience understanding.	Accepted	This will be taken up with news and programme leaders to come up with a clearer and more consistent way of communicating the role, and any external affiliation non-RNZ contributors have as part of on-air introduction.
While this review has not found any systemic issue of under-representation of particular source types, analysis of the coverage in March 2025 suggests the programmes should reflect on whether they could include more voices from migrant, religious and arts communities in their reporting.	Accepted	This recommendation will be specifically highlighted to programme and news leaders who will be tasked with looking for opportunities when commissioning stories and selecting interview subjects to feature the voices identified.
To best utilise limited resources and ensure audiences hear from the broadest range of voices each day on complex and contentious issues, the programme teams should consider whether there are ways they can improve information sharing on story angles and ideas	Accepted	This recommendation is consistent with our ongoing efforts to be more transparent about decision making on story selection and detailing how our editorial policy is applied, especially for commentary around sensitive or complex issues. We are also considering introducing ‘transparency boxes’ to online content as a way of demonstrating where we’ve asked for comment or an interview to give the reader that context. We will consider what more we can do on-air to provide a similar level of transparency.

 

The Israel/Palestine Issues Assessment -  released March 2025 

The assessment involved an examination of RNZ coverage, on-air and online, of news involving Israel and Palestinian authorities and groups to determine whether RNZ’s coverage: 

• Meets broadcasting standards 

• Meets RNZ editorial standards 

• Represents best practice for reporting which even those with strong opinions can accept as accurate and balanced.  

We also asked for the assessment to consider whether there was a benefit in re-stating or developing editorial policies and preferred words and terms related to this to improve RNZ coverage and its acceptability to all audiences.  

Why did RNZ commission this assessment? 

RNZ recognises that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is a contested issue with strong opposing views and due to the complex nature of the conflict and the level of feedback RNZ receives, it warranted an independent assessment.  

What did it find?  

You can read the full assessment here

It is important to note the review found that overall complaints to RNZ over the period since the attack by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups on October 7 2023 and the subsequent Israel military actions in Gaza and other areas and the decisions of the Media Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority give no reason for concern that RNZ is acting outside its own policy, the Media Council Principles or the standards administered by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. 

Nevertheless, the assessment makes a series of recommendations that the author says may reduce complaints and reduce concerns among listeners and readers about RNZ’s upholding of standards and its reputation for accuracy, balance and fairness. 

You can read the recommendations and whether or not RNZ accepted, partially accepted or rejected the recommendation and actions as a result here.