The post expresses skepticism about political leadership, suggesting the next election will reveal their lack of accountability and transparency.
How the framings classify across 4 articles. Each framing is labelled by a small AI stance classifier; see the methodology page for details.
Stacked weekly counts; colour by lean. “n/a” covers government and iwi-Māori sources where lean isn't applicable.
How this topic has been named, week by week. A new alias winning out is usually a framing shift.
How the news corpus has covered this same topic over the last 12 weeks. 3 articles from RNZ, Stuff, NZ Herald, ODT, 1News, Newsroom and The Spinoff. Click through to the press view for the full panel.
Verbatim segments from politicians speaking on podcasts and radio shows about this topic. Sourced via the voice-reference library — each speaker has been confirmed manually from their voice clip. Click play to stream the original audio from the publisher, pre-seeked to the moment the quote starts.
Now the latter is of increasing importance in recent years because one, the previous Labour government spent all the money and then some, and two, we still have no money, and therefore simply dreaming up ideas with no bills attached is no longer acceptable to most voters. Or is it? And that's my other great conundrum at the moment in this current election year. Can a party who might well be government promise something with an 11 billion dollar price tag not explain where the money comes from, but gets away with it anyway, given the punter isn't really that interested. Polling might help. But that's another conundrum I've got. Do I trust polling? No, I don't. The participation rate is now so ropey. People, to my mind, when they do find them to talk, actually tell Polsters anything. If what Labour have produced so far in terms of ideas, lack of dollars and general calamity was accurately measured, you might see a drop in support, or not. But if you trusted polls, at least you could get a gauge as to what's going on. Upshot, though, is this lot under Chris Hipkins, seem to have learned nothing. There is not a lot of coordinated well-honed or slick anything about this. For those waiting, uh, it would appear to be a disappointment, a haphazard sort of piecemeal kind of effort, that after all this wait and see they've been playing, turns out to be the same old group of sloppy thinkers and lazy operators. Hoping the government would fail was their best chance, given when they're forced to sell themselves to you, they look like a year eight school project and not a particularly good one.
Up to 12 framings spread across orientations. Each framing is a short phrase the topic extractor generated to characterise the piece's stance — not a quote from the source. Click through to read the original.
intense scrutiny amid campaign period
Echo Chamber: Christopher Luxon and the disappearing documentsthreat to judicial independence
Shocking abuse of power – Greenpeace slams Govt’s climate law change.Social-media signal on the same topic, drawn from the social lens. Engagement is likes + 2×shares + 3×replies, the same weighting used across the digest cards. View on /social →
Spotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.