The spread and contestation of false, misleading, or deliberately deceptive claims within New Zealand's political sphere, including by politicians, parties, and media figures, and debates about how such misinformation should be identified, corrected, or regulated.
How the framings classify across 8 articles. Each framing is labelled by a small AI stance classifier; see the methodology page for details.
Up to 12 framings across outlets and orientations — each a short phrase the extractor generated to characterise the piece's editorial angle (not a quote). Filter by lean to see how each bloc is spinning the story; click through to read the original.
ai and algorithms erode public understanding of reality
MP who led homosexual law reform ‘seriously doubts’ bill would have made it in social media ageLobby groups, unions, think tanks and industry bodies whose own releases or whose people’s media appearances touched this topic over the last 12 months. Owned = their own press releases; earned = their people quoted across radio, press & commentary. A card carried in both — with the release coming first — is the agenda-setting signal. Co-occurrence isn’t proof a group drove the coverage.
deliberate misrepresentation in governance
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. 12 articles from RNZ, Stuff, NZ Herald, ODT, 1News, Newsroom and The Spinoff. Click through to the press view for the full panel.
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.
