Analytical views that cut across the news, commentary, social, and audio corpora over the trailing 6 weeks. Read top-to-bottom it tells one story: what NZ is talking about, who’s driving it, where the sides diverge, and who’s paying. Methodology →
The strongest signals across money, press and public conversation — each links to the evidence below. Weekly snapshot · as of 26 Oct 2026 · trailing 6 weeks
Which channel sets the agenda, how long topics survive once they catch, and where coverage spikes in lockstep across the news, commentary, social and audio corpora at the same time.
Which channel surfaces topics first? The donut shows the overall first-mover distribution across all multi-channel topics. The table below shows channel share-of-voice per topic — where each topic’s coverage actually lives. Topics dominated by one channel (e.g. 80% social / 5% news) surface gaps between public conversation and press coverage.
Each cell shows what percentage of this topic’s total normalised attention comes from each channel. Raw counts are adjusted for channel volume — so social’s thousands of posts and news’s tens of articles are placed on a comparable scale. The small number underneath is the raw item count.
| Topic | News | Commentary | Social | Audio | Dominant channel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Accountability | 1.6% 4 | 9.8% 14 | 85.2% 556 | 3.3% 1 | |
| Political Accountability To Constituents | 1.9% 6 | 9.3% 12 | 88.9% 517 | 0.0% 0 | |
| Cost-Of-Living Crisis | 8.1% 32 | 30.6% 43 | 29.0% 197 | 32.3% 10 | Talk Radio 32% |
| Political Hypocrisy | 0.0% 1 | 4.3% 3 | 95.7% 230 | 0.0% 0 | |
| Media Bias In Journalism | 0.0% 0 | 13.8% 9 | 58.6% 183 | 27.6% 4 | |
| Election Satire | 0.0% 2 | 0.0% 1 | 100.0% 171 | 0.0% 0 | |
| Māori Political Representation | 9.4% 18 | 34.4% 24 | 37.5% 128 | 18.8% 3 | |
| National Identity | 0.0% 0 | 11.1% 4 | 88.9% 166 | 0.0% 0 | |
| Supermarket Duopoly | 8.9% 36 | 26.8% 35 | 14.3% 83 | 50.0% 14 | Talk Radio 50% |
| Vote Splitting | 3.1% 9 | 25.0% 19 | 40.6% 135 | 31.3% 5 | |
| Media Accountability | 0.0% 2 | 25.0% 11 | 65.0% 140 | 10.0% 1 | |
| Online Harassment | 5.9% 4 | 0.0% 1 | 82.4% 146 | 11.8% 1 | |
| Electorate Vote Strategic Voting | 9.4% 21 | 28.1% 21 | 31.3% 104 | 31.3% 5 | |
| Housing Affordability | 10.0% 22 | 36.7% 24 | 33.3% 102 | 20.0% 3 | Commentary 37% |
| Economic Inequality | 0.0% 1 | 15.4% 5 | 84.6% 117 | 0.0% 0 | |
| Public Trust In Democracy | 5.0% 6 | 20.0% 10 | 45.0% 99 | 30.0% 3 | |
| Online Content Moderation | 0.0% 0 | 28.6% 8 | 71.4% 104 | 0.0% 0 | |
| Vote Labour And Greens | 0.0% 1 | 0.0% 0 | 100.0% 111 | 0.0% 0 | |
| Government Document Transparency | 0.0% 0 | 9.1% 2 | 90.9% 109 | 0.0% 0 | |
| Political Misinformation | 0.0% 1 | 9.1% 2 | 90.9% 102 | 0.0% 0 |
How long do topics persist? Each topic is classified as persistent (still near peak), decaying (fading), flash (one-week spike), or resurgent (bounced back after a dip). In the chart, the further right a topic sits the closer it still is to its peak (its momentum); the higher it sits the more total coverage it drew; bubble size is its peak week. Half-life estimates how many weeks until volume halves from peak.
| Topic | Class | Peak | Current | Total | Active weeks | Half-life |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government Accountability | persistent | 109 | 90 | 575 | 6 | 18.1w |
| Political Accountability To Constituents | persistent | 115 | 83 | 535 | 6 | 10.6w |
| Cost-Of-Living Crisis | 62 | 28 | 282 | 6 | 4.4w | |
| Political Hypocrisy | persistent | 53 | 43 | 234 | 6 | 16.6w |
| Media Bias In Journalism | persistent | 42 | 38 | 196 | 6 | 34.6w |
| Election Satire | persistent | 35 | 35 | 174 | 6 | — |
| Māori Political Representation | persistent | 33 | 33 | 173 | 6 | — |
| National Identity | persistent | 34 | 30 | 170 | 6 | 27.7w |
| Supermarket Duopoly | 72 | 6 | 168 | 6 | 1.4w | |
| Vote Splitting | 54 | 24 | 168 | 6 | 4.3w | |
| Media Accountability | resurgent | 52 | 17 | 154 | 6 | 3.1w |
| Online Harassment | persistent | 33 | 33 | 152 | 6 | — |
| Electorate Vote Strategic Voting | 57 | 12 | 151 | 6 | 2.2w | |
| Housing Affordability | persistent | 28 | 27 | 151 | 6 | 95.3w |
| Voting For National Party | persistent | 37 | 37 | 147 | 6 | — |
| Vote Nzf | 52 | 16 | 124 | 6 | 2.9w | |
| Economic Inequality | 35 | 14 | 123 | 6 | 3.8w | |
| Public Trust In Democracy | 27 | 14 | 118 | 6 | 5.3w | |
| Online Content Moderation | persistent | 26 | 19 | 112 | 6 | 11.0w |
| Vote Labour And Greens | 42 | 23 | 112 | 5 | 4.6w |
Topics that triggered volume spikes in two or more channels within the trailing 6 weeks. Each card shows the peak spike ratio per channel (e.g. ×5.2 means 5.2× the prior 4-week average). Synchronised anomalies are stronger signals than isolated spikes.
The people the corpus is talking about — whose share of voice is rising or fading week to week, across every channel at once.
Per-actor weekly mention volume across all channels (news, commentary, audio, social) over the trailing 6 weeks. The chart shows each actor’s total mentions per week; the table shows channel breakdown and stance sentiment from commentary sources.
| Actor | Party | Total mentions |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Bishop | National Party | 401 |
| Simeon Brown | National Party | 398 |
| Hon Marama Davidson | Green Party | 222 |
| Barbara Edmonds | Labour Party | 271 |
| Paul Goldsmith | National Party | 237 |
| Chris Hipkins | Labour Party | 1,265 |
| Hon Willie Jackson | Labour Party | 112 |
| Shane Jones | New Zealand First | 247 |
| Christopher Luxon | National Party | 1,347 |
| Todd McClay | National Party | 136 |
| Mark Mitchell | National Party | 261 |
| Rt Hon Winston Peters | New Zealand First | 737 |
| David Seymour | ACT New Zealand | 685 |
| Erica Stanford | National Party | 297 |
| Chlöe Swarbrick | Green Party | 358 |
| Louise Upston | National Party | 141 |
| Rawiri Waititi | Te Pāti Māori | 123 |
| Simon Watts | National Party | 125 |
| Nicola WILLIS | 608 | |
| Qiulae Wong | The Opportunity Party | 335 |
The same topic, framed two ways — how critically each side covers it, and the parallel conversation happening on talk radio that the written press hasn’t picked up.
Topics where left-leaning and right-leaning commentary sources both have coverage (minimum 5 items per side), with per-stance breakdowns. The divergence score compares the proportion of critical coverage on each side, normalised for volume: 0% means both sides criticise the topic at the same rate; 100% means one side is entirely critical while the other is not at all. Raw stance counts are shown so you can judge the sample size yourself. Source orientation labels come from our hand-curated taxonomy.
Topics discussed on talk radio (transcribed audio) that are absent or minimal in written media. These represent the parallel conversation happening on air that journalists haven’t picked up — or can’t cover.
The disclosed money behind the messaging — donations and ad spend set against the coverage it buys, and the independent third parties and unions spending alongside the parties.
Organisations with recorded donations or Meta ad spend, alongside their media footprint. Does money correlate with coverage? Note: correlation is not causation — parties with more money tend to be larger parties that naturally attract more coverage.
Where an organisation is a tracked lobby group or think tank Lobby, its name links to the full influence dossier and we show its earned-media reach — confirmed press, radio and commentary pickups and the number of distinct outlets reached over the last year. For these groups that earned footprint is a truer read on narrative penetration than the party-mention counts, which track named MPs rather than the group itself.
Disclosed money footprint per organisation — party donations received plus independent advertising spend across the currently-observable sources. Filter by left/right to compare totals and spread; trade unions are highlighted. Independent spend is legally separate from parties — alignment is not coordination.
These are still different disclosure windows, not one comparable period — read each bar as “disclosed money we can currently see for this actor,” not spend within a single timeframe:
Regulated third-party promoter returns — which carry the newspaper and other print spend no digital ad library captures — are reported per election cycle. The latest published set is from the 2023 General Election; see the per-medium breakdown on the 2023 election page. The methodology covers each source’s exact coverage and caveats.