>Stuff.co.nz (Fairfax Media) is a more credible news source IMO.

I find just about everything published under the Fairfax banner is of pretty poor quality, not necessarily factually incorrect or even politically biased, but presented in a overly sensationalist manner and with a populist and oversimplified analysis where any is provided at all.

Both Mediaworks and TVNZ have similar problems as well.

Radio NZ seems to have more freedom to ignore certain demographics (the lowest common denominator), and IMO has better quality news and opinion than other sources.

This isn't a new problem. Lindsay Perigo quit TVNZ in the early 90s, accusing it of being 'brain dead':

"I sometimes ask myself what would life be like if I had just stayed at TVNZ, and there is no doubt that materially life would be a lot richer. But I do not regret for a second the fact that I forsook that career. I was dying within at TVNZ. The dumbing down that was going on. Plus the fact that for twenty years I had made a career of listening to other people spouting mainly nonsense. I had also become aware of what scumbags they were."

http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/36/36jesson.php

> Stuff.co.nz (Fairfax Media) is a more credible news source IMO.

If you are interested in the most credible celebrity gossip news source, that is. Stuff is terrible.

Still better than NZ Herald.

I remember the headline for the Herald on Sunday last week was along the lines of:

"EXCLUSIVE: X-RAY REVEALS CELLPHONE FOUND IN INMATE'S BUM"

Herald on Sunday is a different newspaper. Herald > Stuff > Herald on Sunday in terms of trashiness.

I know it was just a typo (of which you will find lots every day, some crucial to the meaning of the story) but I have saved a screen grab of a headline from a Christmas past where the Herald wrote "Elf diagnosis causing alarm" on a story about Internet self diagnosis.

It's news because we only just found out about it. If we'd known about it for the last 12 years, sure, it would be silly to report it as news. But I'm not comfortable with the implication that if something can be swept under the carpet for a couple of years, then meh, it's no longer interesting or important when it comes to light.

The Herald is in no way the "Fox News of New Zealand." It's Auckland's major newspaper. I don't find the reporting more or less dense than most other msm tech coverage frankly. I lived in NZ for 20 years, and don't remember any news sources there being quite as ridiculous as Fox.

Sure maybe 20 years ago it might of been alright, but you can tell APN is going down the drain as no one is buying newspapers anymore, hence they post utter garbage articles that gain peoples attention for 2 seconds in hope that someone will actually buy it.

A good example is a friend of mine got mentioned on a headline of sharing naked pictures of some celebrity in a Facebook group. They mentioned all the companies he worked/associated as well to make it more juicy.

The article was complete BS as it was actually someone else and the picture itself wasn't even that bad (no naked bits). He basically got sacked from all his employers since they mentioned them.

He got his lawyer to send down a takedown notice, and they removed the article off their website and had to post a following article in the paper saying that the article was a load of BS.

> Stuff.co.nz (Fairfax Media) is a more credible news source IMO.

What?! Surely you don't mean scoop.co.nz?

lol do people still read that?