Monday, May 18, 2015

Sensationalist reporting

The DomPost features this article on page 2 (directly under another piece about how badly off beneficiaries are compared to Superannuitants):

The article has a sensational headline and makes no mention of the research methodology.

Not alluded to is this key quote from the Canterbury Community Law project:

 The research did not set out to ascertain the level of satisfaction with Work and Income and MSD’s services in general by surveying a representative sample of beneficiaries, but rather to gain an understanding of beneficiaries’ legal needs in relation to welfare issues so that community law centres could respond. The findings should be read in this context.

Now I can't give you a link to the text because the online version has changed. The headline is gone. It has been replaced with

Beneficiaries 'scared stiff' of Work and Income 


And new information has been added about how many interviews were involved:
The report is based on 21 interviews with representatives of agencies involved in the benefit system, and 29 interviews with beneficiaries who: had trouble accessing entitlements; had been investigated for benefit fraud; had challenged benefit decisions; or, had used a benefit review or appeal process.
Interestingly Sean Plunket has been soliciting real life experience from beneficiaries listening to Radio Live. It does not match what the DomPost wants readers to believe.


Mark Hubbard said...

I'm growing convinced that Dom Post is merely a pamphlet printed by one of the many capital-domiciled government departments. Their editorialising is awful, some of it would find a comfortable home in USSR (seriously). And I don't know why any business would advertise in it, as it's editors loath businesspeople.

Mark Hubbard said...

[For the record ...

... as its editor loathes ...']

macdoctor said...

My understanding is that that research *specifically* sought out beneficiaries who had had conflict with WINZ. It is hardly representative of WINZ as a whole.