It's almost like NZ media should re-examine their totally cool and chill relationships with all five of the people they feature as regular politics commentary https://twitter.com/Economissive/status/1283494639694041089

The issue of the lack of diversity in political commentary is fundamentally one of privilege.

If you are featured on widely-seen media as a commentator, you are occupying a position of tremendous power and influence.

If you're a regular commentator, it's a multiplier.

So who does the media chiefly pick as commentators?

People are who already occupy elite positions in society, by virtue of their position as political insiders or lobbyists.

Fun fact: guest starring on a panel show or being a guest writer pays poorly, or mostly not at all.

But that's OK! Weirdly, the commentators always seem to be able to afford *very* nice suits. So who's paying?

Don't worry. Someone is.

People have to be very well-heeled to do stuff like this for free. But they are being rewarded. Either in influence, which translates to a board appointment here, a job there, or they're getting paid in actual money to peddle a particular message for political benefit.

So why are we doing this, NZ media?

Why do the people who you pick as political commentators almost entirely consist of existing political commentators?

Why is the diversity of opinion so low?

Why are commentator's close relationships to power and privilege not screamed from the headlines before they even open their mouths?

The *news* value provided by political commentary is extremely low. No-one actually actually needs it to be informed.

The news media needs to rethink this structure from the ground up, and reflect on what they're enabling when they handpick the same ten or so people to be the mouthpieces of a nation, over and over and over.