MEDIAWATCH: That Q+A Atlas Network interview reeked of right of reply, not a serious critique

---

The final episode of Q+A for 2024 included a segment on the Atlas Network that raised more questions than it answered. Given the controversy surrounding the organisation internationally — and its increasing visibility in New Zealand political discourse — viewers might reasonably have expected a robust investigation. What aired instead felt markedly different.

The Q+A Segment on Atlas Network: Investigation or Right of Reply?

The last Q+A of 2024 also carried a surprisingly soft story on the Atlas Network.

Soft.

Very soft.

My view is that the piece felt less like an investigation and more like a right of reply following Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s repeated references to the Atlas Network the week prior.

The segment did not appear to critically interrogate the organisation’s funding, international links, or policy influence. Instead, it seemed structured to provide response rather than scrutiny.

What International Critics Say About the Atlas Network

Here is what George Monbiot has written:

“And who, in turn, are the junktanks? Many refuse to divulge who funds them, but as information has trickled out we have discovered that the Atlas Network itself and many of its members have taken money from funding networks set up by the Koch brothers and other rightwing billionaires, and from oil, coal and tobacco companies and other life-defying interests…”

Monbiot’s critique reflects wider international concerns about the role of privately funded think tank networks in shaping public policy.

Oil, coal, tobacco interests, major conservative donors, and transnational funding networks — these are serious claims that warrant serious journalistic scrutiny.

That level of scrutiny was absent.

The result was a segment that felt incomplete — particularly when compared with the depth of international reporting on the Atlas Network.

Why Independent Media Scrutiny Matters

Independent media scrutiny is not optional in a democracy — it is essential. If you value critical analysis that challenges power rather than cushions it, please consider supporting The Daily Blog.