{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreibwqu2eulbwctsltmdfl57e4emus7mswlpg5wmfdla4oty2lzfxlq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:sl2hrcwo6voaorzsr26d3bo2/app.bsky.feed.post/3mljr3gozenj2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreigtu4teufpt4gc6hsz425nzdehlfqv3l7m4rfuiq3lijdvoolqabu"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 1975915
  },
  "description": "10 News Stories They Chose Not to Tell You",
  "path": "/your-daily-ten-10-2026-082/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-10T22:00:38.000Z",
  "site": "https://goodoil.news",
  "tags": [
    "Read More",
    "Subscribe now"
  ],
  "textContent": "**This is edition 2026/082 of the _Ten@10_ newsletter.**\n\nHi all,\n\nThis is the Ten@10, where I collate and summarise ten news items you generally won't see in the mainstream media.\n\nEnjoy!\n\n* * *\n\n## 1. Maiki Sherman and the media that ate itself\n\nBryce Edwards\n\n  * 📰 Maiki Sherman resigned from TVNZ under “enormous pressure,” ending her role just weeks before the Budget and months before the election, in a move described as terse but dignified.\n  * ⚖️ While her use of a homophobic slur at a 2025 pre-Budget event was acknowledged and apologised for, the broader context — including disputed claims about what provoked it — received little public scrutiny.\n  * 🧩 The incident is often framed as a single mistake, but the article argues this oversimplifies a more complex situation involving media dynamics and institutional decisions.\n  * ❓ A key distinction is highlighted: the incident may have been newsworthy, but whether it justified ending Sherman’s career is a separate question many commentators failed to examine.\n  * 🗣️ Commentators like David Farrar and Stephen Parker argued for proportionality, noting that one mistake should not outweigh an individual’s full professional contribution.\n  * 🤐 The press gallery’s year-long silence on the incident became problematic, raising concerns about selective reporting and internal media culture.\n  * 🔥 When the story eventually broke, the intensity of coverage escalated beyond what some believed was justified, despite its legitimacy as a news item.\n  * 🏛️ TVNZ is criticised for failing to support its political editor, instead relying on legal pressure to suppress the story, which ultimately worsened the fallout.\n  * ⚠️ The use of legal threats against other media outlets is portrayed as creating a “chilling effect” and undermining transparency.\n  * 🧭 The Free Speech Union and others argue the situation reflects a deeper institutional failure: prioritising suppression over openness and accountability.\n  * 💬 Sherman apologised early, but TVNZ’s handling of the situation is seen as preventing that apology from being meaningfully upheld.\n  * 📉 The case is framed as symptomatic of wider structural issues within media culture, including trust, accountability, and the pressures of political journalism.\n\n\n\nRead More\n\n### This post is for subscribers only\n\nBecome a member to get access to all content\n\nSubscribe now",
  "title": "Your Daily Ten@10 - 2026/082",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-10T22:00:38.316Z"
}