Voyager 2025 Media Awards: even gongs need some context
A night to "celebrate and recognise excellence in New Zealand journalism" highlights just how small the industry has become - plus how C**t-gate played out for the Political Journalist of the Year.
If you’ve followed the news in New Zealand this past week - or just been reading this Substack - then you will have heard all about the C-word (yes, THAT one), how a female journalist directed it at female MPs in the mainstream media, how it was quoted in Parliament, and how it largely divided people into two opposing camps.
And then, not six days later, the journalist in question - Andrea Vance from The Post and Stuff - was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager 2025 Media Awards.
(They do say it’s all about timing…)
Now before we move on, it’s time to sound the Context Klaxon!
Yes it was the 2025 Media Awards, but the work being judged was all from 2024;
entries closed on February 24 this year;
and the finalists were announced on April 11.
The point I’m making is that the events of last week - however divisive and inflammatory they were - played NO role in these awards.
And that’s important to remember. It’s a person’s work - not their character - being judged.
Though it was curious to see one of Vance’s colleagues/rivals in the Parliamentary reporting ranks, opining about the potential optics only the day before:
“There has been virtually no support in the Press Gallery for Vance’s use of such language.
She is a much-deserved finalist in tomorrow’s Voyager Media Awards in the category Political Journalist of the Year – for work produced in 2024.
But if she wins, it will unfortunately look like an endorsement by the industry of her column last weekend.”
AUDREY YOUNG, Senior Political Correspondent, New Zealand Herald
And as it turned out, that scenario Audrey Young described wasn’t just potential.
Andrea Vance capped off one of the most controversial weeks in her career, by being named Political Journalist of the Year.
Judges Graeme Muir and Trish Sherson commented that:
“Andrea has an unerring ability to land impactful, political scoops year after year that effect real change, often at the highest level as in her wide-ranging coverage of data misuse.
This ability is closely matched by her understanding of audience – she is a compelling, must-read journalist for anyone interested in who is pulling the political levers in New Zealand, and why.”
It would be fascinating to know if Muir and Sherson feel the same way about Vance now, as they did when they judged her work back in March.
Using the C-word in a newspaper article to describe a group of female MPs is a hard thing NOT to have strong feelings about, especially as both judges are former television journalists themselves.
Not surprisingly, there was plenty of anticipation about the award, and what Vance might say if she won:
Without being in the room, it’s impossible to say how the decision was received.
There was plenty of raucous applause for sure, but I’m also mindful of what Audrey Young said about there being “virtually no support in the Press Gallery for Vance’s use of such language”. I wonder how much that extended to the wider industry, many of whom were in the room.
And at the risk of being a complete stick-in-the-mud, I think the choice of Shania Twain’s Man, I Feel Like A Woman as the accompanying music for Vance’s victory was misplaced.
Someone was obviously trying to have a laugh with it - if you remember, Andrea Vance’s article was actually a criticism of women ministers for their rollback on pay equity.
And both Vance herself and host Jeremy Corbett tried to make jokes to address the elephant in the room.
Unfortunately, all it did was make light of a a pretty serious situation.
But a win’s a win, and being Political Journalist of the Year is a handy title to have.
Vance and her employers (who’ve backed her unreservedly over C**t-gate) will undoubtedly be hoping her victory will just help the whole thing thing go away.
And speaking of her employers, here’s a good one for you which might have slipped under the radar.
In the category of Editorial Leader of the Year, Stuff’s Keith Lynch was named winner:
But look at the judges’ names.
One of the panel of four is Sinead Boucher - not only the OWNER of Stuff, but the Chair of the News Publishers’ Association which runs the Voyager Media Awards!
I can’t be the only who thinks the optics on this one aren’t great.
Having been a Voyager Media Awards judge myself between 2019 and 2021, I know that the organisers have struggled with what is a very small pool of potential judges (though it was interesting to see a significant number of journalists who only last year would have been entering their own work, now judging the work of other people - having lost their jobs in restructuring).
But how you can have the owner of a major media group judging an award where one of her own staff is a finalist, and is eventually judged the winner, is beyond me.
In a more specific category, where individual pieces of journalistic work are being judged, it might be alright.
But surely not one where a person’s management and leadership skills (as well as their achievements) are the things up for scrutiny - and where “nominees may write or co-write their own entry statements of up to 500 words” along with “a letter of support from a supervisor or manager”.
Anyway, roll on the 2026 awards when 2025’s work will actually be judged.
It’s extraordinary to think that C**t-gate could still be a factor in another 12 months, but it’s a small industry - and one that’s unfortunately only getting smaller.
Next year will indeed be interesting. Sadly, the whole industry has become very incestuous. Keith Lynch did some "exposes" during covid as the "explainer" of the science, that were complete fabrications of half truths and lies not to mention ad hominem attacks, so no surprise that he wins an award.