Today the government told New Zealanders how it’s going to spend their money over the next three years. Yet a murder trial led both major channels’ evening news bulletins.

They were the day’s “top stories”: the budget and the Kahui case. Presenters on both stations gave a token nod to the economics of the country before launching into the most salacious story of recent weeks.

The saga of a family far more dysfunctional than the Simpsons could ever imagine has captivated the media. Two babies died from serious physical injuries and their father has been on trial for their murder. The hearing gave an insight into a sad world of drug addiction and violence.

The media got caught up in the scandal and let things get out of perspective. The death of two babies is awful, I’m not saying this isn’t important. But in my opinion its titillation factor – a look inside a dirty world which most of us only ever see in the movies – has made the story more prominent than it would be otherwise.

Full marks to Melissa Stokes for her report on child abuse in New Zealand on TV1 tonight. (Click here and follow the links to One News on 22 May 2008, Chapter Three). It was an excellent look at an issue which deserves to be a really hot topic right now. The report should have been given precedence over one run earlier showing a reporter asking the defendant’s father if the family are “looking forward to be going home tonight as a family together”. (What did they expect him to say? No, actually I quite enjoyed the trial of my son?)

The budget, lacking sex, drugs and violence, came in at second place.

The news executives (or was it the reporters?) thought it should be explained to us in language that they thought we could understand better. Rather than telling us tax rate changes, graphics on both channels started out by showing us examples of how much more money people on various incomes could expect after the rates are lowered.

Surely its more straightforward to hear that the bottom tax rate is dropping from 19.5 per cent to 12.5 per cent, rather than trying to work out what an extra X per week for someone earning $20,000 might mean for me?

Other posts by Katie Llanos-Small