■ My friend and former boss Robin Bromby, long domiciled in Australia but still a keen observer of New Zealand affairs, makes an interesting point in an email.
He asks, “When has a Wellington MP led his party to an election win? The last Wellington area MP to become PM after an election was Walter Nash in 1957. But the job now seems to be taken mainly by Aucklanders.”
Robin’s right, of course. Auckland dominance of politics used to be a point of controversy; now it seems to be accepted as the natural order of things. Jim Bolger was the last elected PM not from Auckland.
Chris Hipkins is from the Hutt, but he wasn’t elected as prime minister. Bill English – Wellington-based, though originally from Southland – is another who became prime minister as a result of his predecessor’s resignation. The same was true of Jenny Shipley, another South Islander.
Metropolitan dominance continues in the newly formed government. Shane Reti (Whangarei) and Louise Upston (Taupo) are the only senior ministers from outside Auckland and Wellington. The days of political heavy hitters from the provinces such as Norm Kirk and Keith Holyoake are long gone.
■ On Morning Report this morning, RNZ deputy political editor Craig McCulloch described the new coalition government as “a much more right-wing government than New Zealand has seen for some time”.
It was a revealing choice of terminology. Technically it’s accurate – but who can recall RNZ political reporters (or any mainstream media journalists for that matter) referring to the former government as "left-wing", still less noting that it was arguably the most left-wing in the country’s history?
In recent years the media have tended to favour the polite term “centre-right” for the National Party. Perhaps the inclusion of ACT and New Zealand First in the coalition means journalists will now feel justified in using “right-wing”, which carries unmistakeable connotations of disapproval. But why wasn’t the same labelling criterion applied to Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party? Is it, to paraphrase George Orwell, a case of left-wing good, right-wing bad?
To his credit, though, McCulloch made a point of highlighting the fact that seven of the 20 ministers in the new cabinet are of Maori descent – more than under Jacinda Ardern.
■ Later on the same show, Corin Dann interviewed James Shaw about the Green Party’s opposition to the proposed lifting of the ban on oil and gas exploration. The questioning could be described as friendly, gentle and polite. Shaw was allowed to speak virtually uninterrupted, as should be the case if you accept that the primary purpose of an interview is for the subject to get his or her points across.
That was followed by Ingrid Hipkiss interviewing oil and gas industry spokesman John Carnegie on the same issue. The tone was markedly different: more interruptions and generally more interrogative. Of course that may simply mean Hipkiss has a different interviewing style, but the contrast was noticeable.
Next up was the new prime minister, and this time Corin Dann adopted a much more adversarial approach than with Shaw – not hostile, exactly, but certainly a lot more aggressive, and with frequent interruptions. At times, especially on the subject of tobacco sales to minors, it was hard to avoid the impression that the rather excitable Dann was pushing a line of questioning driven by personal feelings.
At what point does an interview cross the line between being searching but neutral and one where personal opinion seems to get in the way? There’s no definitive answer to that question, but it’s worth recalling that Geoff Robinson spent nearly 40 years as host of Morning Report and never found it necessary to adopt a hectoring approach. He was never less than calm and polite and no one ever had a clue what his own feelings were. Were his listeners any less informed? I don’t think so.
More to the point, however: was Jacinda Ardern, in her regular appearances on Morning Report, subjected to the same robust treatment as Luxon this morning? I don’t recall it happening, but no doubt that’s my faulty memory.
8 comments:
You could add Jim Mora to the very small list of non aggressive interviewers from RNZ who managed to be politically neutral with their interviewing style.
When did the idea that a journalist or interviewer must be aggressive with their interviewees originate? When did point scoring rather than listening become the objective? Why is it tolerated on our publicly funded broadcasting platforms?
I do hope this new Government dials back taxpayer support for the media, particularly private enterprise media like Stuff. Let’s sell the state owned media channels. Like the ABC in Australia, they are incapable of objectivity and have outlived their usefulness.
Interesting, Corin Dann is generally more balanced than his comrades.
The legacy media might describe National as centre right, but they also describe Ministers from the Lange Government as "Alt-right" so their perspective is highly suspect. Left to its own devices National has for a long time been centre left.
One must bear in mind when defining a left right political following in NZ any center would have to be purely arbitrary.
For example if everyone was left leaning where do you draw the center line.
NZ had become so politically identical over the past two decades it was hard to determine a blue streak of any strength or significance....let alone one to make a call of being to the right.
It was inevitable then, for journalists and all concerned, the more the blue faded into pink the more the middle ground had to lean left.
All Kiwi's over time became unwitting fellow travelers as well as an audience to the only show in town.
As a long gone Kiwi, and one that before shipping out some 30 years ago, maintained that Winston should have been NZs first Maori prime minister. I have waited a long time for a day similar to this.
That he and Seymour now share in some of that glory I feel twice blessed.
Not only but also:
To think that there are folk still holding positions in media that can not only determine left from right, but have now declared two of our recent hero's as being in possession of true blue fighting blood.
It is indeed an all round heaven sent event
Methinks thou art too kind about your associates in what is nowadays the Mongrel Media - oops, MSM. Almost without exception, each and every one of their kind is pushing a predetermined, personal or corporate agenda, impartiality has been scrubbed from their handbook of definitions.
You recently wrote a piece about Kim Hill and her retirement from RNZ. Good riddance to her, but she was a leading example of the sort of rudeness we hear or see time and again from interviewers when a subject does not answer in substance or manner that has already been decided upon.
Stand by for a lot more vindictive and vinegary interviews of our politicians - except those of the medium-Left of course - in the weeks to come.
I have experience in the oil and gas industry and want to bore you all (ad nauseam I'm afraid) with some details on that and the baseless and dishonest concerns Shaw is trying on. I wasn't personally affected by what's detailed below, so I'm not be-moaning a personal loss, just an NZ-wide loss that hopefully will see a turnaround that will benefit the country.
There has always been complete hypocrisy from Ardern and the greens when it comes to the oil and gas offshore permit ban. This is on a number of fronts but two in particular.
The first and most obvious is the ban led to NZ importing millions of tonnes of dirty Indonesian coal to run the Huntly power station (a government controlled entity). The ban immediately led to foreign companies exiting NZ exploration due to sovereign risk and the Ardern-driven discouragement to find or supply more natural gas, a much cleaner fuel than coal. The importation of Indonesian coal, and related inescapable set of facts of increased emissions, would no doubt have been ignored in RNZ's interview with Shaw (which I haven't listened to). This factual situation just makes a fool of Shaw as a green politician. It meant and continues to mean the ban has been an emissions disaster, courtesy of Ardern's total lack of any commercial let alone analytical business knowledge in making such incredibly important decisions. Unfortunately, she never felt it necessary to let those fundamental elements of governance get in the way or become part of robust and informed decision making.
Second is the Ardern approach that completely defines her shallowness. She was a PM who practiced 'symbols over substance' in everything she did. Symbols over substance for her meant all you need to do is make a popular announcement and move on, nothing more is needed. This was 100% on display in the oil and gas permit ban. In the case of the ban (for New Plymouth, Taranaki and wider), many very high paying, taxpaying jobs and many local oil and gas related profitable businesses were lost. Individual Taranaki and NZ jobs and incomes went west (let alone international corporate O&G players exited NZ due to sovereign risk). Ardern's solution, include in the press release on the O&G ban was that there would be a "just transition" for these affected people and companies. You guessed it, there was a transition all right but what was lost was anything "just", as "just" ended up being the "transition" to it "just" happening. They "just" lost their jobs or they "just" personally left NZ or the companies "just} dropped their permits and went where they were wanted.
Unbelievably it would seem, Shane Jones may be the redeemer of NZ's the O&G industry - irony is pretty special really.
Does RNZ serve any useful purpose these days? I can only think of one reason for a publicly funded network which is to provide a means of communication during a major emergency such as the Kaikoura Earthquake, a role RNZ performed creditably in that event despite the failures of the emergency management agency. But we certainly shouldn't be paying for a cabal of Leftist activists to vent their spleen and push their partisan agenda over the airwaves every day.
Birdman makes some excellent points about the nonsensical ban on oil and gas exploration. Ardern's "nuclear-free moment" was an ideologically motivated, especially choreographed event to enhance her international brand at considerable cost to New Zealand's economy and credibility. I recall at the start of her term she kept the President of Indonesia waiting at Parliament to attend a "protest" calling for a ban by people waving professionally prepared posters decorated with Labour colours in a heavily staged manifestation of "popular opinion" that would not have been out of place in the Soviet bloc. And New Zealanders unbelievably lapped up this b/s.
" was Jacinda Ardern, in her regular appearances on Morning Report, subjected to the same robust treatment..?"
Well.. No she was not. She was on the pulpit and had the tame "Jess and Tova" team giving her soft patsy questions.
Nowadays, Jess and Tova etc are pursuing National politicians through carparks, waving fat microphones, shouting multiple questions.
This never happened to Jacinda Ardern.
It is hugely significant that New Zealand no longer has a Minister for Broadcasting. Willie Jackson's portfolio no longer exists. The closest we observe is National cabinet minister Melissa Lee as "Minister for Media and Communication" (with NZ First's Jenny Marcroft as Parliamantary Under-Secretary).
Bravo, Christopher Luxon : "Just why should a democratic country be subjected to a "Minister for Broadcasting"?? Such portfolio stinks of government interfering in the freedom of criticising government policy - as well as brainwashing of the New Zealand public.
Lee and Marcroft between them will easily make changes to Radio New Zealand and associated entities. This morning, for example, I listened to a so-called "interview" by Ingrid Hipkiss of her former boss, Willy Jackson (who appointed her!) - trying to get to the bottom of Winston Peters' accusation of bribery. Never before have I heard a more farcical, biased interview. Hipkiss never once challenged Jackson in any of his absurd statements. I think he himself was quite surprised to be able to state his exact same spiel twice - without challenges or interruptions.
Obviously Hipkiss must be sacked - unless she can develop into a proper, unbiased interviewer - as behoves a democratic government's attitude to independent media.
Post a Comment