National announces that it will reintroduce prescription fees, and it’s immediately interpreted as an attack on women and linked with Luxon’s personal position on abortion.
A microphone picks up a comment from Luxon about New Zealand being wet, whiny and inward-looking, and it becomes the political furore-du-jour.
A journalist discovers that the National leader arranged for the use of a taxpayer-funded Tesla, which he’s entitled to do, and he’s attacked as a hypocrite because his party opposed government subsidies for buyers of e-cars.
See what’s going on here? They’re all variants of “Gotcha!” journalism, the purpose of which is to make the target look bad, stupid or both. The odd thing is that the person in the media cross-hairs is invariably the National leader, just as it was under the hapless Judith Collins.
It should go without saying that all politicians are fair game. Having put themselves forward for office and persuaded us to vote for them (or at least for their party, since under MMP most politicians are not directly answerable to the electors), they invite our critical scrutiny. Exposing chicanery, inconsistency and double-talk in politics is a legitimate – indeed, essential – journalistic function. No party should be spared.
And it’s not as if Luxon and National are alone in feeling the heat. Labour too has been under pressure for all sorts of reasons: cabinet ministers failing to sort out obvious conflicts of interest or correct misstatements to the House, another abandoning ship, the health and education sectors in turmoil, crime rampant, living costs out of control, the economy in recession, farmers in rebellious mood … .
The media have publicised these issues, as they must if they expect to hold onto their steadily diminishing public respect and trust. Labour is the party in power, after all, and its actions and policies affect everyone. These are real issues that have an impact on the country’s wellbeing, not only now but far into the future.
For that reason, government is where media scrutiny should be most intense. National, by comparison, can only present itself as a government-in-waiting, a role in which its statements have no real bearing on people’s lives, at least for now.
That’s not to say National’s feet shouldn’t be held to the fire if its policies and promises don’t stack up. Yet something seems seriously out of whack in the way political reporters repeatedly attempt to stir up controversy over National Party flubs and gaffes that are essentially inconsequential. Artificially confected issues are taking priority over real ones to the point where you could be excused for wondering whether the media regard it as their duty to divert attention from the government’s failings.
Certainly, I don’t see Chris Hipkins or Grant Robertson being subjected to the same aggressive examination as Luxon, other than by Mike Hosking in his Tuesday morning interviews with the PM. The “Gotcha!” game seems to be played almost exclusively at the expense of right-of-centre politicians.
However I can confirm that it’s having an effect, if not the intended one. It’s made me feel some sympathy for Luxon when previously I regarded him and many of his shadow cabinet ministers with disdain.
Let’s take the above examples one by one.
■ Answering questions about immigration settings at a public meeting in Christchurch, Luxon said: “Immigration's always got to be linked to our economic agenda and our economic agenda says we need people.
“I mean, here's the deal: essentially New Zealand stopped replacing itself in 2016.
“I encourage all of you to go out there, have more babies if you wish, that would be helpful.”
Cue splenetic fury from media who bizarrely saw it as pointing to a scenario in which women are made to stay home and breed. Margaret Atwood (author of The Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopian story in which a patriarchal regime forces women to produce children) has a lot to answer for.
Cushla Norman of TVNZ appeared to lapse into a momentary state of delirium when she asked National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis whether Luxon was aware of Lebensborn, Nazi Germany’s policy of creating racially pure Aryans. The only possible excuse for Norman’s question, which was grossly offensive if intended seriously, was that she was briefly unhinged by outrage.
Luxon subsequently tried to pass off his comment as tongue-in-cheek, but he needn’t have. It’s a fact that the birth rate has fallen to below replacement level, meaning that if present trends continue New Zealand may not have enough workers to support an ageing population – a serious problem now afflicting Japan.
Increased immigration is one way around the problem; increasing the birth rate is another. Luxon was entitled to raise it as an issue that we should start thinking about. But the media, fixated as they are with gender politics, immediately saw it as a threat to women’s autonomy – ignoring the fact that Luxon raised it merely as a possibility, and in any case couldn’t make it happen even if he wanted to.
He and Willis then erred by trying to explain the comment away as a joke, which was one step short of apologising. By doing so they risked creating the impression that the outcry over Luxon’s comment, irrational though it was, might have been valid.
Luxon and Willis need to understand that trying to ingratiate themselves with aggressive, sanctimonious journalists gets them nowhere. They would earn more public respect if they learned to stand up for themselves in the face of fatuous media hectoring.
■ The reaction to National’s prescription fees policy was similarly infected by identity politics fever. The promise to reverse Labour’s axing of fees will affect all prescriptions, but was widely framed in the media as an attack on women’s access to contraception.
Newshub headlined its story Election 2023: National to make women pay fee for contraception prescription if elected. The first line of Amelia Wade’s story read “The National Party says it will reintroduce the fee for contraception prescriptions if it wins the election”, thus creating the impression – I suspect deliberately – that National had specifically targeted contraception.
In fact Newshub could just as legitimately have angled its story on the policy’s impact on injured rugby players having to pay for anti-inflammatories or people needing cold and flu remedies, because they’ll be affected too. By presenting the policy as anti-women, Newshub turned the announcement into a scare story about the danger for women of voting National.
Luxon probably didn’t realise it at the time, but he became a marked man when, in 2021, he said he was pro-life and regarded abortion as tantamount to murder. It’s a moral position he was entitled to take, but it meant that every statement he makes about women’s issues is bound to be skewed by reporters who view opposition to abortion as tantamount to misogyny.
■ That brings us to the “wet and whiny” episode, when a 1News microphone caught Luxon making apparently disparaging remarks about New Zealanders.
Fair cop, you might say – except that it was another “Gotcha!” moment which, in the context of the other recent “Gotcha!” moments, looked suspiciously like part of a media gang-up.
Remember, again, that National is not in power. Luxon’s careless off-the-cuff comments don’t have any real consequences. Yet the media seem obsessed with catching him out, just as they were with Judith Collins during her ill-fated and inept spell as National leader.
Even Luxon’s explanation – that he wasn’t talking about New Zealanders so much as the demoralising effects of the Labour government (although he didn’t make that as clear as he might have) – was spun in a way that made it look feeble and unconvincing.
Here’s a suggestion for the National leader: don’t back-pedal and don’t look like you’re constantly apologising and retreating. Own what you say.
Luxon could have turned the “wet and whiny” controversy to his advantage by doubling down and lamenting the country’s low morale under Labour. The media would have lashed themselves into a frenzy, but many voters would have nodded their heads in agreement. At the very least, they might have respected Luxon for being up-front. A bit of bluntness would be refreshing. As it is, he too often seems cowed in the face of media attacks and ends up resorting to bland, hollow corporate-speak.
■ And so to the non-issue of the taxpayer-funded Tesla, which Luxon reportedly asked for – as he was entitled to do as Opposition leader – before changing his mind. NZ Herald deputy political editor Thomas Coughlan, who broke the story, framed it as hypocrisy, given that National had slammed Labour’s policy of subsidising wealthy Tesla buyers through the clean-car discount.
This is what’s known as false equivalence. There is no contradiction between Luxon asking to use a government-provided Tesla while also objecting to taxpayers’ money being spent to help the Remuera and Thorndon elites acquire them on the cheap. After all, the Opposition leader is entitled to a state-funded, “self-drive” (as opposed to chauffeur-driven) car, and it makes no difference whether it’s a Tesla, a Ford or whatever. Taxpayers would pick up the tab regardless. Even Herald political editor Clare Trevett acknowledged on RNZ this morning that the car is a legitimate perk of office.
Coughlan reported, incidentally, that “horrified staff” talked Luxon out of getting a Tesla, indicating that his advisers were intimidated by the possibility of adverse media coverage. There’s part of the problem, right there; I suspect he’s poorly served by excessively risk-averse minders.
Footnote: “Gotcha!” journalism isn’t confined to national politics. There was another egregious example last week – again in the Herald – when Wellington city councillor Nicola Young was falsely and absurdly accused of racism.
During a council discussion about a proposed Chinese garden on the Wellington waterfront, Young referred to it as the “Uyghurs’ Park”. It was obvious, from the way she immediately corrected herself, that it was tongue-in-cheek, but you had to wade two-thirds of the way through reporter Melissa Nightingale’s overwrought story to see what Young was getting at.
She was alluding to the source of funding for the garden, which is reportedly coming from Wellington’s sister cities in inland China rather than the local Chinese community, as originally proposed. But former Green Party councillor David Lee, who is Chinese, emailed councillors challenging them to “call out” what he called an "offensive soundbite". Somehow Lee managed to interpret Young’s words as showing “total contempt for the Chinese community”. Really?
Predictably, Young’s fellow councillor Tamatha Paul – never slow to stir the identity politics pot – and race relations commissioner Meng Foon joined with gusto in condemning Young, although neither took the trouble to explain just how her comment could be construed as racist. Certainly, many Herald readers would have been left scratching their heads.
I know Young and suspect her main failing, an inexcusable one, is that she’s a conservative on a council still dominated – in terms of noise, if not numbers – by far-Left activists. The attack on her bore all the hallmarks of a political hit job in which the Herald and its reporter obligingly colluded.
In the meantime, Wellington continues to slide ever deeper into a hole. Retailers are abandoning the CBD because crime and antisocial behaviour have become intolerable. Last year, the city recorded the largest fall in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s rankings of the world’s most liveable cities – from fourth to 50th. But the capital’s benighted and betrayed citizens can rest assured that councillors like Paul are tirelessly championing their best interests.
Wellington is dying, and even its woke-friendly daily paper The Post – whose precursor titles celebrated the city as “Absolutely Positively Wellington” and the “coolest little capital” – can't ignore the evidence of its terminal condition.
The media have publicised these issues, as they must if they expect to hold onto their steadily diminishing public respect and trust. Labour is the party in power, after all, and its actions and policies affect everyone. These are real issues that have an impact on the country’s wellbeing, not only now but far into the future.
For that reason, government is where media scrutiny should be most intense. National, by comparison, can only present itself as a government-in-waiting, a role in which its statements have no real bearing on people’s lives, at least for now.
That’s not to say National’s feet shouldn’t be held to the fire if its policies and promises don’t stack up. Yet something seems seriously out of whack in the way political reporters repeatedly attempt to stir up controversy over National Party flubs and gaffes that are essentially inconsequential. Artificially confected issues are taking priority over real ones to the point where you could be excused for wondering whether the media regard it as their duty to divert attention from the government’s failings.
Certainly, I don’t see Chris Hipkins or Grant Robertson being subjected to the same aggressive examination as Luxon, other than by Mike Hosking in his Tuesday morning interviews with the PM. The “Gotcha!” game seems to be played almost exclusively at the expense of right-of-centre politicians.
However I can confirm that it’s having an effect, if not the intended one. It’s made me feel some sympathy for Luxon when previously I regarded him and many of his shadow cabinet ministers with disdain.
Let’s take the above examples one by one.
■ Answering questions about immigration settings at a public meeting in Christchurch, Luxon said: “Immigration's always got to be linked to our economic agenda and our economic agenda says we need people.
“I mean, here's the deal: essentially New Zealand stopped replacing itself in 2016.
“I encourage all of you to go out there, have more babies if you wish, that would be helpful.”
Cue splenetic fury from media who bizarrely saw it as pointing to a scenario in which women are made to stay home and breed. Margaret Atwood (author of The Handmaid’s Tale, a dystopian story in which a patriarchal regime forces women to produce children) has a lot to answer for.
Cushla Norman of TVNZ appeared to lapse into a momentary state of delirium when she asked National’s deputy leader Nicola Willis whether Luxon was aware of Lebensborn, Nazi Germany’s policy of creating racially pure Aryans. The only possible excuse for Norman’s question, which was grossly offensive if intended seriously, was that she was briefly unhinged by outrage.
Luxon subsequently tried to pass off his comment as tongue-in-cheek, but he needn’t have. It’s a fact that the birth rate has fallen to below replacement level, meaning that if present trends continue New Zealand may not have enough workers to support an ageing population – a serious problem now afflicting Japan.
Increased immigration is one way around the problem; increasing the birth rate is another. Luxon was entitled to raise it as an issue that we should start thinking about. But the media, fixated as they are with gender politics, immediately saw it as a threat to women’s autonomy – ignoring the fact that Luxon raised it merely as a possibility, and in any case couldn’t make it happen even if he wanted to.
He and Willis then erred by trying to explain the comment away as a joke, which was one step short of apologising. By doing so they risked creating the impression that the outcry over Luxon’s comment, irrational though it was, might have been valid.
Luxon and Willis need to understand that trying to ingratiate themselves with aggressive, sanctimonious journalists gets them nowhere. They would earn more public respect if they learned to stand up for themselves in the face of fatuous media hectoring.
■ The reaction to National’s prescription fees policy was similarly infected by identity politics fever. The promise to reverse Labour’s axing of fees will affect all prescriptions, but was widely framed in the media as an attack on women’s access to contraception.
Newshub headlined its story Election 2023: National to make women pay fee for contraception prescription if elected. The first line of Amelia Wade’s story read “The National Party says it will reintroduce the fee for contraception prescriptions if it wins the election”, thus creating the impression – I suspect deliberately – that National had specifically targeted contraception.
In fact Newshub could just as legitimately have angled its story on the policy’s impact on injured rugby players having to pay for anti-inflammatories or people needing cold and flu remedies, because they’ll be affected too. By presenting the policy as anti-women, Newshub turned the announcement into a scare story about the danger for women of voting National.
Luxon probably didn’t realise it at the time, but he became a marked man when, in 2021, he said he was pro-life and regarded abortion as tantamount to murder. It’s a moral position he was entitled to take, but it meant that every statement he makes about women’s issues is bound to be skewed by reporters who view opposition to abortion as tantamount to misogyny.
■ That brings us to the “wet and whiny” episode, when a 1News microphone caught Luxon making apparently disparaging remarks about New Zealanders.
Fair cop, you might say – except that it was another “Gotcha!” moment which, in the context of the other recent “Gotcha!” moments, looked suspiciously like part of a media gang-up.
Remember, again, that National is not in power. Luxon’s careless off-the-cuff comments don’t have any real consequences. Yet the media seem obsessed with catching him out, just as they were with Judith Collins during her ill-fated and inept spell as National leader.
Even Luxon’s explanation – that he wasn’t talking about New Zealanders so much as the demoralising effects of the Labour government (although he didn’t make that as clear as he might have) – was spun in a way that made it look feeble and unconvincing.
Here’s a suggestion for the National leader: don’t back-pedal and don’t look like you’re constantly apologising and retreating. Own what you say.
Luxon could have turned the “wet and whiny” controversy to his advantage by doubling down and lamenting the country’s low morale under Labour. The media would have lashed themselves into a frenzy, but many voters would have nodded their heads in agreement. At the very least, they might have respected Luxon for being up-front. A bit of bluntness would be refreshing. As it is, he too often seems cowed in the face of media attacks and ends up resorting to bland, hollow corporate-speak.
■ And so to the non-issue of the taxpayer-funded Tesla, which Luxon reportedly asked for – as he was entitled to do as Opposition leader – before changing his mind. NZ Herald deputy political editor Thomas Coughlan, who broke the story, framed it as hypocrisy, given that National had slammed Labour’s policy of subsidising wealthy Tesla buyers through the clean-car discount.
This is what’s known as false equivalence. There is no contradiction between Luxon asking to use a government-provided Tesla while also objecting to taxpayers’ money being spent to help the Remuera and Thorndon elites acquire them on the cheap. After all, the Opposition leader is entitled to a state-funded, “self-drive” (as opposed to chauffeur-driven) car, and it makes no difference whether it’s a Tesla, a Ford or whatever. Taxpayers would pick up the tab regardless. Even Herald political editor Clare Trevett acknowledged on RNZ this morning that the car is a legitimate perk of office.
Coughlan reported, incidentally, that “horrified staff” talked Luxon out of getting a Tesla, indicating that his advisers were intimidated by the possibility of adverse media coverage. There’s part of the problem, right there; I suspect he’s poorly served by excessively risk-averse minders.
Footnote: “Gotcha!” journalism isn’t confined to national politics. There was another egregious example last week – again in the Herald – when Wellington city councillor Nicola Young was falsely and absurdly accused of racism.
During a council discussion about a proposed Chinese garden on the Wellington waterfront, Young referred to it as the “Uyghurs’ Park”. It was obvious, from the way she immediately corrected herself, that it was tongue-in-cheek, but you had to wade two-thirds of the way through reporter Melissa Nightingale’s overwrought story to see what Young was getting at.
She was alluding to the source of funding for the garden, which is reportedly coming from Wellington’s sister cities in inland China rather than the local Chinese community, as originally proposed. But former Green Party councillor David Lee, who is Chinese, emailed councillors challenging them to “call out” what he called an "offensive soundbite". Somehow Lee managed to interpret Young’s words as showing “total contempt for the Chinese community”. Really?
Predictably, Young’s fellow councillor Tamatha Paul – never slow to stir the identity politics pot – and race relations commissioner Meng Foon joined with gusto in condemning Young, although neither took the trouble to explain just how her comment could be construed as racist. Certainly, many Herald readers would have been left scratching their heads.
I know Young and suspect her main failing, an inexcusable one, is that she’s a conservative on a council still dominated – in terms of noise, if not numbers – by far-Left activists. The attack on her bore all the hallmarks of a political hit job in which the Herald and its reporter obligingly colluded.
In the meantime, Wellington continues to slide ever deeper into a hole. Retailers are abandoning the CBD because crime and antisocial behaviour have become intolerable. Last year, the city recorded the largest fall in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s rankings of the world’s most liveable cities – from fourth to 50th. But the capital’s benighted and betrayed citizens can rest assured that councillors like Paul are tirelessly championing their best interests.
Wellington is dying, and even its woke-friendly daily paper The Post – whose precursor titles celebrated the city as “Absolutely Positively Wellington” and the “coolest little capital” – can't ignore the evidence of its terminal condition.
27 comments:
Trying to appease an entity whose only purpose is your elimination is futile.
If they aren't upset then Luxon isn't doing his job.
I have visited Wellington three times since June last year, each stay for four days re supplying items for auctions, and I am unsure what to make of it.
It seems less busy that back in the 80s or late 90s-early 2000s.
I always visit the museums including Te Papa, with its inevitable Captain Cook bad man item with cannon and words by an academic of correct view , before you enter the zone on immigrants.
Wellington Museum had a section (Sept) where someone was chanting about Maori women victimisation, It seemed to be a political platform. Out of place maybe but there to enforce a view. Shops are boring these days. Cuba St restaurants: Food quality average but it is a competitive period in contrained times.
Presumably a majority of voters want what is unfolding.
Anyway I got back to NP on Saturday, felt weird and am now relaxing in isolation off work with Covid for the first time. I got a bonus on this trip!!
Nats and Act must be aware that even a side joke or satirical somewhere among people you assume to be of like minds will be passed on to the correct media for reprisals. Smiles conceal enemies.
Meng Foon just quit a small money matter conflict of interest ...well he will be able to jump in and condemn from a less high moral precipice now
That outrageous headline regarding National "charging for contraceptives" is totally and deliberately misleading.
The fact is that all prescriptions carry the $5 per item fee. So your paracetamol, antibiotics, blood pressure meds etc are all $5 per item (normally for a 3 month supply)
For a prescription for the pill (oral contraceptive) it is actually cheaper. It's $5 for SIX months supply, which is $10 per year !!!
Karl, another excellent post. Thank you.
For some time I have wondered whether New Zealand ought to have a Regulator of journalists and would welcome your opinion as a wise journalist in good standing.
If you are a police officer, a lawyer, a financial advisor, an insurance salesman, a health professional of any description, an accountant, a teacher, or (even) a Real Estate Agent, they all have regulators or professional bodies that accept complaints from the public and they can impose sanctions ranging from censure, supervision, financial penalties or even expulsion.
For journalists in New Zealand we have the Media Council or Broadcasting Standards but it is the journalist’s employer who is the one complained of and adjudged on, and not the actual offending journalist who is sanctioned (and who often goes un-named in any decision). There are simply no meaningful personal consequences for individual rogue journalists and any outrageous writings they publish.
Is there value in requiring anyone working as a reporter or journalist to be licenced and to have to meet the good character requirements that so many of the above-listed professions require of its members? Perhaps licence renewal every couple of years where their objectiveness can be reviewed?
Obviously we don’t want to cower courageous investigative journalism that uncovers corruption or wrong-doing but surely there ought be remedies for the public (and even politicians) in making formal complaints against such deliberately mischievous partisan reporting of the type you describe so well above, and for which the individual journalist is held personally liable, rather than his/her employer simply being told to publish an apology on page 15.
If this is not a goer, than at the very least hefty fines (of the magnitude imposed on employers whose employees are injured in workplace accidents) could be imposed on the journalist’s employer as means of forcing/encouraging the employer to manage renegade journalists more appropriately.
What do you think? Something has to be done to return journalism in this country to the respected state it once enjoyed with the public.
Chris Griffiths, Auckland
Yes, covid is rife in Wellington .
Its a week off for a wee cough.
At least , from your comments ,
you didn't contract the more prevalent virus that is infantilism.
It affects the space in the brain where the intellect usually resides.
You probably unwittingly met many carriers, that would explain feeling weird when you got home.
Get well soon Paul, I'm glad you managed to escape.
Well said Karl.
Many of us recognize the problem and heavily discount anything the media say or totally ignore them altogether. Today's journalists have the mentality of 12 year-olds and are very Left in what passes for their thinking. But Luxon does need to learn to stand his ground.
As for Wellington, I have lived here for 50 years and I am angry about the unfolding disaster this Council is inflicting on the city - I truly wonder who the fools are who vote for them. It's now a city in terminal decline and we regularly contemplate getting out - the only reservation is finding access to a GP and medical services elsewhere as our Health system collapses.
And, surprise surprise, this is getting next to no coverage in MSM.
I have wondered about a statutory audit of media organisations with particular focus on funding. Along the same lines as political parties so we can have confidence that overseas interests aren't controlling editorial output.
Good point Phil, I have often wondered who funds Stuff these days and the pap they promote.
Chris Griffiths,
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution.
The part of me that deplores journalistic bias and malpractice says yes to the idea of a regulatory authority. The part of me that's intuitively suspicious of regulatory bodies says no.
So much depends on who's doing the regulating, how they're appointed, and by whom. The Law Society, for example, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I don't think its disciplinary committee strikes fear into the hearts of the legal elite.
My impression, although I can't substantiate it, is that over time, regulatory bodies are prone to capture by the groups they are supposed to police. I suspect this applies, at least to some extent, to both the Media Council and the BSA. Sir John Jeffries, who chaired what was then the Press Council from 1997 till 2005, was aware of this danger and tried to distance the council from the newspaper industry.
I also note that the recently retired chair of the Independent (so-called) Police Conduct Authority, Judge Colin Doherty, obviously felt compromised by his reliance on the police in the conduct of his inquiries, and by his limited powers to crack down on rogue cops.
The short answer, then, is that I'm sceptical about the effectiveness of quasi-statutory mechanisms for enforcing balanced, fair and honest journalism, much as the idea might appeal.
To Unknown, who posted at 10.25: sorry, but much as I like some of what you say, I won't publish unsubstantiated and potentially defamatory statements about identifiable people.
A journalist's licence would spark allegations of control etc from the very side that seems to want controls on everything else.
I will diverge here if I may to explain about the benefits or otherwise of licences.
Some licences or Certificates of Approval (such as by the PSPLA for security ) mean less than many might think, sadly.
When I left Stuff in 2015 I spent a year off travelling here and there etc then decided why not be a security chap (why would one, one may ask? ). Well pay was not the issue (starting rate then $15.25...now $23.65). A chance to keep busy, meet people (not always the nicest I can relate some incidents, it isn't always ''fun'').
The odd hours suited me. So...I was hired promptly by a firm...everyone seems to be actually...and then did ''training''. Levels 1 and parts of 2 and 3...focusing on confrontation management and de- escalation .
We did an eight- hour course with a South African ex military ex SA security chap, who was good. Then we did a test, mix of answers and tick the right box. And some physical stuff ie distancing, arms, balance. I took it seriously and like some others was shocked at the end when the local security firm ops manager and the trainer went round looking over the papers telling people who had made errors what to change.
We were then told not to worry as everyone passes. As we did. One chap told me he answered a question about who would he go to in a certain crisis. He wrote Donald Duck as he could see it was b.s.
He passed, similar age to me and doesn't take fools gladly on sites. All these tests are recorded on NZQA as real qualifications .
Our courses are appalling compared with Australia's, which last a few weeks . Those can extend, where appropriate, to fireams.
We have hired ''security'' staff who have had to be sidelined fast as they have ''issues'' of aggression and worse. They ''slip through'' the checks initially. Or lie somehow.
I swear this is true. I can't speak for all firms or courses but anecdotes from newer colleagues and other firms say it is quite normal.
What is my point?
Does self regulation work? Or how to we apply the regulation. I can see the two-faced outry from the Illibs now, who want to police everything else.
An audit on funding would be good but the Illibs only want that done where selected foreign funding is believed. From their own side it is fine as they the truth and the light of virtue
Alex, thanks for the kind thoughts. I'm on the mend. It is a strange one into its roving facial and body aches phase. I work in a mental ward and while the Illibs would say that is highly appropriate, not while I am like this. It keeps flaring up there too.
Further to my comment the obvious question is why does no one speak up....the vast majority of applicants are desperate for work. I did mention it to a politician but no one interested. The security industry needs proper independent training and monitoring . I am doing only a shift or two a week now and have less to lose than others who ''don't want to know or rock the boat''.
I suspect many of the so-called aggressive, sanctimonious journalists are millennials – although their managers may be Gen X. Millennials in particular appear to be wired quite differently, no doubt influenced by the changing technological, social and political environment they grew up in and the precarious world they now find themselves in. I read somewhere recently that it was once the responsibility of the fourth estate to speak truth to power but now it is more likely that the new breed of journalists and broadcasters go after scalps – and the more illustrious the better. Yes, indeed, it goes without saying that all politicians should invite our critical scrutiny and are fair game. But there is a difference: seeking the gotcha moment is not quite the same as speaking truth to power. Gotcha moments are just a short step from the comedian’s parody of getting a politician to directly answer the question. Good for living room TV but hardly newsworthy. Add to this an often aggressive and sanctimonious attitude, well, the results may be good for ratings but not much else.
You’re right Karl, those in the spotlight would earn more public respect if they learned to stand up for themselves in the face of fatuous media hectoring. That’s if they not into deception big time, and let’s be frank, that’s often a big if when it comes to many a politician. Deception is perhaps an unkind word, replete with negative connotation; perhaps the behaviour of a good many politicians could best be described as obscuring the truth, a kind of default occupational trait. Simply semantics? Little wonder the millennial journalists see the exposing of chicanery, inconsistency and double-talk, as you eloquently put is, as a legitimate pursuit. Best to be straight up and tell it as it is.
In the case of Luxton’s suggestion New Zealand needs more babies, the comment is clearly connected to falling demographics (fact) and economic need (fact, but granted discussion of economic immigration can be seen as ideologically driven). But should be no issues there. Subsequent journalistic reference to a dystopian future in which a patriarchal regime forces women to produce children is however simply far-fetched. Tabloid journalism. Had it been put to Luxton at the time he could have put an end to it then and there (presumably). The matter of the Tesla rebate is however a bit different and does insight the target of inconsistency. So I guess, a dollar each way.
I'm attaching one of the most vile, degrading attacks on Luxon I have seen so far which appeared in yesterday's (Dominion) Post: https://t.co/AvMF0Bwre5 This isn't journalism, it's a naked attempt to provoke hatred. But I'm sure Luxon will have to contend with worse to come. The question is, who's funding this material?
It's paywalled, but the headline gives a gentle clue ...
The article no longer paywalled as they seek to expand the message. It's a classic example of "gutter press" from a jumped up little prick doing the government's work.
I think it behoves us to keep foremost in our minds that these rabid, raving media 'journos' are part of a cabal, with predetermined agendas to sink anything vaguely or definitively right-of-centre.
They also have a vested interest in that their salaries are - in part - coming from taxpayers' generously gifted dollars to their employer under the utterly shonky, $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund (Karl refers to it as the Pravda Project). "Independent, impartial, what's that?"
Those 'journos' have a small following of equally OCD 'wokies' who encourage the j's to believe that people actually concur with what they invent, with a smattering of fact and quotes thrown in.
The real test will come on 14 October of this year, but the vexing question is what to do thereafter with the j's who have so assiduously applied their dark art to the publications that cause us to rage and rail.
This is exactly what I've been thinking for months, only you've said it much better than I could have. Thanks, Jayne Hunter
Can anyone supply a headline or a link to The (Dom) Post article Trev1, Karl & Gary are referring to above? I can’t seem to get that link to work at all. Thanks.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/nz-news/350020984/a-terrifying-right-wing-boot-stamping-on-our-faces
I read David Cormack's column yesterday but it appears to have retreated behind a paywall again. For what it's worth, I didn't think it was unusual or exceptionable. Pretty much the standard Stuff house line and entirely predictable, given the writer's declared Green Party allegiance. What set it apart was the hysterical and inflammatory headline, which didn't appear to be supported by the content. I wonder whether someone at Stuff had second thoughts and took the phrase "terrifying right-wing boot stamping on our faces" out of the column but inadvertently left the headline intact.
Another 'oh so true' post Karl. Regarding the “gotchas”, they are invariably puerile and childish attempts at criticism where their measure is often of an immeasurably small mind. David Cormack and his attempted hit job identified by Trev1 being a good example.
The RNZ enquiry will be interesting but only if it has breadth. Paul Thompson is trying very hard to be shocked & stunned and would you credit it, even being quoted as "shocked & stunned" at what has occurred. When this bias was pointed out to RNZ, Willie Jackson and others more than a year ago, RNZ remained silent and did not respond to the complainant. Thompson will not want this enquiry to look at anything that may uncover the obvious bias he has overseen during his tenure, all the more reason it does.
Mick Hall is not alone at RNZ in his massaging and re-creation of 'the truth', the protection of the govt and its ministers and relentless attacks on the opposition (Nats and ACT basically). A minor but classic example from the 8:00am news bulletin just yesterday was an item on the Meng Foon fiasco. It ended with the comment that "National and Kiri Allan received donations from Foon" - subtle but dissembling none the less.
Karl is correct to say that Luxon needs to up his game. Luxon seems to be on a slow improvement curve but still needs to show us he is a character and conviction politician prepared to take part in vigorous debate taking on all comers. No jokes. No apologies. No nuances. No backtracking. No kowtowing to the media.
Luxon’s comment on New Zealand’s falling fertility rate was greeted with derision and ridicule by some news media elites. Thomas Coughlan in the NZ Herald 15th June : “Luxon and National do not think the remark (“I encourage all of you to go out there, have more babies if you wish, that would be helpful”) was particularly offensive”.
Offensive is a strong descriptive. Does Thomas Coughlan therefore take offence at any politician who offers an alternative view?
Maybe the news media elites have not noticed that New Zealand’s fertility rate/replacement rate has been falling year on year since 1977 when abortion was “legalised” in New Zealand. Full legalisation did not take place until a couple of years ago – mainly courtesy of Andrew Little who sponsored the legislation.
Falling fertility is a global problem. It has been highlighted by way of a cover story and back up articles in The Economist (3rd June issue). The story was possibly a trigger for Luxon’s remarks. I am not an economist by trade or anything else but I found the stories to be rather grim, bleak, spooky.
I should have added that if the headline on Cormack's column was a sub-editor's feverish extrapolation of what Cormack wrote, unsupported by the actual text, then whoever was responsible has done a Mick Hall (Hall being the RNZ journalist who tampered with stories about the war in Ukraine).
Thanks Karl. Its not behind a paywall at the moment so I had a read. As you say, its really just more of the typical anti-right stuff from STUFF as per usual. Which is why I never bother to read a word of it - except out of curiosity today.
The dramatic headline will no doubt do its job though & get the required response from those who will read it & join in the panic of the thought of a NACT govt…!
Exactly why there had to be a large photo of the writer included in the article seems a bit weird. He’s certainly no oil painting so its inclusion does him no favours.
It has always been thus with National Party leaders. Recently I went through my file of newspaper clippings from the John Key era as leader(including some from the esteemed author of this blog) and I was reminded of the visceral hatred that many media held toward him. Anthony Hubbard of the SST, in particular, never held back his absolute dislike of Key and English. It seemed that Key's unwavering popularity, wealth and perpetually cheerful demeanour sent many of the media over the edge.
Many persons who attended his weekly press conferences in the Beehive commented on how hostile the media were toward him and how remarkable he was in keeping them at bay.
If any National MP stepped out of line then every media outlet engaged in a frenetic attack demanding that MP need be sacked. Contrast that with Ardern/Hipkins, if an MP commits a serious misjudgement- the media barely raise a ripple.
Speaking of Ardern, has any Prime Minister faced less than scrutiny than her. She could lie, mislead, obfuscate, mistakenly call members of the public out and yet face only the cursory of examinations from Tova, Jenna, Jessica. When the Govt were seriously out of line such as the Vaccine debacle, MIQ fiasco then it would be the government or a minister who took the criticism - never Ardern. With the National govt 2008-17 no matter what the situation it always sheeted back to John Key.
This election campaign will be the same. A quip, a home truth from Luxon will be presented as a gaffe, or a serious misstep. His wealth and that he owns 7 homes will be constantly used against him. Anything to undermine public confidence in him. He best not worry about the media, in fact call them out on their bias. Meanwhile Labour will carry on serenely. Errors will be noted but not dwelled upon.
We are very poorly served by our media - Barry Soper, Heather du Plessis Allan and a small handful of others notable exceptions.
Post a Comment