Friday, November 10, 2023

My experience of censorship and what it tells us about the new culture of journalism

The Free Speech Union held its annual general meeting last weekend in Christchurch. I was part of a panel that discussed free speech and the media. The following were my introductory remarks, which refer to incidents previously covered on this blog. 

Two years ago I was invited to write a regular opinion column for the National Business Review, a paper for which I had once worked in the distant past. A contract was signed and I duly submitted my first column.

It was also my last. The co-editors of NBR disagreed with a couple of points I had made and wanted to delete two crucial paragraphs. I refused, the column never appeared, and the contract was torn up.

My column, ironically enough, was essentially about the culture wars and their chilling impact on public debate. In it I said, among other things, that a truly honest debate about race relations in New Zealand would acknowledge that while Maori had suffered damaging long-term consequences from colonisation, they had also benefited from the abolition of slavery, tribal warfare and cannibalism.

I also said that an honest debate would acknowledge that race relations in New Zealand had mostly been harmonious and respectful. 

One of the two co-editors proposed to delete those two paragraphs. I was told by email: “We want to avoid a hostile response for no real gain”. Now there’s editorial courage for you.

In fact it turned out that the real problem was that he disagreed with what I had said. It was his opinion that cannibalism, slavery and tribal warfare would have ended anyway regardless of colonisation, and he disputed my opinion that race relations had been mostly harmonious – this from a Scottish expatriate who had lived in New Zealand only a relatively short time, so had limited experience on which to base his opinion.

I invite you to consider the irony of my being contracted to write an opinion column, presumably because it was felt I had something worthwhile to say, and then being censored because my opinion was one the editor didn’t share.

In a past life as an editorial executive with a metropolitan daily newspaper, I spent more than 10 years dealing almost daily with columnists of every conceivable political stripe. In all that time, no column was censored because the paper disapproved of what was said. All that concerned us was that the columns shouldn’t be defamatory or factually incorrect.

It seems that on NBR, two other factors must be considered: the column must be one the editors agree with, and it mustn’t risk offending anyone.

My second example of censorship occurred last year. Some of you will be familiar with NZ Politics Daily, which is a collection of political news stories and opinion columns compiled by the respected political scientist Bryce Edwards and distributed every day by email. It’s an influential guide to what’s happening in politics.

A senior political journalist, a member of the parliamentary press gallery, objected to the fact that NZ Politics Daily sometimes included pieces that I had written and surreptitiously emailed Bryce Edwards urging him not to publish them.

This journalist described me as a racist and a misogynist. He concluded with the line: “I think your readers would do well not to be served up this trash.”

This was another first for me. It’s hardly unusual for journalists to disagree with each other or engage in bitchy personal rivalry, but to call for someone to be cancelled because you don’t approve of what they write crosses a very perilous threshold.

This journalist’s sneaky, would-be hatchet job – which Edwards rightly rebuffed – reinforced my suspicion that some journalists are more than merely ignorant of the importance of free speech in a liberal democracy. They are actively hostile to it.

To return to the NBR episode, I should say here that I absolutely defend the right of newspaper owners to decide what they will or will not publish. They must be free to say what they want, within the law, and even to suppress material they don’t like. That is part of the package of rights known as freedom of the press. But they must accept that it comes with a proviso.

Media owners need to understand their vital role in a liberal democracy as enablers of robust public debate. They also need to accept that if they abandon that role by taking it upon themselves to dictate and restrict the opinions the public is allowed to read and hear, they risk relinquishing whatever credibility and public respect they enjoy.

I’ve written two published works about press freedom in New Zealand, one in 1994 and another in 2005. When I wrote those, any threat to press freedom was seen principally as likely to come from the state.

But here we are in 2023, and press freedom is being steadily undermined from within, by people who seem not to value the traditions of openness and free speech that give the media their legitimacy and moral authority. They have repudiated a tradition of balance and fairness that has existed for the best part of one hundred years, and in the process they have fatally compromised their own standing. I don’t think anyone saw this coming.

The key problem here, as I see it, is that the media have abandoned their traditional role of trying to reflect society as it is. Instead they have positioned themselves as advocates for the sort of society they think we should be. This almost inevitably requires the exclusion of opinions that stand in the way of that vision.

Public opinion has become largely irrelevant. The media have set themselves above and apart from the communities they purport to serve, and in the process they have severed the vital connection that gives them their legitimacy. They have so compromised themselves that I think their future must be in doubt. Thank you.

The centrepiece of the Free Speech Union meeting was the keynote address by the distinguished British jurist and historian Lord Jonathan Sumption, which can be read here. It was a masterful and compelling summary of the attacks being made on freedom of speech and the reasons why they must be opposed.

17 comments:

  1. Hello, Karl:

    I went and had a look at the 'crew' of NBR. I looked at the young (and youngish) faces and their backgrounds.

    Your column never stood a chance. Any future columns would have drawn similar e-mails from the co-editors.

    - Paul Corrigan

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would seem that both your good self and Chris Trotter are on the same page.

    In an earlier commentary you referenced the fact that today most journalists are a product of academia not the school of life and hard knocks. Chris Trotter has made a similar point regarding the labour party and the now obvious fact the the "working man" no longer has any merit in the eyes of the labour party elite.

    We can lay most of the blame for this state of affairs at the feet of those members of academia that subscribe to the tenets of the "long march" but coupled with a distain for the ordinary bloke.

    Now that situation can not be totally laid at the feet of these earnest academics, the "she'll be right" attitude of the ordinary bloke is part of what has allowed them the freedom to do this and it will be the ordinary bloke that needs to wake up and begin the push back or before too long a lot more than free speech will have been removed from our "New Democracy" as advocated by labour and maori elite etc in 2023.

    In the interim, the "free press" as we knew it will cease to exist and few otside that bubble will mourn their passing.

    In my opinion!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was always told that a journalist writes something that someone does not want to be published.

    And that public relations is something someone wants to be published.

    Most so-called journalists are actually public relations writers.

    As someone who was involved in the creation of the NBR it is most disappointing that this once excellent publication has been diminished to mediocrity by so-called journalists practising as PR people, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It was an excellent speech by Sumption and just as impressive was his answering of questions from the floor. He provided a masterclass in how free speech also involves not necessarily agreeing but allowing a point to be made and in reply making clear your own position.
    The NBR is certainly a thin and timid shadow of its heyday - and the fact it has no cartoonist is very telling. Imagine anyone publishing Bob Brockie today...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Karl, after you had written a while ago on this blog about your experience with NBR's editors deciding to delete your assertion that race relations between Maori and Pakeha had been mostly harmonious, I posted a portion of your column on my FB page.
    I was surprised (but perhaps shouldn't have been) when a senior producer for one of television's current affairs shows commented that the NBR editor did the right thing because your statement was "racist" — and that she would have done exactly the same thing in his position.
    She was challenged by several people, including me (pointing out that, as it happens, Michael King had said exactly that) and she quickly disappeared and didn't further argue the point.
    But I realised just how hobbled the mainstream media is with similarly one-eyed "progressives" holding so many influential positions.
    — Graham Adams



    ReplyDelete
  6. I so agree. Free speech is the cornerstone of Western civilisation - and these days it is under attack as never before. Not by "Leftists", by the way. This in no way is a "Right" versus "Left" issue.

    You are not alone, Karl, in your defense of free speech. I must draw everybody's attention to a completely new popular movement - which in my estimation represents the most important political, motivational movement since Karl Marx - namely the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. Here is link to an interview of Konstantin Kisin by Australian politician John Andrson : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvv5kcecnp4

    ReplyDelete
  7. Andy Espersen I agree with you.
    It is not a traditional Left generated ''movement''. It seems to have evolved as an offshoot of that and other issues motivated movements. Some Labour (staunch often vote Green) associates (ex media) of mine are in that momentum. The term used seems to be ''progressives''. After all progress is good surely, it sounds good and implies those not in agreement are not.
    The media now refer to progressives rather than Left or Liberal etc.
    Under that label it is more about nationalism (selectively where appropriate such as Scottish separation or non-white ethnic nationalism) , race, gender figures highly. Identity politics is paramount. Democracy must be changed .
    One person one vote is deemed the slogan of the racist, misogynist, white old guard, old male, anti-trans etc. Climate change as a ''religion'' is another tool to shape support for policies that have other agendas (reducing or eliminating property rights, first dibs when sold to a racial group, extreme veganism etc)
    Free speech is dangerous, hateful and hurtful as defined by the minorities and so forth. If they want it banned it must be banned.
    The old Labour of being colour-blind, worker rights and ''equality'' have become a hazy mist on the horizon. The ''new view'' extends to cultural and arts superiority (snobbery) and a patronising view of those who don't align as philistines.

    The type of society they want is their own version of a Gilead .

    Our MSM has become assimilated into that, notably Stuff, local TV and the Herald to a larger extenet.
    One step in that is to remove the monarchy (good many would say but I would suggest not until we have overcome our treaty issues) and it is no coincidence that Paddy G. is about to launch a doco series towards that end.

    Various steps have been completed : The addition of race- based wards with voting rights, the adddition of clip-on iwi seats, some with voting rights, others not, on councils. Council officer roles in preparing reports and options and advisory roles have been acquired largely by those wanting an agenda (as here in NP with roading revamp/cycleway uproar) . Councillors often seem afraid to challenge recommendations and call for other options.
    Universities and other academic instituions and govt depts fall into line with the new narratives and requirements of word usage, pronouns, narratives in teaching. Attempts are made to silence opposition.

    The last step is to revamp the role of Parliament and the way elections are conducted and seats allocated under rules set by a version of the treaty that suits the agenda. That could be done by excluding candidates from standing unless they pledge allegiance to an unchangeable constitution crafted by those in power with the guidance of ''on-board'' judiciary. The Labour/Green/TMP bloc are a means to that end. A republic makes it easier to achieve.

    Those supporting the changes see the election result as merely a step backwards into a holding pattern until the next election before which there will be an intensive (MSM) campaign to change the govt and , this time, tighten the noose once and for all.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Paul Peters. It sounds alarmingly logical, esp as I've just had a chat about Parihaka with a pakeha believer.

      Delete
  8. Well put indeed, Paul Peters. Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century, wrote about the conflict between two political visions, the constrained and the unconstrained. What we are seeing now is that the unconstrained vision has run riot, run amok, all over the world - taking over governments and institutions everywhere : the very nature of human beings, the very nature of society, can be shaped just by issuing government decrees!!

    Discussing politics these days has developed simply into a discussion about the best way to achieve the utopia everybody agrees on - whereas discussing politics only a couple of generations ago was about how best to tackle the many problems we were facing - accepting as a given the unalterable nature of human beings, accepting reality.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kyle Reese,
    Thank you. Much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You hear mainstream-media journalists being accused of being "gatekeepers" and to a point that is correct, in that traditionally, a media with limited room such as the number of pages in a newspaper or the minutes in a radio or television news bulletin needs somebody to decide what news will go in those limited spaces and what order of importance to give it. It's actually curating as much as gatekeeping. Whatever you call it, it led to a very wide range of news and views being served up to a generally informed public in the pre-internet days when most homes bought a newspaper, listened to radio and watched the evening television news.

    The fragmentation of the formerly mainstream, once-dominant media caused by the growth of the internet means that most people now do not get a newspaper or watch the evening TV news. Today's gatekeepers are increasingly narrowing the range of views and topics they allow in the shrinking mainstream media. I am as worried about this as I am worried about the expansion of uncurated outlets on social media and elsewhere online, outlets ever more people are turning to, often out of distrust of the mainstream media, which is sinking further and further in public support here and overseas, according to regular reputable opinion polls.

    I am an optimist with my optimism based on the history of humanity which these past 500 years has been a history of technological, scientific, medical, educational and political progress which has produced a planet where more people are living longer, healthier, better-educated and more prosperous lives than ever before, and where despite Ukraine and Gaza, major wars have becoming far less frequent than at any time in history.

    Much of this progress has been the product of humanity having increasingly educated societies whose citizens have been better informed than ever before about what has been happening in those societies -- information that has largely come from a curated mainstream news media that rose to its position in society by fighting for free speech and the public's right to know, a fight that was often at great cost to the journalists and news outlets fighting that fight. When I now see journalists, academics and politicians expressing disdain, even contempt, for freedom of speech, and starting to describe democracy as a "colonial construct for White male power" then I start to question my long-term optimism for humanity's future. Free speech is as much a bedrock of humanity's progress as technology. Without free speech, I can't see a future with much progress.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry to have missed the AGM due to bloody covid, Sumption, you, Franks, O'Brien et al. I listened to the livestream as much as I could. Are the side sessions online too?
    The abandonment of scepticism is a tragedy & it beggars belief today's editors are wondering what's gone wrong in their time. No sympathy, just annoyance & sadness.
    Spiro Zavos, this un-sporty type is enjoying your pieces very much.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hilary,
    All the AGM proceedings can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Free+Speech+Union+annual+general+meeting

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good for you Karl. Keep fighting for balanced, objective journalism - something that seems destined to be consigned to the dustbin of history. The politicisation of our media and the cancel culture that has been allowed to develop within the media, where journalists think they are the story and/or see themselves as 'celebrities' is killing the objectivity that was once the guiding light of all journalists worth their salt. "he who pays the piper, calls the tune" comes to mind. I worked as a journalist, sub, editorial writer, and editor for 50 years but I am glad to be out of it these days. Some of the stuff I see today just makes me shake my head.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Karl, Your article is excellent. However, when it was put up on Bassett, Brash and Hide some of the comments were very anti-Maori and racist. Below is an excerpt from one.

    "Geoff Drewett
    a day ago

    Freedom of speech ? No way do we enjoy that privilege in New Zealand. Criticise Maori culture - ugly facial tattoos, sticking out tongues and shaking spears - and one is immediately labelled as racist.. Geoff Drewett
    a day ago "

    I do not think that such comments should be illegal. However, they are part of the problem in NZ and are as bad as comments made by the Maori Party. Sadly, it got 54 likes whereas my criticism of it got one like.

    Such a comment would not be allowed on Kiwiblog.

    Interested in your view Karl.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Chuck Bird,
    I tend to agree with you. Concern at Maori radicalism and the threat it poses to democracy is one thing. Attacks on Maori culture and tradition are another. But there's a risk that one will spill over into the other and thereby widen a racial divide that we should be trying to close.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank God for the FSU, the Bryce Edwards and Chris Trotters of this world. I'm in a permanent state of disbelief at the antics of the current crop of relatively young journalists. a)They seem to expect to be spoon-fed what to think and what to say as typified by the 3 week government interregnum: no daily parliamentary press briefing and the consequent flapping and panic. It didn't seem to occur to them to use the vacuum to do some intelligent back-grounders and commentaries. b) They do not seem to have any grasp of the historical political and social context of current events. I suppose I should not be surprised, as postmodernism, in which they are all steeped, has no room for such rubbish. I'm 76, pakeha/Ngati Tahinga (Tainui) and my hopes of living out a relatively peaceful old age had seemed to be diminishing with every incendiary utterance from John Tamahere, Willy Jackson et al, but now I see a few gleams of hope with the new coalition agreements.

    ReplyDelete