|
|
It seems I’ve achieved the great distinction of being deleted
from Reddit. A friend emailed me recently to advise that my Spectator Australia article – ‘NewZealand is being transformed, but not in a good way’ – had been uploaded to
Reddit several days previously, but had then been taken down. A notice
explained: “Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators”. This was
followed by what appeared to be a standard explanatory note: “Moderators remove
posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe,
civil and true to their purpose”.
Who are these moderators? They’re not identified. Neither
did the weasel-word explanatory note say exactly what the problem was with my
article. I’m left to conclude that the anonymous moderators deemed it “unsafe”
– but in what way?
We should be very suspicious of the word “safety” when used
in this type of context. It has become another cover for the Stalinist
authoritarianism that infects public discourse and seeks to silence and
marginalise dissenters. “Unsafe” used to apply to situations where one’s health
or physical wellbeing was at risk. Generations of New Zealanders grew up being
told that it wasn’t safe to play with matches or go too close to the water.
Then we started hearing the phrase “cultural safety”, especially in the context
of health care. An invention of neo-Marxism, it broadened the definition far
beyond its traditional and accepted meaning. Ensuring “cultural safety” became
a coded synonym for purging the health system of supposed institutionalised
racism. Notions of power and identity were central to this approach. Nursing
students who pushed back against the doctrine, insisting that the same standard
of care should apply to all patients regardless of ethnicity, paid a price for
their defiance. Some readers of this blog may recall the celebrated case of
Christchurch Polytech nursing student Anna Penn, who was branded as “culturally
unsafe” – a term then new to most of us – by the polytech’s kaumatua in 1991
for daring to challenge the denial of her right as a woman to speak on a marae.
Penn failed the “culture and society” component of her course and was
subsequently described in a vindictive Polytech report as having demonstrated
“such flaws of judgment and behaviour that she would not now be welcome back as
a nursing student”. (She later graduated in Brisbane.) Soviet-style suppression
of dissent was emerging even then, and today is nowhere more rampant than in
the health sector, where the New Zealand Nurses’ Organisation – to take just
one example – has been convulsed by bullying race politics.
Since the Penn affair, this highly inventive concept of “safety”
has widened even further, to the extent that it’s now invoked if there’s a risk
that some fragile soul might feel offended or psychologically damaged by
something written or said. But in the case of my Spectator article there’s more to it than that, because talk of “safety”
is, of course, a red herring. The only threat my article presented is that it
challenged the woke Left’s attempt to control the public conversation. That’s what we’re really talking about here.
And how interesting that the sanctimonious moderators should
mention the need to keep things civil. Let’s examine that for a moment.
My article wasn’t abusive or insulting. It didn’t use offensive language, it didn’t
attack anyone personally and it didn’t seek to incite hatred, violence or ridicule.
It merely expressed opinions that the people who control Reddit think should be
suppressed.
Yet the same moderators who took down the link to my column,
supposedly out of concern for safety and civility, were obviously untroubled by
some of the comments that appeared beneath it, which they left on the page.
These included one (anonymous, of course – aren’t they all?) that attacked me
in terms so coarse that I refuse to dignify my attacker’s words by reproducing
them here. Civil? Pffft.
This was my first encounter with Reddit, and it seemed to
validate my impression that much of what we inaccurately call “social” media is
a seething, toxic snake pit. Reddit, which Wikipedia describes as a social news
aggregation and discussion platform, is supposedly the world’s 18th
most visited website. But like many “social” media platforms it seems infested
by angry, raging cowards hiding behind puerile pseudonyms.
It probably doesn’t need to be said that I won’t lose any
sleep over my article being pulled, and still less from the accompanying comments. When
something I’ve written provokes a keyboard warrior into anonymously responding
with infantile vituperative, I take that as a moral victory. But the deletion
of my article, and the conveniently vague and self-serving justification given
by the Reddit moderators, says something about the profound change in the tone
and scope of public conversation in New Zealand.
At the dawn of the Internet era, we were encouraged to think
of social media platforms as anarchic and liberating. They were supposed to
free us from the shackles of the “old” media, where editors (who were routinely
caricatured as old, conservative white men) served as gatekeepers controlling
the dissemination of news and comment. That promise now stands exposed as
fraudulent; a giant con. Many social media platforms have turned out to be far
more controlling and authoritarian than the despised “legacy” media they
displaced, which were committed to principles of fairness, accuracy and balance.
As Chris Trotter (an old-school socialist, but a courageous
champion of free speech) wrote recently, “citizens determined to spread ‘unacceptable’ ideas can no
longer rely upon the major social media platforms for their dissemination.
Increasingly, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram are ‘de-platforming’ individuals
and groups (including a former President of the United States!) whose beliefs
have been anathematised by the woke”.
There’s an irony here. The young(ish) entrepreneurs who
control social media, such as Mark Zuckerberg, are infinitely wealthier,
greedier, more powerful and more controlling than the reviled press barons of
old, the sole survivor of whom is Rupert Murdoch. They exercise their power in
a way that acknowledges no public accountability or responsibility for the
consequences of the harm they do. They use their resources to influence public
opinion in a far more direct and active way than the “old” media. Yet they seem
magically immunised against criticism.
The crucial difference, presumably, is that in age and
appearance they are not dissimilar to the commissars of wokeness. They wear
jeans and tee-shirts rather than suits and ties, and they give the impression
of being anti-establishment (which they are, though not in the sense that the
term was originally used a generation ago). Perhaps this makes their ruthless style
of capitalism acceptable.
Unfortunately the malaise isn’t confined to social media. In
a recent blog post about Magic Talk’s sacking of John Banks, I wrote that both
the range of subjects New Zealanders feel free to discuss, and the language
they may use in discussing them, is constantly being narrowed down. Authoritarian
wokeness is increasingly crowding out alternative conservative views, even
where those views may represent mainstream thinking.
Since Banks’ sacking, of course, Sean Plunket has been added
to the list of deplorables – not because of any fresh complaint against him
(the one upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority in December related to
a broadcast last May), but because Magic Talk, panicked by pressure from woke
vigilantes and virtue-signalling advertisers, threw him under the bus.
Peter Williams, as the only surviving high-profile
conservative host at Magic Talk, must now be feeling rather lonely and exposed –
the more so since deputy prime minister Grant Robertson announced he would no longer be making his regular weekly appearance on Williams’ show because he
objected to the host’s valid questions about the so-called Great Reset, which
Robertson huffily dismissed as a “giant conspiracy theory”.
Jordan Williams of the Free Speech Coalition called the
decision petulant and suggested Robertson should harden up. “Maybe Mr
Robertson should seek the advice of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who
has fronted often extremely hostile interviews with Mike Hosking,” Williams
suggested. “Would she enjoy such grillings? Unlikely. But the PM clearly
understands that she has a duty to not only address misinformation, but to
engage with Kiwis on the other side of the political fence.
“We counter bad ideas with better ideas, and address
misinformation with facts. This is why free speech is so central to democracy:
bad and false ideas can be freely aired precisely so they can be addressed by
more informed speech.”
Amen to all that. But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of
Robertson’s decision was the timing, which made it look like a calculated attempt
to undermine Williams (who, incidentally, is no-one’s idea of a far-Right
ranter) when his position already seemed precarious following the
defenestration of his fellow hosts. That would be contemptible.
|
|
It’s in this worryingly censorious environment that the
government recently announced funding of $55 million for the news media. Broadcasting
minister Kris Faafoi framed the decision as one driven solely by noble public
interest motives, aimed at helping the media through a rough patch. But an
alternative view is that virtually all politicians secretly dream of
controlling the media, and it’s possible this government has cynically chosen
an opportune moment to ensure the industry’s co-operation in achieving it.
Don’t be fooled by seductive talk of the government wanting
to subsidise “public interest” journalism. Any journalism that provides citizens
with “the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their
lives, their communities, their societies and their governments”* is, by
definition, public interest journalism. But
when used by left-wing academics in journalism schools, the phrase has a much
narrower and more ideological meaning. In that context, “public interest
journalism” is code for journalism that attacks power structures – that “comforts
the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable”, to use a definition much favoured
by those who see journalism principally as a form of activism, and who believe the
only journalism worth supporting is that which has an ideological purpose.
So here, for what it’s worth, is my take on the proposed government
media bailout:
■ If I could be confident that the government was truly and
wholly committed to a vigorous, balanced, independent, non-partisan media;
■ If I could be confident that media owners were capable of resolutely
asserting their independence while simultaneously accepting state funding;
■ If I could be assured that most media bosses weren’t
already ideologically aligned with the government on such crucial issues as
climate change and hate speech;
■ If I could be confident that media bosses were truly and
wholly committed to the principles of editorial balance and freedom of
expression;
■ If I could be confident that government politicians could
be trusted not to exert influence over where the money went, and what type of
journalistic activity it supported;
■ If I could be confident that government appointees charged
with deciding how the money should be spent could be trusted not to worry about
getting offside with their political masters should they give it to the wrong
people;
■ If my confidence in the media were not already gravely
undermined by journalists who consistently confuse journalism with activism and
advocacy, and who bombard us relentlessly with their own opinions;
■ If I could be confident that some of that $55 million
wouldn’t be used to further swamp us with fashionable wokeism;
… then I might think the proposed state bailout of the media
was a good thing. But that adds up to a lot of worrying “Ifs”, and somehow I
don’t think my misgivings will be easily assuaged.
*The definition comes from The Elements of Journalism (2001), by Bill Kovach and Tom
Rosenstiel. I’ve yet to see a more succinct description of what journalism
should be about.
