The Parlous State of Media in New Zealand

Recently in a short post entitled Department of Truth, we noted that more and more, the mainstream media seems to be transforming into a department of government: the Department of Propaganda Truth. Karl du Fresne has written an excellent article highlighting this, and in this post we will pick out some of the important points he makes.

He notes that of the $55 million ‘Public Interest Journalism Fund’ more than $2.4 million is being spent in the training and development and training of 25 cadet Maori, Pasifika and “diverse” journalists. As du Fresne points out, the “latter category will presumably include those who identify as transgender or non-binary and other aggrieved minorities that we haven’t got names for yet.” Then there is the ominous $300,000 given to Stuff to produce a cultural competency course which is promised to “to fundamentally shift representation in NZ media”

What benefit is there to the public in any of this? As du Fresne rightly points out, “our money will end up being spent on advocacy journalism.” In applying for this public money, “media organisations must commit to a set of requirements that include, among other things, actively promoting the Maori language and ‘the principles of Partnership, Participation and Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi’“. Our mainstream media have been bought with our money like tacky whores with no principles. What is our answer to this? Stop consuming their products. Stop subscribing to them! Turn to other sources of news that are not being bought off by the government to be their propaganda wing.

Department of Truth

Media is supposed to criticize and investigate the powers that be. They should be a counterweight to the power of a government. But in New Zealand, our media has become a wing of the government. It has become the Department of Propaganda Truth for the Government. The god of State needs its false prophets to teach the people the word of god. No doubt my readers have heard of the $55 million bribe Public Interest Journalism Fund. Here is an article on Stuff where they unashamedly announce that they will receive $591,465 for their “The Whole Truth project which is designed to counter misinformation where it occurs about Covid-19.” No doubt this information, bought and paid for by our taxes, will be used to support the government’s narrative on everything Covid. No doubt anything that doesn’t fit our government’s approach and views on this topic will ever see the light of day on Stuff. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Ardern’s Leadership

Prime Minister Ardern has pulled out of her weekly appearance on the Mike Hosking breakfast show. The reason given is that she is rearranging her interview schedule. Yet one can’t help wondering whether she was tired of being asked difficult questions. As many are now pointing out, Ardern seems more at home with patsy questions and friendly interviewers. She’s loved overseas, and her daily performance during COVID rallied many New Zealanders, despite feeling a little patronizing at times. Unfortunately, she struggles when facing a more seasoned interviewer who pushes back.

In his explanation of the situation, Hosking said, “The number of times she’s fronted on this programme with no knowledge around the questions I’m asking is frightening. Reports I read, she hadn’t. The time I asked whether they’re replacing the Tauranga City Council, she replied they didn’t do such things. Clearly, not having the slightest clue, in a month or so, they were going to do exactly that. Those occasions are too many to be comfortable.”

To anyone who has heard Ardern and Hosking spar, it’s clearly an uncomfortable experience for Ardern. She seems to be struggling. She might be able to present well at the daily COVID briefings. She might be good at spouting platitudes, but despite promising us transparency, she doesn’t seem to deal well with grown-up questions pertaining to her government’s performance. She seems to feel much more at home with fawning and sycophantic supporters who would never dream of asking a question of their hero. Is this true leadership?

Barry Soper, one of the few decent journalists we have in New Zealand, observed, “The questions were too direct, they got under her thin skin but, more importantly, she didn’t know the answer to many of them. She was exposed on a weekly basis and it simply all became too much for her.” His final line in his editorial, “She’s treading water.” is about right.

It seems she’s fallen into leadership before she was ready. Without COVID, she’d probably be gone. To ensure a third term, one would imagine she will have to deliver on some of the grandiose promises she’s made. Unless COVID saves her again.

Media Misquotes!

I read the following in a mainstream media piece in the last week or so.

Conversion therapy is based on a belief that people with diverse sexual orientations or gender identities are abnormal and should be changed so they fit within hetero-normative standards.

Although it appeared without a source being cited both in the New Zealand Herald in an article by Sophie Trigger and with the exact same wording in an article on Newshub by Mark Longley it appears to be a misquote taken from Parliament’s Justice Select Committee report into conversion therapy.

The first thing to note is that the misquote is the same in both articles, written by different people for different media organisations. It is perhaps a sign of how incetuous mainstream media in New Zeland has become. Also of concern is the fact that they both fail to acknowledge they are (mis!)quoting from the 2019 Justice Select Comittee report.

However, aside from all that. Just look at that quote again. Conversion therapy is based on a belief that people with diverse sexual orientations or gender identities are abnormal and should be changed so they fit within hetero-normative standards.

And now let’s consider the dictionary definition of normal. Normal: adj conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected. Look, identifying as a pansexual unicorn is not normal. It is abnormal. Being gay, is not normal (in the sense of usual or typical), it is abnormal. Having a male body and thinking you are actually a woman is not normal. This is not hate speech. It’s a syllogism.

And the truth is, that God has designed us in a certain way. When we try to live out our ‘own truth’ or ‘identity’ apart from this, we will suffer for it. Calls to ban “conversion therapy” will cause God-fearing citizens to become enemies of the state. Our Lord is Christ, and not the state, and if our gay or transgender friends ask us for help to live as God intended, we will help them whether it is legal or not. To do so is not hate. It is love.

Journalism at its Finest?

The danger of criticising media on issues of spelling and punctuation is that it is very easy to make these mistakes oneself. And yet sometimes journalistic mistakes demonstrate an unfortunate lack of knowledge that just seems inappropriate for journalists, let alone the Chief of staff of the New Zealand Herald.

Take this article on the investigation into historic sexual abuse at Dilworth school. Not once, but twice in this piece we have one of the alleged perpetrators being described as a past victor of St Luke’s Anglican Church in Manurewa. The word I think she was looking for is vicar!

Is this an indication of the appalling ignorance of Christian faith that has become mainstream? And if our journalists are so ignorant, how can we trust them to understand the issues and report in a fair and balanced way? Maybe I have this wrong, but I would have thought that journalists should be some of the more well rounded and knowledgeable citizens. Furthermore, to be that kind of citizen in New Zealand should mean at the very least, a cursory understanding of the Christian faith and its place in New Zealand.

It should go without saying that I am not here defending (or maintaining the guilt of) the men before the courts. I am merely making a comment on journalistic ignorance.

UPDATE: By 7:00pm, the NZ Herald article had been updated and corrected. No mention of the mistake of course.

The Blind Who Claim to See

Racism has become the number one issue of our times. It’s seen everywhere. But for all that, it’s often those who seem most sensitive to racism, that are most ignorant of it in themselves. It’s the blind who claim to see. Here’s a classic case.

In the Dominion Posts’ editorial from August 16, Judith Collin’s “It’s ok to be white” comment is described as a dog whistle. In other words, it’s a coded phrase that is designed to attract racists to her side while not attracting much attention from ordinary people. Naturally, the unbiased Dominion Post sees these racists as coming from ACT and other minor parties of the right. Racists only come from that side of the political spectrum you see.

Hilariously, they then obliviously continued their moral posturing without noticing the irony. “These are attitudes that should have stayed in the past. Compared with the new leadership, the younger, browner duo of Simon Bridges and Paula Bennett looked much more like New Zealand in the 21st century.”

So racism should have stayed in the past, but it seems it remains in the present. It’s the old chestnut. I’m not a racist, “but“. In this case, it is, I’m not a racist, but I’d prefer our politicians to be younger and browner than old and white.

Now before I get attacked as a closet racist or some such nonsense, I actually liked Simon Bridges and thought he was doing a reasonable job as opposition leader. But for me, the colour of someone’s skin is irrelevant to whether they can do the job well or not. When media is so focussed on skin colour and ‘diversity’ in political parties, I worry. What an absolutely trivial thing to focus on.

Furthermore, as a father of young lighter-skinned New Zealanders, I do not like the implications that they aren’t the ‘look’ of 21st century New Zealand. They have just as much right to be a part of the future look of New Zealand as New Zealand kids of other hues. I hope they will be judged not on their skin tone, but on their character and competence.

Can you trust the media?

For a long time I have struggled to have any real faith in the media. There does seem to be extensive bias in many areas. People are often dismissed with inaccurate labels such as climate change denier, bigot, and far-right extremist and their ideas are ignored. Stuff’s policy of not allowing comments denying anthropogenic climate change is probably just the tip of the iceberg in terms of narrative shaping.

Recently there has been a brouhaha over more than half a dozen police officers searching the house of Dieuwe de Boer, a conservative Christian blogger, while his wife and 3 small children looked on. Why? All for a now prohibited magazine fitted to a .22RL lever-action rifle. Dieuwe had written a submission against the Firearms Amendment Act in 2019 which featured a photograph of this weapon. It had not been handed into police, although he no longer has the weapon. Now let’s put aside for a moment the ridiculous overreaction of the police and the potential abuse of political power to silence dissent. What I want to consider is the reaction of the mainstream media. RNZ, Stuff, One News and The NZ Herald all had articles labelling this young family man as a ‘far-right activist’.

This is a serious label. What connotations does ‘far-right’ have? The label carries connotations of fascism and racism. It’s a serious charge. But it seems to be thrown around with increasing abandon. Would you call a Christian conservative family man with 3 young children, interests in mountain biking, target shooting, playing strategy games, classical music and programming a ‘far-right activist’? He runs a commentary site called Right Minds NZ, which describes itself in the following way:

Our editors, writers, and contributors range from traditional conservatives, to populist Tories, to right-wing libertarians, and anything in-between.

Right Minds NZ is a broad church right-wing movement for New Zealand conservatives, libertarians, traditionalists, capitalists, and nationalists: people who share our Christian values, believe in personal responsibility, and want to see government play a lesser role in our lives.

So far-right activist? Far-right of whom? Stalin? It seems likely that too many journalists have little understanding of people with differing political opinions. This is not a healthy state of affairs.

Come on mainstream media. Attaching derogatory labels to people to reduce sympathy or belittle them and their opinions as not worthy of consideration should be beneath you. Give us the facts and a little less spin please.