Where is the paper trail of emails to determine the media’s role and also that of the Labour government.
The
expression - quid pro quo – is defined as “something for something else” which
is why the question of who approached who is important in the context of this
issue. It appears to be an example of reciprocity wherein both parties agree to
an exchange of benefits. The debate is rightly now in the public arena yet (perversely)
it is the media who is must now
scrutinize their own actions with absolute impunity, which may not be
possible.
Whether or
not bribery is too strong a description to describe the offering and acceptance
of a sum of public money to an important public entity such as the medias
governing body - is a moot point. Bribery is defined as the offering, giving or
soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or
other person in charge of a public or legal duty. The media council have a duty
of care to the public and to the image this industry reflects. As we all know,
perception is reality in this age of instant gratification.
There is
still a law which says you cannot “treat”
voters prior to an election. Is it possible however to direct funds to
an organization (the wider media) that will indirectly influence what is “on
offer” from competing parties through requiring only a positive reflection of a
particular but contentious issue such as the Treaty of Waitangi role in our
modern society. The media is a crucial part of the three legged stool in
upholding our fragile democracy - along with the legislature and the judiciary.
So is public confidence in each entity.
Winston
Peters is right to challenge the media. David Seymour says it passes the sniff test. I guess it all
depends, David, on whether or not you are up or down wind of the smell.
Gerry Eckhoff is a former councillor on the Otago Regional Council and MP.
3 comments:
Where topics with no hint of maori policy association were broached, some excellent articles were produced under the PIJF and are still appearing. But the consditions re matters Treaty and maori were incredible blatant bribery. The Framework even more so but, like so much produced today using w.p, of such rambling length few would have troubled to read it, including journalists.Any media which in any production took a critical line on the Labour pro maori policy would have not been viewed favourably for PIJFunding, so the influence extended beyond directly financed output.
The PIJF was paid with public money, so show us the "commercial, in confidence" contracts.
Russia would never reveal what they pay Pravda to publish their propaganda.
Why is our funding of the Labour propaganda secret ?
Some journalists have dishonestly tried to blur the lines between the $50 million given for Covid and the $50 million for the PIJF as if they were the same payments. On top of that massive advertising contracts.
Post a Comment