The nonchalant response of new Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to the media’s outrage over Deputy PM Winston Peters’ jibe they’d been ‘bribed’ by Labour is indicative of a seismic regime change that’s underway in New Zealand.
Under Labour, the country had transformed into a 1984-style dystopian society,
where saying the wrong thing could get you ‘cancelled’ – fired, socially
ostracised, even jailed.
Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was so obsessed with controlling the
narrative that in early 2020 she declared “unless you
hear it from us, it is not the truth’.”
She issued ‘gagging orders’
to Ministers preventing them from speaking to journalists, saying “brief
written statements” were acceptable, but only after they’d been “signed off” by
her Office.
Her paranoia became so extreme that a US company was commissioned to undertake social
media surveillance. Hundreds of “social listening” reports containing private
message excerpts and profile pictures were delivered to the Department of Prime
Minister and Cabinet over a two-year period starting in 2020.
Criticism of Prime Minister Ardern was likely to be categorised as conspiracy
or disinformation and investigated by a vast array of taxpayer-funded agencies including the Disinformation
Assessment and Response Team, the National Centre for Preventing
and Countering Violent Extremism, and the Disinformation Project.
While widespread public opposition prevented Jacinda Ardern from introducing
hate speech laws to criminalise opposing views, the Department of Internal
Affairs pressed on, releasing a proposal for sweeping
State control encompassing all communication channels including
unregulated blogs and social media as well as the self-regulated mainstream
media, just before the election.
On top of this, Jacinda Ardern used the Christchurch Call to regulate the
internet, and international speaking opportunities to claim free speech had
become a weapon of war and that people who disagreed with government policy –
such as those opposing vaccine mandates or questioning climate change – should
be punished.
Throughout this Orwellian upheaval, the mainstream media were strangely
uncritical.
A senior lecturer in journalism at Massey University, Dr Steve Elers, raised concerns claiming the
media were no longer holding the Prime Minister to account: “During the
Covid-19 daily briefings I’ve found myself yelling at the TV screen and
sometimes even throwing things at it. Why? Because our journalists seem far too
chummy with the Prime Minister instead of fulfilling their role as the watchdog
for society… A healthy democracy requires the news media to hold power to
account, regardless of who is in power, and to question government decisions.”
According to Dr Elers the Prime Minister's Office was exerting undue influence
on the media, with even press conferences tightly controlled: “It used to be
the loudest and best questions were answered, or sometimes the most respected.
Journalists fought for the question... but now Ardern seems to be
cherry-picking them, and the conferences don't last longer than half an hour
each day.”
In fact, the “1pm ‘podium of truth’ Covid press conferences” morphed into a
parody - the “Jessica, then Tova” show - as the PM predictably directed questions to her
‘favourites’ TVNZ's Jessica Mutch McKay or Newshub's Tova O'Brien.
But the question remains - how was the Prime Minister's Office able to exert
such influence over the so-called independent Fourth Estate?
Does it boil down to media bias? Or Government funding? Or both?
There is no doubt that the media is biased to the left.
They admit it themselves.
The Worlds of Journalism Study 2.0. Journalists in Aotearoa/New Zealand published last October by
Massey University asked journalists to identify where they stood on the
political spectrum: nine out of ten identified as ‘left-wing’, and one in three
as hard core.
But while the media has always been biased to the left, their industry code of
ethics has historically ensured fair and balanced reporting.
What the study points out, however, is that these days “journalists are much
less interested in blindly adhering to their professional codes”. There’s been
a significant shift from a focus on the “neutral observer” role - presenting
both sides of a story so an audience can make up their own minds - towards
advocacy: “educating the audience” and “countering disinformation”.
The end result is that these days the public no longer believe the media when
they say they are unbiased - and nor should they because it’s clearly no longer
true.
When it comes to government funding of the media, the age-old idiom “don’t bite
the hand that feeds you” springs to mind!
Labour’s funding was extremely generous. The $50 million media rescue package
announced in April 2020, was followed by the general Covid wage subsidy scheme
in June, which many media outlets took advantage of.
In addition, there was significant government funding through advertising, with over $118
million spend on Covid ads alone from April 2020 through to March 2023.
The controversial $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund was
introduced in February 2021, after Labour had won the election and the right to
govern alone.
Unbeknown to voters at the time, the Ardern Government was planning to roll out
He Puapua, a blueprint for Maori supremacy by 2040, that had been
developed in conjunction with iwi leaders.
This plan for tribal control, which was to dominate the agenda of the new
government, had been deliberately kept hidden from voters during the election.
Labour feared a backlash that would have cost them votes if the public found
out they intended to undermine democracy by introducing power-sharing
arrangements with iwi for key public services through co-governance and
race-based preference.
This unmandated – and therefore illegitimate – agenda for constitutional
change, which had the effect of giving iwi leaders supreme authority over the
lives of other New Zealanders, was to be justified through a re-interpretation
of the Treaty of Waitangi as a 50:50 “partnership” between Maori and the Crown.
Promoting this fabrication was included as a key requirement for PIJF funding.
Under section 3 of the PIJF agreement, media companies
receiving funding were not only required to: “Actively promote the
principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te
Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner”, but they
also had to “show a clear and obvious commitment to Te Tiriti o
Waitangi, including a commitment to te reo Maori.”
The NZ on Air guidance to applicants provides
a glimpse into the radicalised nature of this project by claiming, “Maori have
never ceded sovereignty to Britain or any other State” and “our society has a
foundation of institutional racism.”
A successful PIJF funding application by the NZ Herald
referenced their Editorial Code of Conduct and Ethics as evidence of their commitment to
the project: “We celebrate the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of
New Zealand. We will strive to ensure that the Maori voice, world view, and
language, where appropriate, are an essential part of our coverage and that our
workforce reflects the face of modern Aotearoa. We embrace tino matatau
(excellence), manaakitanga (duty of care) and pono (integrity) in everything we
do. We promote understanding of Maori culture and tikanga, and do not reinforce
negative stereotypes of any race through our content.”
Whether those provisions were included specifically to secure PIJF funding is
impossible to tell, but what is clear is that the Herald’s Editorial Code of
Ethics contained no such Treaty references in 2016.
When then Minister of Broadcasting, Chris Faafoi announced the PIJF, he claimed
it would ensure “a healthy democracy by holding voices of influence to
account.”
What he failed to spell out was that the strings attached to the funding would
essentially discourage critical analysis of the Treaty “partnership” concept
and by association, He Puapua.
As a result, far from holding ‘voices of influence to account’, the PIJF gave
Labour a free pass by ensuring there was virtually no mainstream media scrutiny
of their radical plan to give iwi leaders veto rights over government
decision-making.
With a “pay back” clause in the agreement that required recipients to refund their funding if they
breached the requirements, Labour ensured the most racially divisive and
destructive policy agenda in New Zealand’s history was largely protected from
scrutiny by the Fourth Estate.
So when Winston Peters accused the media of being bribed by accepting PIJF
funding, you could ask, did it prevent them from properly scrutinising Labour’s
He Puapua agenda. And the answer is an unequivocal yes!
In response to criticism over the claim the PIJF was a bribe, the PM refused to
chastise his coalition partner, saying, “it's not the way I would describe it,
but I actually don't support the fund either. Many New Zealanders don't think
it was a good idea ... and I didn't think it was a good idea.”
He then went on to say that essentially Winston Peters is his
own man and is free to say what he thinks:
“The reality is that we’re in a coalition government, we’ve got three parties
in that - that means we’ve got different players, different personalities. We
may phrase thing differently, he may say things differently from how I would go
about saying it. But we should be OK with that.
“What is not in dispute is that we are ruthlessly focussed, all three parties
leaders, all three party members and teams on actually delivering for New
Zealanders. So be under no allusion, whether its David, Winston, or myself, we
are focussed on rebuilding the economy, restoring law and order, delivering
better public services, and that’s what’s important.
“So, yep, we’ll have our own personalities, yes we're in a coalition
Government, we won't always have the same way. And that's not a bad thing.”
And with those words, the dark days of Jacinda’s 1984 are over. The coalition
agreement is not a muzzle. Freedom of expression is once again being respected.
Kiwis no longer need to look over their shoulder.
However, this is not a time for complacency.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, former teacher John Bell, believes the new
government will need all the help it can get:
“We have now had a glimpse of where we have been heading, we know what
co-governance looks like and we know where it will take us if the agenda that
under-pins it is not brought to an end. The election of a new government
and details of the coalition agreements give cause for hope.”
But, John asks, “Can we afford to leave it to a handful of ACT and NZ First MPs
to defeat a powerful, well-supported agenda that has penetrated our legal
system, our educational institutions, our mainstream media and our national and
local body bureaucracies, or should we be organising practical
support?”
John Bell’s suggested steps to help get our country back on track can be seen HERE.
And, should you want to contact MPs, their email addresses can be found HERE.
A final thought. While the PIJF is now closed, many funding agreements continue
until January 2026.
Unless the fund is axed, the media recipients will be effectively muzzled for
the next two years, preventing them from speaking out against the Treaty
‘partnership’ fabrication – or Maori activism.
In fact, virtually all mainstream media recipients of PIJF funding will have
not only embedded some form of commitment to the Treaty partnership in
their business operations, but under the agreement they are also required to
“prioritise the perspectives, issues, interests, and needs of Maori”.
Is that why, when the Maori Party publicised their call to action for last
Tuesday’s protests using inflammatory symbolism depicting two crossed guns,
there was virtually no criticism from the mainstream
media - even though the imagery could have been interpreted as a call to
violence rather than peaceful protest?
If the tables were turned and either National, ACT or New Zealand First had
used such symbolism against Labour, there is absolutely no doubt that all hell
would have broken loose.
Those pushing Maori supremacy have a long history of capturing organisations to
silence them. Is the mainstream media in danger of becoming their victim?
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Should media companies include references to the Treaty in their guidelines for journalists?
Dr Muriel Newman established the New Zealand Centre for Political Research as a public policy think tank in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. The NZCPR website is HERE. We also run this Breaking Views Blog and our NZCPR Facebook Group HERE.
6 comments:
new media channels need to be built sell a TV channel to Sky and also use international social media for advertising Govt. services.
Starve them out.
Very Good .
It will be interesting to see how the left leaning MSM survive the changing public preferences for news gathering .
Because they really only have themselves to blame for their declining clientele.
Most of the falloff in readership (print media) or channel watching (television) is clearly as a result of editorial staff trying to force their version of the facts onto those paying for the service. It is a blatant abuse of the privileged position they occupy in society which has finally become unacceptable to a majority of viewers and readers.
You simply can’t continue expecting the long suffering public to keep watching channels and reading newspapers that more often than not are a party political broadcast. It turns them off in a big way and probably changes their political persuasion at the same time they stop paying the subscriptions.
You don’t have to go too far to find out why even respected media outlets with a long history of presenting a balanced coverage are finding the going so tough that closure is becoming a real consideration .
In this modern age the signs of death from self inflicted wounds is an everyday occurrence.
First, the subscriptions increase in price. Then you find you can’t go online to read the news unless you continue your subscription to your preferred newspaper which is a huge inconvenience for rural people who don’t have a daily mail delivery.
Then the publication is reduced from 6 days to 5 and if that doesn’t stop the slide, it becomes a weekend only publication leading to inevitable closure.
That slow death of traditional news outlets will almost certainly be followed by a massive increase in clients of blogs like this one that reflect the thoughts and aspirations of its readership. TV audiences will have to wait for the new government to force the pubic service broadcasters to do do the same.
That’s what is called democracy in action.
It still feels like the Labour Party are controlling the media narrative. I have no doubt the media will throw everything they have to try and bring down the new government. The level of bias in recent weeks is surely beyond what we have seen before, clearly with a view to turn the public mood against the government as soon as possible.
Does NZ's heavily-biased media need reeducation in World history?
A little over 80 years ago, Germany (Deutschland) underwent catastrophic change, but first came the propaganda onslaught. We may never know how effective it was for the non-military population of the country, but we know its eventual outcome.
Then on the scene arrived Communist Russia, East Germany, then Albania, then ... (the list goes on). All had compliant government-controlled media. Same in NZ once the so-called PIJF had taken effect.
The one saving grace for NZ was, and is, that dissenting speech and text may be heavily opposed by the MSM, ie. they attack or ignore it, but it is still allowable. Long may it continue!
Remember when ardern stood on the podium of truth and said that it is now ok for the sheeple to assemble in small groups outside at each other's houses but not ok to use the inside toilet? Ashleigh always creeped me out as well. He looked and sounded like the face of big brpther, as depicted in the book 1984.
Since the NZ General Election - 2023, NZ has seen the "fall force of MSM against what was declared as a Victory for 'Freedom's' that NZ enjoyed in the past, being taken away from us from 2017 but now the return of sanity".
I have seen other articles, like this across this website all having the same context, approach by many including Academics.
This article adds clarity and again I state - "That sadly the majority of New Zealander's will not get see and/or read" not only this article, but past ones in this vain, because they will not be aware of this website.
In what has been revealed, both here and other articles, I have posed the question - "It is time to introduce to New Zealand Law - The Act of Treason".
There are two interesting facts, that need answering >
1/- if New Zealander's had been aware of Jacinda Ardern's past (when she became PM, which was posted across You Tube) - would the "many" have voted
for her in 2016?
2/ - that when Jacinda "decided to step down"", was the condition of her departing, that she would be Honoured with a Knighthood (Dame) - you see, in an interview with an American TV Network - they put to her the question - 'Were you pushed out of office"? - Now why would they ask that! Where did they get that idea from - Jacinda's response (with a big smile) - NO!
Scratching your head, go back and read Muriel's comments from - "Under Labour, the Country had transformed into .." - if Jacinda was obsessed with "domination 1984 style"- why did she walk away. And we have not heard the last of her.
Post a Comment