Liam Hehir writes:
Unpopular stances held by politicians can come under intense scrutiny. Sometimes.
Consider Christopher Luxon's pro-life position on abortion. Under repeat questioning, he painted himself into a corner by saying that the termination of a pregnancy is tantamount to murder, which is not the pro-life position. This sparked relentless questioning by the media and the controversy is still cited by his enemies today.
Such scrutiny isn't unwarranted. After all, Luxon's view is not a popular one, which I say as someone who is staunchly pro-life myself.
The media's role, among others, is to dissect controversial positions, especially those held by political leaders, and to hold them accountable for their views. That often involves the initial posing of the controversial subject then followed by probing supplemental questions and attempts to push them into difficult positions. This allows news consumers to make informed judgments about the consistency and sincerity of the politician's views.
So far, so good.
However, what is very notable is the apparent asymmetry in the treatment of unpopular politico-ideological positions. Right-leaning stances like Luxon's are rigorously grilled. Equally if not more unpopular leftist positions, however, usually escape intense scrutiny.
Consider the case of chloe swarbrick, who is on the cusp of becoming the co-leader of the Green Party. Swarbrick has, in the past, voiced her support for prison abolition – not simply reform to make prisons more humane – but complete abolition. No more prisons, even for those convicted of terrible crimes.
Try running this concept by the average person, not those within the echo chamber of social media, and you're likely to be met with a bewildered look of incredulity. People are often open to reduced sentences or non-custodial sentences for nonviolent offenders. But for violent criminals? That is a fringe position.
The idea of a society without prisons, particularly for murderers, rapists and the perpetrators of such terrible crimes seems, to normal people, bonkers in the extreme. And yet it is almost impossible to imagine Swarbrick facing anything like the media grilling Luxon received for his own unpopular views.
If the media were fair, then they would be asking Chloe the following:
- Would a Government you lead release Brendon Tarrant from prison?
- Why do you think mass murderers should be out in the community?
- Do you think serial rapists such as the Hooch rapists in Christchurch should be at large?
- Do you honestly think that every criminal can be rehabilitated?
- How would you protect abused women from their former partners who constantly break protection orders?
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
3 comments:
Add to the list of questions for 'thick as a Swarbrick':
- how would *you* like to run into serial rapist in a dark alley?
This is why the media has lost all credibility.
Adoring Jacinda. Following Hipkins about looking for his favourite pie shop. But then How terrible - Luxon's sister-in-law works for a tobacco company.
Peters is right. Treat them with distain
Unfortunately the media still has access to a lot of people and will infiltrate wherever and however it can. Some counter action in required to suggest to media that they ‘grow up’. Drop dead on PJIF is a good place to start.
Post a Comment