Sure enough, within hours, headlines painted the march as a dangerous gathering of extremists. And as usual, the media cherry-picked images, cropped footage, and pushed their own narrative. What they did not want to admit was that thousands of ordinary Australians turned out because they are sick of being ignored, sick of being smeared, and sick of the destruction caused by mass immigration.
Thomas Sewell and his National Socialist Network made an appearance, and predictably, they behaved like dickheads. I watched footage of them trying to attack Avi Yemini, the Israeli-Australian journalist. Not exactly surprising, since neo-Nazis have never been known for their fondness of Jews. Here is the part the media buries -when Sewell tried to address the crowd, he was booed off. The people marching were not there to celebrate Nazism.
However, that does not fit the media’s agenda. Because if they told the truth, that ordinary mums, dads, tradies, grandparents and young people turned up because they are concerned about the housing crisis, cost of living and mass unskilled migration, they would lose the weapon they most rely on - demonisation. So instead, they take Sewell and his crew, plaster their images across every news website, and pretend that they were the face of the event.
Meanwhile, the message of the march is ignored. One man interviewed during a livestream summed it up perfectly. He had no problem with immigration. He had a problem with mass immigration, with hundreds of thousands arriving every year, overwhelming schools, hospitals, roads, and driving up the cost of housing. He had a problem with unskilled migrants ending up on Centrelink, while ordinary Australians struggle to make ends meet. He spoke calmly, reasonably, and with the frustrations of millions behind him. Funny how those voices never make the nightly news.
Instead, outlets like the Daily Mail deliberately remove the word “mass” from the conversation. They turn a nuanced position into a false one. They write “anti-immigration” when what was said was “anti-mass immigration”. That tiny sleight of hand allows them to smear every marcher as xenophobic. It is deliberate, it is dishonest, and it is why trust in the media is collapsing.
When it comes to violence, the dishonesty only deepens. Who threw the punches? Who was photographed kicking and lashing out? Sewell’s black-clad crew. The media’s chosen images frame ordinary Australians as if they were the violent ones. It is the same game every time - find the ugliest moment, the loudest outburst, the most confrontational reaction, and then use it to define an entire event.
The MSM is an establishment desperate to silence Australians who are daring to say enough is enough. Journalists show up not to hear voices, but to provoke reactions, to bait people into a soundbite that fits their pre-written headline. They are agents of distortion, not truth.
Australians know it. They see it. That is why marches like this are growing, not shrinking. Despite the relentless smear campaigns, despite the media’s lies, ordinary people are no longer prepared to stay quiet while their country is pulled apart.
The March for Australia was not about hatred. It was about survival. It was not about white supremacy, but about national sovereignty. No matter how many slurs the media hurls, the people are waking up. The louder the smears, the clearer it becomes just how desperate the establishment is to bury the truth.
Australians marched yesterday because they love their country and want a future for their children. That is what the media cannot stand, and that is why they will never report it honestly.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
Will NZ ever see demonstrations such as those in the UK and Australia? Will NZers ever express their anger that they have never been asked by successive governments of dishonest politicians to reject or approve the installation of tribal rule in their country? Or will they just let this happen?
Australia, UK and the US have biased, corrupt woke media just like us. However, they also have conservative and neutral newspapers and news websites as well, such as the Australian, Spectator, Sky News etc. In NZ we only have the biased woke rubbish, who do influence voters. Yes, there is The Platform and Newstalk ZB, but not everyone has time to listen to interviews and opinions. We just want the facts.
I had the misfortune of seeing TVNZ news last Sunday. The headline was that violent crime had gone down, but they twisted the story so even that became bad news and an attack on the government.
Of recent times the same "public demonstration", in the UK, in support of what Tommy Robinson has been saying/still does - the recent rally of people against the Govt 'attitude/action/treatment of' the illegal immigrants that come across the English Channel - daily - in the first instance English MSM treated the rallies the same way as the Australian MSM - or ignored it entirely.
In England, the public now face even more harsher penalties for anything they may say - in public or on social media, actions in a public space, that "another" person takes offence to and seeks immediate Police intervention - actions if not recorded on a cell phone and posted to the likes of YouTube - we would be ignorant of what is "actually" happening in any Country.
Is Australia going to face the same "crackdown" by their seemingly "deluded" Govt??
For what Australians did - their march - their Country - their Pride - Good on them.
The MSM is no better than Der Stürmer, The Tulsa Tribune and Pravda. The first two were racist and the third propagandising. The fact these MSM outlets target those with European heritage or Whites seems to make them legitimate and okay. Ours is funded by our government. I watched on citizen media. The marches were absolutely peaceful, nobody against legal migration or people who want to adopt the countries way of life. People worried that their children can't afford homes and the cost of living. Mainly that the government ignores them, once elected.
Antifa are provocative and disruptive and incoherent when questioned about their motives. Sky Australia covered it well for Mainstream watchers.
I think the differenve is that here in nz you can"t say anything freely like they can in australia and the uk. The woke agenda is so entrenched in nz that you could lose your job if someone reported you as attending such a march.
Matua, you’ve nailed the heart of the problem: it’s not just what the media reports, it’s how they report it. The politics of characterisation — the casual smear, the loaded adjective, the cropped image — is the stock-in-trade of our mainstream press. It allows them to shape public perception without ever having to argue honestly with the facts.
We see it daily in New Zealand. Stuff, RNZ and the Herald no longer see themselves as neutral reporters of events. They see themselves as moral referees, guiding their audience toward the “correct” conclusion. The method is subtle but devastating. When ordinary New Zealanders raise concerns about crime, immigration, or the cost of living, they are described as “angry”, “fearful” or “xenophobic”. When activist groups push the opposite line, they are “concerned citizens”, “passionate advocates” or “community leaders”. One side is given moral legitimacy; the other is framed as a problem to be managed.
Take the protests at Parliament in 2022. The dominant narrative, pushed relentlessly by Stuff and RNZ, was that the entire protest was a seething mass of conspiracy theorists and extremists. Were there fringe elements? Absolutely. But tens of thousands turned up because they had lost jobs, lost trust in government, and wanted answers. That nuance was erased. The protest became a cartoon: “anti-vax, anti-science, dangerous”. End of discussion. The characterisation swallowed the truth.
Or look at the ongoing Treaty debates. Those who defend democracy, equal citizenship, and parliamentary sovereignty are routinely labelled as “anti-Māori” or “racist”. Meanwhile, those pushing for co-governance and ethno-political privilege are cast as “guardians of justice” or “voices of reconciliation”. By the time the adjectives have been deployed, the argument is over before it has begun.
This is not journalism in the Reuters or Harold Evans sense — where accuracy, balance, and clarity were drilled into every sentence. This is advocacy dressed up as news. It’s propaganda by insinuation. Instead of saying “we disagree with you”, the media paints you as a moral outcast, unworthy of a hearing.
The technique is always the same:
• Cherry-pick images: show the loudest, ugliest, or most aggressive moment and make it the symbol of the whole.
• Strip nuance from language: “mass immigration” becomes “anti-immigration”; “pro-democracy” becomes “anti-Māori”.
• Attach smears as labels: “far right”, “conspiracy theorist”, “climate denier”. Once the label sticks, the argument is irrelevant.
• Elevate allies with glowing profiles while dismissing critics as “controversial” or “divisive”.
It’s an old game, but never more blatant than now. The msm media doesn’t want readers to weigh competing arguments; it wants them to feel that one side is decent and the other is toxic. That is why trust is collapsing. People know when they’re being manipulated.
As you point out, Matua, this is exactly what happened with the March for Australia. A complex, deeply felt movement was flattened into a caricature of extremism. The real grievances — housing, wages, sovereignty — were buried beneath the cartoon Nazi bogeyman. And the same playbook runs here in New Zealand.
As Orwell warned, political language exists “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” Today’s mainstream media doesn’t need to lie outright — its adjectives do the propaganda for it.
The good news is that words such as 'racist' and 'supremacist' lose their sting as they become used against someone with a dissenting opinion no matter how mild. Once you start tarring violent thugs and ornery folks with the same brush, you initially scare the latter into staying shtoom but a little later the nasty words are water off a duck's back and people behave as they see fit whatever.
Again - why is the Coalition allowing this egregious self-destruction?
(National - Goldsmith - holds the media portfolio.)
Do they want to lose in 2026 ? Seems so.
Post a Comment