The New Zealand Herald has revealed itself as one of the biggest bullies in the media landscape, and the latest example is their handling of Jonathan Ayling, the recently departed chief executive of the Free Speech Union.
Ayling has long been known as a vocal defender of open dialogue and the right for all New Zealanders to express themselves freely, but that seems to have hit a wall the moment money entered the picture. Speaking on The Platform, Sean Plunket read a message he received from Ayling, explaining that as part of his new role as a weekly columnist for the Herald, he is contractually forbidden from appearing on competing media outlets. That list of “competitors” conveniently includes The Platform.
Let’s pause on the irony for a moment. A man who spent years championing free speech in this country is now muzzled by a major media company’s exclusivity clause. He cannot speak with outlets like The Platform, not because he doesn’t want to, but because his new employer has silenced him.
Let’s pause on the irony for a moment. A man who spent years championing free speech in this country is now muzzled by a major media company’s exclusivity clause. He cannot speak with outlets like The Platform, not because he doesn’t want to, but because his new employer has silenced him.
Jonathan Ayling
Plunket rightly pointed out the hypocrisy. The very institution Ayling represented, the Free Speech Union, has leaned heavily on The Platform to promote the importance of free expression over the past four years. Yet the moment a lucrative media contract is signed, those lofty ideals seem to evaporate.
This is not an isolated case either. Damien Grant, another regular defender of free speech, faces similar restrictions as a Stuff columnist. If he wants to keep writing there, he too cannot appear on The Platform.
What emerges is a clear picture of mainstream outlets using their financial muscle to control voices and limit where they can be heard. These contracts are not about journalistic integrity or audience loyalty - they are about silencing independent competition.
The Herald and Stuff love to parade as defenders of democracy and accountability, but their behaviour proves the opposite. They are not champions of free expression, they are gatekeepers, pulling strings over what can be said, who gets to say it, and where those words are allowed to be heard.
Jonathan Ayling’s situation is a stark reminder - when money talks, free speech often gets gagged.
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.
10 comments:
So Ayling and Grant were forced to sign these contracts? Under pain of death, perhaps? No - money talks and it clearly spoke to them.
Matua - you need to "re-visit" the Boardroom saga when a Canadian took offense at the Editorial content/direction - brought shares in MZME (so did Don Brash) forced a Shareholders meeting - which saw the Board go to the main Shareholder/owner in Australia to get them to intercede, the special shareholders meeting saw the then Chair resign, to have Allan Joyce become Chair, the Canadian become a Board Member - with "bugle blowing" statements that Editorial changes would be made - yup and Coke a Cola are changing the recipe of their National concoction - too!
Yup - Matua - your article is very pointed, correct and Jonathan Ayling - "has shown his true colours" - never again will he be considered a 'source of truth' - he will now be equated with Jacinda Ardern.
Oh and watch the "new team" at the Free Speech Union - also walk away from involvement with The Platform.
Plunkett doesn't need stuff or the heralds help stopping people appearing on his station, he's more than capable.of.doing that himself.
His talk over interview style and his attempted character assassinations, prompted by requests from the nz electricity, supermarket, insurance, and banking oligarchs; are driving his audience away.
The platforms days are numbered.
Seems reasonable to me. He is being paid for his opinion. Reasonable to safeguardagainst his is giving it to competitors for free.If his opinion now at great variance from previous that is another topic.
I must concede Plunkett often grates; he cuts across interviewees and i am surprisd some return. But Laws makes up for all.
agree Robert, Laws is great.
Certainly reasonable for a commercial outfit to demand a clause to protect their assets. And certainly unreasonable for a supposed free speech absolutist to agree to it.
An employment agreement or contract was surely offered and negotiated - you can always negotiate the terms of your contract and if at long was happy to leave that clause in there then he can’t cry foul after signing it.
He already had a job - which he was very good at - one might reasonably argue he didn’t have to sign the contract and was negotiating from a position of strength or at least equal footing.
Sounds like a lot of hot air over compromised principles if you ask me.
Not a fan of FSU or Ayling, but there's nothing morally suss about what's happened. Ayling's weekly column is paywalled, and of course the 'Herald' doesn't want other outlets getting his opinions for free. Meanwhile Stephen Franks was on The Platform today, discussing the free speech implications of the new legislation about protests outside private residences. Ayling's is the kind of content the 'Herald' presumably wants, as the FSU helped engineer the make-up of the new board. The Chair, incidentally, is Steven Joyce, not Allan Joyce: that guy was with Qantas.
The Harold now has a "Free Speech house n****r" in Ayling, much like Stuff has a "Libertarian house n****r" in Grant, essentially for the same purposes - to claim to "platform a variety of opinions".
To anon at 8.47 ...Damien Grant is not a dissident. Controlled within boundaries. Wrong speak on treaty etc never happens and he is a supporter of Aotearoa. Not NZ. He can be to the right on economy.
Post a Comment