Fair enough, but I differ. If the high-profile journalists who provide the public with political news and comment are bitchy, entitled, childish, over-stimulated and perhaps inclined to run off at the mouth after a few drinks at the end of a long day, I think we deserve to know. That knowledge is potentially very helpful in judging how much notice we should take of them, or indeed whether we should take any notice of them at all.
You can be sure that if MPs behaved in the same scandalous way and the media learned about it, they’d be all over the story. Ah, people might say; MPs are different. They’re public figures, elected and accountable – which is true. But high-profile journalists like Sherman wield more power than many politicians, and certainly a whole lot more than your anonymous, run-of-the-mill list MP.
They effectively set the political agenda. They present themselves as people the public can trust and whose opinions we should respect. That being the case, any character flaws that become apparent – such as might be evident from the hurling of vicious personal insults over drinks in a senior minister’s office – become a matter of legitimate public interest; the more so when the alleged antagonist is employed by a taxpayer-funded broadcasting organisation and therefore has a special obligation to behave in a mature and responsible way.
It’s true that we may not yet know the full facts of the incident. It’s the nature of these things that the complete truth often emerges bit by bit over time. While it doesn’t seem to be in dispute that Sherman used the word alleged (to wit, “faggot”), it’s been reported that she was responding to a racial provocation. Either way, the incident presents an unflattering picture of the country’s supposed journalism elite and won’t do anything to lift public trust in the media from its woeful level. Again, that makes it a matter of public interest (and by that I don’t necessarily mean something the public is interested in, because for all I know the public isn’t, and probably regards the affair as akin to a school playground squabble).
Just to complicate things, some commentators are questioning blogger Ani O’Brien’s motives in breaking the story. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’m assuming they were honourable. I even sent her an email congratulating her for exposing what had happened while the mainstream media resolutely looked the other way. But O’Brien does run a political consultancy and it’s undeniable that politics has never been murkier than now, with political agendas and connections that are not always out in the open.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz. Where this article was sourced.
They effectively set the political agenda. They present themselves as people the public can trust and whose opinions we should respect. That being the case, any character flaws that become apparent – such as might be evident from the hurling of vicious personal insults over drinks in a senior minister’s office – become a matter of legitimate public interest; the more so when the alleged antagonist is employed by a taxpayer-funded broadcasting organisation and therefore has a special obligation to behave in a mature and responsible way.
It’s true that we may not yet know the full facts of the incident. It’s the nature of these things that the complete truth often emerges bit by bit over time. While it doesn’t seem to be in dispute that Sherman used the word alleged (to wit, “faggot”), it’s been reported that she was responding to a racial provocation. Either way, the incident presents an unflattering picture of the country’s supposed journalism elite and won’t do anything to lift public trust in the media from its woeful level. Again, that makes it a matter of public interest (and by that I don’t necessarily mean something the public is interested in, because for all I know the public isn’t, and probably regards the affair as akin to a school playground squabble).
Just to complicate things, some commentators are questioning blogger Ani O’Brien’s motives in breaking the story. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’m assuming they were honourable. I even sent her an email congratulating her for exposing what had happened while the mainstream media resolutely looked the other way. But O’Brien does run a political consultancy and it’s undeniable that politics has never been murkier than now, with political agendas and connections that are not always out in the open.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the former editor of The Dominion newspaper. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz. Where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
Good on Ani for breaking the egg.
I stopped trusting anything that TVNZ has to say a long while ago.
Audrey Young at NZH wrote that she is surprised by the vitriol showed towards Maiki Sherman. What you have written above perfectly sums up what has gone pear-shaped with MSM, but particularly with TVNZ.
The Ardern free media $55m+ Covid fund to bribe MSM accelerated the decline of media independence & objectivity.
The MSM in the main still pining for many more $55m+ free media money from a leftist government - hence the eagerness and enthusiasm to help get another Ardern type leader elected.
No other explanation possible for the blatant leftist bias so evident these days.
Because so many of the unthinking public are sitting there night after night watching whatever Sherman decides they need to see, her integrity should be above question.
She has always demonstrated racial and political bias.
She would gleefully destroy any conservative politician's career, while fluffing up a left one.
Being banned for just a week from the Press Gallery for her will be a badge of honor.
It's not unlike the recent episode of Judge Ema Aitken. What actually transpired is not nearly as important as the character or, should I say, hubris displayed by the individuals whose vocations rely on public acceptance and trust. Both performed badly, and in Aitken's case, that also cost the taxpayer in the order of $1M.
Here's hoping that Sherman's transgression won't impact the taxpayer, and that the outcome of the publicity will be that her activist influence on the voting public will only be further marginalised.
I have always thought people who use foul language had minds like sewers to match their language . Gone are the days it seems when people make use of the richness of the English language to describe others they don't like. Winston Peters is good at this . His retorts are also humorous. Gutter discourse elevates nobody . I suggest the woman spends some time contemplating what she could have said instead. Nothing would have been good. There is a gross overuse of four letter words on social media and our discourse overall is clearly declining and becoming brutish along with our minds. .
Yet more evidence of decline in civil society. .
Sherman does come across as biased... for the Political Editor of the primary TV news channel to exhibit bias, to behave emotionally and to break the rules, is not only unprofessional it is unacceptable... for that she should actually have been read the riot act, given a warning and told to change her ways immediately or she is gone.... let us see whether she has changed her ways.
We all know that had a National, ACT or NZ1st MP called someone a "faggot" it would have been lead item on TV1 News the next evening with Maiki suggesting that their political career was under threat and probably over. Just think of Aaron Gilmore, who whilst tired and emotional asked a waitress if she knew whom he was. Or Sam Ufindel who had something that happened over 20 years earlier when he was a schoolboy revisited. Both of these events did not exactly cover the MPs with glory, but the media attacked them with vigor and hysteria. This is a classic pot and kettle situation and the media simply confirm that they are hypocrites. There's one set of laws, rules and accepted norms for them and another set for everyone else. And the media regard themselves as judge, jury and executioner on such matters.
[quote] -"Just to complicate things, some commentators are questioning blogger Ani O’Brien’s motives in breaking the story" [end quote].
Karl, what you 'may of missed' is that the NZ MSM "sat on" this story for 1 year.
That means not only did the Min. of Finance know the full extent of said 'incident', so did every other MSM via their Parliamentary Press Staff also know of incident.
Ani, via an interview with another NZ media source, has stated that she was contacted, not once but twice, thus we "must assume", that the 'voices from the cupboard' wanted 'someone' to know and bring said 'incident' to the Public's Notice.
Which she did via her sub stack & also on this platform -the article is still there.
It is interesting just how quickly "said news" had the NZ MSM 'frothing at the mouth' and then printed opines - which one has to ask - "Where did they get their info from"?
Also on this website, Heather du Plessis - Allan has posted an article on this subject, "stating that she knew, and approached TVNZ, was fobbed off" so the enquiry got placed in the 'to hard basket' - till Ani's opine surfaced.
At this point Mr du Fresne, whilst you "wielded" the Editors' Pen at the Dom, just how many times did you 'decide' that an article, by one of your staff, had been penned about an incident, that due to the nature of "said incident" that the submitted article was placed on the Editor's Spike - not for printing and said staffer was told "to button your lip" to all and sundry.
We currently have a Govt that "love" placing issues into the secrecy box (Tom Phillips will be one) - that we The People are not and never will be told the Truth.
And keep in mind whilst Tom "was in the bush" and in his last days the NZ MSM was "full on" with every conceivable opine.
But not one actually related why he acted like he did.
Good on Ani for "being brave" I wonder how many Journos of past and current have temerity to step out, step up and "tell the truth".
I can recall one - He was a Journo for an Auckland Paper - who followed the Arthur Allan Thomas case -and with his diligence was able to show the public that the Police case against Thomas was fraudulent.
It isn’t in the public interest but this media type Karl (we don’t trust your MSM leanings) is trying to make it seem like it is. We’ll decide for ourselves Karl. Don’t go pushing your agendas on us.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.