Few would be surprised to learn that TVNZ big-wigs stood by the decision to put an ACT candidate on its election-night panel.
There should be scant surprise, either, that his place on the panel was defended by the candidate, former broadcaster and TVNZ board member Paul Henry.
He stood for ACT after resigning from the board in July.
On Saturday night, he was introduced to viewers as “broadcasting royalty and now an ACT Party candidate”.
He might also have been introduced as a candidate who fancied himself behind a Beehive desk.
According to Stuff:
Henry has previously spoken of wanting a Cabinet role, and his name has been floated for the broadcasting portfolio, although he has questioned whether the role should exist at all.
Not new to controversy, he became the focus of criticism after TVNZ asked him to help analyse election-night results for viewers.
Stuff reported TVNZ’s defence of its decision in response to questions it had put to them:
“Our eight accomplished panellists reflected the broadest possible range of views,” a spokesperson said.
“Our team works hard to deliver engaging, robust and impartial coverage, and we’re confident that is exactly what viewers received last night.”
Henry mustered a defence of his election-night job, too, saying his political allegiance had been transparent and voting had already closed at the time of his appearance on the panel.
“The fact is, the voting had finished. Obviously, it would have been highly inappropriate if people were still voting and the programme was on,” he told Stuff.
He said it might also have been inappropriate if viewers were unaware of his candidacy, but his ACT affiliation was made clear.
Henry said election-night panels routinely featured people with well-known and a wide spectrum of political views, and his own political preferences had never been a secret during previous appearances.
“How having someone who is actually a candidate and has actual skin in the game there is any different to that, I do not know. I would have thought that just enhances it.”
Henry professed to having been surprised when TVNZ invited him but considered the idea “inspired”.
Then he buttressed his argument in support of that inspiration.
Henry said active candidates brought contemporary political experience to the discussion, rather than simply the views of people who had left politics.
“It wasn’t like it was an ACT show,” he said, adding he thought he had spoken “pretty much equally” about the different parties, with other panellists able to offer perspectives he might not have covered.
Fair enough.
But having mustered his case for the defence, Henry contended, the criticism was “completely illogical”.
Not really. Illogical means something lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
The criticism of Henry’s place on the panel was based on more than one argument.
On Saturday night, he was introduced to viewers as “broadcasting royalty and now an ACT Party candidate”.
He might also have been introduced as a candidate who fancied himself behind a Beehive desk.
According to Stuff:
Henry has previously spoken of wanting a Cabinet role, and his name has been floated for the broadcasting portfolio, although he has questioned whether the role should exist at all.
Not new to controversy, he became the focus of criticism after TVNZ asked him to help analyse election-night results for viewers.
Stuff reported TVNZ’s defence of its decision in response to questions it had put to them:
“Our eight accomplished panellists reflected the broadest possible range of views,” a spokesperson said.
“Our team works hard to deliver engaging, robust and impartial coverage, and we’re confident that is exactly what viewers received last night.”
Henry mustered a defence of his election-night job, too, saying his political allegiance had been transparent and voting had already closed at the time of his appearance on the panel.
“The fact is, the voting had finished. Obviously, it would have been highly inappropriate if people were still voting and the programme was on,” he told Stuff.
He said it might also have been inappropriate if viewers were unaware of his candidacy, but his ACT affiliation was made clear.
Henry said election-night panels routinely featured people with well-known and a wide spectrum of political views, and his own political preferences had never been a secret during previous appearances.
“How having someone who is actually a candidate and has actual skin in the game there is any different to that, I do not know. I would have thought that just enhances it.”
Henry professed to having been surprised when TVNZ invited him but considered the idea “inspired”.
Then he buttressed his argument in support of that inspiration.
Henry said active candidates brought contemporary political experience to the discussion, rather than simply the views of people who had left politics.
“It wasn’t like it was an ACT show,” he said, adding he thought he had spoken “pretty much equally” about the different parties, with other panellists able to offer perspectives he might not have covered.
Fair enough.
But having mustered his case for the defence, Henry contended, the criticism was “completely illogical”.
Not really. Illogical means something lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
The criticism of Henry’s place on the panel was based on more than one argument.
- Direct Conflict of Interest and Lack of Objectivity – The core criticism was that Henry was commenting on the very election he was standing in as an active candidate. Having resigned from the TVNZ board earlier in the year to run for parliament, he was ranked fourth on the ACT Party list.
Critics argued that including an active, high-list-ranking candidate on an analytical panel compromised the media’s duty to provide an independent, unbiased, and objective perspective on the unfolding results.
- Violating the “Spirit” of Election Day Neutrality – Under New Zealand electoral law, strict rules ban electioneering and political advertising on polling day. While TVNZ intended to provide a balanced “insider” view by featuring figures from multiple sides (such as pairing or intending to pair him with Labour figures like Willie Jackson and Andrew Little), viewers argued that giving a live candidate hours of primetime broadcast space allowed them to unhelpfully insert party-aligned rhetoric into what should be an objective news broadcast. During the broad case, Henry at one point declared: “On these numbers, we’ll be in government… and I’ll be a cabinet minister.”
- Historical and cultural polarisation – Henry has been a highly polarising media figure, involved in broadcasting controversies before resigning from TVNZ. Critics felt that election-night coverage requires a unifying, measured tone to help the country process political transitions. They argued that introducing a combative and un-PC media personality—whose rhetoric on the campaign trail had been provocative — was driven by TVNZ chasing entertainment value and ratings rather than providing dispassionate analysis.
“I can’t think of a precedent where somebody who was high on the list for a party was actually asked to comment on the elections,” he said.
Hope said there had traditionally been a distinction between political analysts and politicians themselves.
“That gap seems to have collapsed.”
Hope described TVNZ’s decision as a “lapse in professional standards”, recalling Henry praising ACT’s election result and campaign during the broadcast.
He said inviting politicians to discuss their party’s results later in an election broadcast was different from making an active candidate a panellist from the outset.
Other panellists on Saturday night included Radio New Zealand broadcaster Guyon Espiner, broadcaster Stacey Morrison, National Party member and lawyer Liam Hehir, and Georgina Stylianou, a former National and New Zealand First staffer.
Wellington Mayor and former Labour leader Andrew Little was also announced as a panellist, although his flight was delayed.
Henry was not supposed to be the only party candidate on the panel.
TVNZ had announced:
Hosted by Jack Tame and Tova O’Brien, the coverage will feature ACT’s Paul Henry and Labour’s Willie Jackson, alongside a panel of political experts offering live analysis, reaction and insight throughout the night
Two aspiring Ministers of Broadcasting, by the looks of it, which suggests TVNZ had been thinking about its future politically.
But why not invite Michael Laws, another broadcaster who might be considered a prospect for the Broadcasting portfolio ?
Oops. We forgot. Laws had been embroiled in controversy after expressing his opinions about Opportunity Party women.
No matter the tongue-in-cheek aspect to a remark made on The Platform. There were howls not only for an apology, but also for Law’ head, preferably on a platter.
Pressure similarly mounted for Henry’s head some 16 years ago, after he insulted the Governor-General, Sir Anand Satyanand.
That insult followed derogatory comments about an Indian minister.
According to a Herald dossier of Henry’s transgressions:
* Fri Oct 1: Henry erupts into giggles on Breakfast, mispronouncing Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit’s name. It’s supposed to be “Dixit”.
* Mon Oct 4: Henry asks Prime Minister John Key if New Zealand will have Governor-General who looks and sounds “more like a New Zealander” next time. He later issues an apology. TVNZ spin doctor Andi Brotherston makes knee-jerk comment to media that Henry was prepared to say things “we quietly think but are scared to say out loud”.
* Tues Oct 5: Henry is stood down on a two-week suspension. There is a protest outside TVNZ’s offices, calling for Henry to resign.
* Wed Oct 6: Brotherston sends email to staff apologising for “horrendous error of judgment” in not seeking a second opinion “or even paus[ing] for breath” and says she has offered her resignation.
* Thurs Oct 7: New Zealand High Commissioner Rupert Holborow called in by the Indian foreign ministry in New Delhi and handed a formal protest over “Dikshit” remarks – Indian Government lodges a formal complaint.
* Sun Oct 10: Henry offers his resignation to TVNZ chief executive Rick Ellis, who accepts it.
His election-night gig tells us those sins have long since been forgotten.
Perhaps that puts him in the running for two jobs – Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Broadcasting – depending on how the election is finally decided.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
No comments:
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.