A few days ago while I was away on holiday Paddy Gower slammed NewsHub's "Go woke, go broke" critics suggesting this was a complete right wing meltdown - as some keyboard warriors claimed the media is getting what it deserved amid mass job losses.
Paddy's comments came with the news that there was no special deal to save parts of the news and this drew a second wave of sympathy from all of us about what it is like to lose your job.
Riding that wave of sympathy was Cindy Baxter who - when the news first broke about job losses had accused G News of gloating about this - but when asked to back that up with evidence - Ms Baxter had fallen silent and pivoted away to have a go at me about my criticism of media in general.
This time Ms Baxter was commenting on left wing groups on Facebook about Gerard Otto and how he was dangerous and full of hate :
"There's a bunch of lefties hating on media for being too right wing. Gerard Otto has led a major prolonged push against political reporters" wrote Ms Baxter.
Followed by :
"And now Jenna Lynch, Gerard's most hated, is giving the new government absolute hell. He is dangerous. He caused horrible pile ons of media just doing their jobs". - Ms Baxter.
So there it is, that's the criticism I intend to respond to this morning in the rest of this article.
Hate is a very strong word and it is not a word I would use casually with regard to any member of the Press gallery who in my view should be subject to legitimate criticism from both their own peers and from the fifth estate ( the political commentariat ).
RNZ Media Watch - is kind of a media watchdog who spends time highlighting the times media state certain things that do not square up and this serves as a useful sounding board along with other services like the BSA or the Media Council.
Behind all of it - is verifiable evidence, and genuine reasons for concern.
I took the time to go back through my posts about Jenna Lynch to try and find this "hate" I had reportedly been dishing out towards Jenna - and it turns out I had mostly been critical of what Jenna failed to say about the likes of Chris Bishop who was allowed to get away with much disinformation during the pandemic - plus the long bow conclusions Jenna drew about NewsHub polls that contradicted facts ( and Statistical significance ) and were more like smarmy takes bashing Chippy or Jacinda unfairly.
There had been an occasion where I had facilitated a complaint about things Jenna said and this seemed the legitimate way to engage with concerns.
On the odd occasion NewsHub's Reid Research polls had been well out of whack ( National are over 40% and soaring ) and so had been the conclusions drawn from single polls - as TV stations marketed their own polls like exclusive products, and a certain school of journalism generated headlines using gotcha questions plus the Tova School of - "will you resign?", "Will you apologise?", and "Will you guarantee?" as standard techniques used to load up accusations or demand certainty over uncertain matters.
Still despite all of this - I could not find any hate in my writing.
I did find legitimate concerns about the perception of a conflict of interest because Jenna was married to David Seymour's Chief of Staff and for a long period of time - NewsHub never seemed to criticise Act for its antics in opposition.
Remember all those mornings when Ryan Bridge and David Seymour would gang up - two on one - to beat down Chlöe?
Or maybe the good old days when Jacinda pointed the finger at Mark Richardson - and Ryan asked her if she had coloured her hair - you know the standard.
If I am guilty of something it's probably "taking the p*ss" in response to these sorts of sexist culture TV shows - or using satire to poke fun or "playful name calling" - and fair cop - some of you did not like that and told me so.
What would Jacinda do? That became the grim line.
Most of the time Jacinda laughed things off but I think they eventually got her down - and how many times did we listen to Ryan backstab her after the interview - and how many times did Jacinda have to repeat "If I may" to try and finish what she was saying?
Ryan got his own slot as a some kind of reward I suppose but I don't think I feel hate at all - more like the focus on Government Accountability had allowed trivial matters to become major headlines and we struggled to feel Jacinda was getting a fair go.
Meanwhile Jacinda was a superstar overseas - and we found local media kind of like the angry sibling lashing out how they ( the foreign press ) should not be so positive and complimentary when local media were so angry and negative about her.
I think New Zealanders should be able to say what they think and it's best if that is evidence based rather than hateful.
The alleged business of me - being dangerous and hateful seemed off the charts to me - but I get it - some people may see things that way.
People who do not read what I write have said - so you are a kind of left wing Cameron Slater? Which as you might imagine made me laugh because I don't feel like I come with harmful intent.
Instead here's the sort of thing you might read from me ..that about a week ago Heather Du Plessis-Allan's weekly Sunday morning opinion article - thought Christopher Luxon was running the risk of "not caring about people" and he would not be loved as Prime Minister - but seen as a "Prime Manager".
It took only two days for Christopher Luxon to adopt that line of criticism in a kind of "What are they saying about me, let's say that same thing about them".
Luxon lashed out at the Unions saying "they do not care about workers rights" forcing the Unions onto the back foot - explaining why that was ridiculous.
Seeing the pattern at work - the next step at G News would be to search for more examples - where National were throwing back criticism into the faces of their critics - kind of like me saying to Ms Baxter - she is a hater and dangerous.
You would not have to go far to find Luxon saying it's because he cares deeply that he will not abandon cancer patients to benefit dependency and they can work 10 hours per week - when in reality - Luxon cares only about an ideological punch down using the language of care.
Something Luxon started to do after a National Party conference in a luxury hotel in Queenstown during a cost of living crisis - where a senior Tory MP ( filling in for David Cameron ) told National how to spin things.
At the same time Louise Upston might be blithering how 364,000 tenants and mortgage holders who cannot afford where they live are being subsidised $2.34 Billion in accomodation supplements by the State each year as National consider clawing that money back.
It's about not caring about people - and the criticism is on point from Heather Du Plessis-Allan - Luxon should be seen for what he really is. That's where I am at.
It does not mean I am hateful - but that I will see connections.
Another example might be how Gerry Brownlee ( not reading this Hooray!! ) struggled for several weeks as Speaker - with the names of Māori MPs during question time in parliament. This was a case of day after day and even week on week - while Audrey Young awarded Gerry a fine bouquet - extolling his performance as superb. Gosh he was good - according to Audrey. Yet last week Audrey was on the attack against deputy speaker Greg O'Conner ( Labour ) who had mispronounced Hana ( rhymes with Ghana ) Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke - as Hannah ( rhymes with spanner ).
Audrey gave Hana a bouquet for politely correcting Greg - but conveniently remained silent on the many occasions Gerry messed up and - was politely corrected.
That pattern might make the news on G News - because it highlights an uneven handed standard from Audrey at the NZ Herald - but it's not dangerous nor is it hateful to point this out.
Another pattern I noticed while on holiday - staring at the waves crashing on the reef as I sipped an ice cold beer - was the way Damien Grant sounds so sensible until he reaches for the whackball point he is trying to make in his Sunday opinions published in Stuff.
The technique goes - say something everyone agrees with - an obvious fact, then say another, then one more - and by that time the reader is onboard and loving Damien for his truthful common sense - before Damien then states something bat shite crazy...and many will swallow it without a critical minded objection.
It's just the way I look at things I suppose - even when on holiday.
How else could I have written the above things if I was 100% unplugged as I watched a school of reef fish leap out of the water being pursued by an unseen predator.
I even saw a stone fish swallow a tiny fish so fast that slow motion could not easily detect it...it's something I am gifted with cos of my Dad or Mum or something...but yeah I have evolved and am not making the same mistakes I made a few years ago.
In conclusion we all have to accept some criticism and at times take it on the chin and hopefully improve if we've messed up.
My response to Ms Baxter's criticism has been to go back and examine what caused her to feel that way.
In a way it's a good thing to be backstabbed and slammed.
I noticed who defended me too. Thank you.
At times very radical points of view lash out from the left at the left - for example all the strident calls for James Shaw to go from about 4% of the Greens while nearly everyone else supported the excellent job he did.
You know how it is, can't please everyone.
Some are just not team players.
Sometimes you need everyone to come along if you want lasting change.
My position is generally not to pick fights within our own ranks but instead to know when to just focus on the real enemy and to bring us all together - like "you know nothing Jon Snow".
We've got enough on our plate without tearing each other down.
Response to Criticism about Media
Morena
G
Comments