Distinguishing science from activism

Ulf Büntgen writes on the importance of distinguishing climate science from climate activism:

I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization. . .

Motivated by the continuous inability of an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle global warming, despite an alarming recent rise in surface temperatures and associated hydroclimatic extremes⁵, I argue that quasi-religious belief in, rather than the understanding of the complex causes and consequences of climate and environmental changes undermines academic principles. I recommend that climate science and climate activism should be separated conceptually and practically, and the latter should not be confused with science communication and public engagement. 

While this Comment is not a critique of climate activism per se, I am foremost concerned by an increasing number of climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Like in any academic case, the quest for objectivity must also account for all aspects of global climate change research. While I have no problem with scholars taking public positions on climate issues, I see potential conflicts when scholars use information selectively or over-attribute problems to anthropogenic warming, and thus politicise climate and environmental change. Without self-critique and a diversity of viewpoints, scientists will ultimately harm the credibility of their research and possibly cause a wider public, political and economic backlash. 

That self critique and a diversity of views should apply is not confined to scientists nor to the issue of climate change. These are sadly missing from much of the media.

Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization. In fact, there is just a thin line between the use and misuse of scientific certainty and uncertainty, and there is evidence for strategic and selective communication of scientific information for climate action⁶. (Non-)specialist activists often adopt scientific arguments as a source of moral legitimation for their movements⁶, which can be radical and destructive rather than rational and constructive. Unrestricted faith in scientific knowledge is, however, problematic because science is neither entitled to absolute truth nor ethical authority⁷. The notion of science to be explanatory rather than exploratory is a naïve overestimation that can fuel the complex field of global climate change to become a dogmatic ersatz religion for the wider public. It is also utterly irrational if activists ask to “follow the science” if there is no single direction. Again, even a clear-cut case like anthropogenically-induced global climate change does not justify the deviation from long-lasting scientific standards, which have distinguished the academic world from socio-economic and political spheres.  . . 

Furthermore, I cannot exclude that the ongoing pseudo-scientific chase for record-breaking heatwaves and associated hydroclimatic extremes distracts from scientifically guided international achievements of important long-term goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate global warming¹⁶.  . . .

There is a difference between weather and climate which escapes those chasing pseudo-scientific records.

In essence, I suggest that an ever-growing commingling of climate science, climate activism, climate communication and climate policy, whereby scientific insights are adopted to promote pre-determined positions, not only creates confusion among politicians, stakeholders and the wider public, but also diminishes academic credibility. Blurring boundaries between science and activism has the potential to harm movements of environmentalism and climate protection, as well as the much-needed international consent for sustainable growth and a global energy transition. If unbound climate activism results in widespread panic or indifference, people may think that it is either too late for action or that action does not matter.  . . 

In conclusion, and as a way forward, I recommend that a neutral science should remain unbiased and avoid any form of selection, over-attribution and reductionism that would reflect a type of activism. Policymakers should continue seeking and considering nuanced information from an increasingly complex media landscape of overlapping academic, economic and public interests. Advice from a diversity of researchers and institutions beyond the IPCC and other large-scale organisations that assess the state of knowledge in specific scientific fields should include critical investigations of clear-cut cases, such as anthropogenic climate change. A successful, international climate agenda, including both climate mitigation and adaptation, requires reliable reporting of detailed and trustworthy certainties and uncertainties, whereas any form of scientism and exaggeration will be counterproductive. 

Neutrality, absence of bias and avoidance of any forms of selection are essential for trust and not just in science and scientists.

We need a media that follows this and clearly distinguishes between reporting and activism.

 

Too much opinion too little analysis

One reason the media is held in such low regard is because there’s too much opinion and too little analysis.

Opinion is the journalist’s views which might, or might not, be based on analysis. Too often if there is analysis, it’s superficial, not necessarily balanced and contaminated by the opinion which, overtly or not, seeks to persuade.

Lack of balance shows bias in many forms, and not just in opinion pieces. One of those is labelling.

Labels are routinely attached to people and groups of which journalists and commentators disapprove but not to those they approve. For example Greenpeace is never called left wing but the Taxpayers’ Union is often, and mistakenly because the TU is politically agnostic,  labelled right wing; people standing up for women’s rights are labelled transphobic but those who threaten those rights are never labelled misogynist; people who want everyone to be treated equally are called racist but that epithet is never applied to those wanting special treatment based on race.

Another way lack of balance shows bias is in what is featured and what is not; whose actions and statements are reported, and whose opinions are sought and quoted.

Straight analysis by contrast is a detailed examination of facts, presented in a balanced way that leaves it up to the listeners, readers or viewers to form their own opinions.

An analytical approach is what ought to be taken in straight news. Too often it’s skewed by opinion and too many opinion pieces lack analysis, seeking not to inform but to influence or even indoctrinate. That is why so many have such a low opinion of the media.

 

52% vs 34% isn’t slim

The headline says a slim majority of people agree with the Government’s public service job cuts.

Thirty-four per cent of those polled said the Government has got its cuts right, with another 18% wanting the coalition to go further and cut more public servants.

Thirty-five per cent said the Government is cutting too much from departments and 13% said they didn’t know, or didn’t answer.

The 34% in support plus the 18% who want more adds up to 52%.

The difference between that 52% supporting cuts or wanting more and the 35% who say the cuts are going too far is 17% which is, slightly, more than the 13% who didn’t know or didn’t answer.

Given how bloated the bureaucracy has become while delivery has gone backwards, I’m surprised the number supporting cuts isn’t higher.

But 52% contrasted with 35% doesn’t look like a slim majority, it looks like a journalist who is confused by the numbers or is trying to downplay support.

Pot, kettle, black

Some journalists are blaming politicians for the lack of trust in the media.

This is a very sooty pot calling s slightly dusty kettle black.

Politicians usually rank at or near the bottom of trust surveys and one reason for that is the way they are treated in and by the media.

Too many journalists, and the media outlets they work for, go for gotcha moments, stories which show politicians in a bad light and breathless criticism rather than reasoned analysis.

Too often they do it in a way that lacks balance, background and respect.

Last year in the vacuum caused by prolonged coalition negotiations, the media gave us lots of their reckons based on speculation.

They kept on about the time negotiations were taking and bemoaned the lack of anything to report.

They could have used the time when there was little if anything to report about the negotiations to do long-form interviews of  the new MPs,  about whom few of us would have known anything.

Local media did the obligatory interviews of MPs in their area but such work seems to be below the notice of  the press gallery, unless they stir up a controversy.

They comment on diversity – or lack of it – but rarely, if ever, cover the skills and experience MPs bring to the job.

They’ll crawl through social media looking for long ago transgressions of the media’s standards, but rarely if ever highlight anything positive, or inspirational.

The media has a very important role in holding the powerful to account. They should not, as too many did with Jacinda Ardern and still do for Chloe Swarbrick, be unquestioning and act as it they are part of an MP’s public relations team.

And they should be fair, balanced and as ready to show the good as they are to highlight the bad.

Perhaps then, the public would have a less jaundiced view of politicians and it might be less difficult to recruit good people to stand for parliament and councils.

If you are interested in learning about the new MPs, where they’ve come from, what motivates them and what they want to achieve as MPs,  tune into the Taxpayer’s Union Taxpayer Talk, where you can listen to MPs in Depth.

Public vs private

The announcement of the annual Radio Awards illustrates the stark difference between a publicly funded organisation and private enterprise:

The finalists for the best show producer or producing team are three from NewsTalk ZB: Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive on Newstalk ZB which has a team of five; Mike Hosking Breakfast with three in the team; Marcus Lush Nights with just one man in support and RNZ”s Morning Report which has 16 people in its team.

Marcus Lush is an outlier in that it’s talkback whereas the others all have interviews which require people to do the research and tee-up interviews.

How can RNZ, with a smaller audience, justify more than five times more people to produce its show than ZB’s far more popular Breakfast one?

It looks like just another example of a flabby taxpayer funded organisation in contrast to a much leaner private business.

If you want a bit of entertainment you can hear Mike Hosking discussing this at about 54:40.

 

Signs of bias

Remember the media coverage of the Groundswell initiated protests?

The protests attracted big numbers and almost all the signs were, as the organisers requested, on message and polite but the media managed to find a few that weren’t and gave them the focus.

Spot the difference in the coverage of last week’s protest which contrary to its climate focus name was a sort of omnibus protest of the left’s latest causes.

Did you see any of these signs in the mainstream media? (You will have to click on each one to read it properly) :

Remember how when the farmers protested the media downplayed their numbers & focused on the few people with dodgy signs?
Weird how now they’re exaggerating the turn out for the School Strike for climate & haven’t showed any of these signs… pic.twitter.com/up9ZcmMDBd

— Ani O'Brien (@aniobrien) April 5, 2024

Why did a very few rude and/or anti-Ardern signs among the mostly polite Groundswell protesters get coverage when several like this among last week’s protest did not?

Could it be that the former weren’t singing from the left’s song book and the latter were?

If so, the treatment of the signs looks very like signs of media bias.

The whole truth

Apropos of this morning’s first post on trust in media:

There is a very good reason that court witnesses must swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

It applies to news stories too.

Telling only part of the story without giving the whole story, and without the context, is misleading and can show bias.

In the latest series of context the Media won't provide:
Headline: 'Dozens of jobs set to be axed at Treasury'
Missing context: Since 2017, Treasury staffing has increased by 141 FTEs. In the past year it increased by 89.https://t.co/J1BnTy6NXv

— New Zealand Taxpayers' Union (@TaxpayersUnion) April 5, 2024

Trusting less, avoiding more

AUT’s Trust in Media survey is bad news for media, and democracy :

. . . Since our first Trust in News in Aotearoa New Zealand report was published in 2020, general trust in news in Aotearoa New Zealand has declined. In 2020, 53% of New Zealanders trusted news in general. In 2023, the same figure was 42%. In December 2022, a NZ Herald poll revealed that New Zealanders considered media (38%) as the most untrustworthy institution of those sampled. . . 

Trust in news in New Zealand
• In 2023, general trust in news in New Zealand continued to fall (-3%), but trust in news people themselves consumed increased slightly, indicating that people trust the news they choose themselves the most.

• In 2023, general trust in news declined from 45% to 42%. However, trust in news people consume themselves increased from 52% to 53%.

• From 2020-2023, general trust in news fell by 11%, and trust in news people consume themselves fell by 9% (table 1).

• In 2023, major news brands suffered a considerable decline in trust. Trust in RNZ fell 14.5%, Whakaata Māori 14.3% and Newstalk ZB 14%. Smaller brands such as interest.co.nz, BusinessDesk and Crux were less impacted (table 4).

• In 2023, RNZ, the Otago Daily Times and TVNZ were equally regarded as the most trusted news brands. In 2022, RNZ was the most trusted news brand followed by the other two. In 2023, the top three were followed by interest.co.nz, NBR, Newshub and Newsroom. . . 

Not only is there more distrust of media, more people are avoiding news:

• In 2023, we asked New Zealanders for the first time about news avoidance. Approximately 69% of those surveyed said that they actively avoid news often (11%), and 58% sometimes or occasionally.
• When compared internationally, news avoidance in New Zealand is on a higher level than in other comparable markets (figure 2).

Why are people avoiding news ?

The reasons people say they avoid the news are familiar: news feels depressing and biased, and it increases anxiety. Many of those responding found news repetitive, boring and overly dramatic. Many commented that “same news keeps circulating in different channels” making them avoid certain news/news channels.

There’s an irony that we have far greater access to news, almost anywhere and everywhere at any time but we trust it less and avoid it more.

So much that is reported is, as respondents to the survey said,  depressing, biased, repetitive, boring and overly dramatic.

I’d add unbalanced, too much attempting to tell us what to think and how to feel, and too much insertion of opinion in what ought to be straight reporting as reasons to trust less and avoid more.

That’s not good for the media, when competition for the advertising dollars that sustain it is so fierce, and it’s not good for democracy.

If the fourth estate isn’t healthy, where will we get news we can trust?

If the fourth estate isn’t healthy, who will tell the stories some don’t want to be told?

If the fourth estate isn’t healthy, and trusted who will be holding the powerful to account?

It’s not a tax break

Contrary to what many headlines and news stories are saying, residential landlords are not getting a tax break.

The government is simply restoring to them the tax deductibility of interest they had until the previous government removed it.

There is no logical reason for treating the leasing of houses differently from any other business which is able to claim interest as a tax deductible expense.

Headlining stories and reporting the reinstatement as a tax break is possibly politically motivated and definitely wrong.

Is it any wonder trust in media has declined?

 

WPATH files medical scandal

Anyone seen any mention of this medical scandal in New Zealand media?

You can read more about it here.

And here.

And here.

 

Questions media dosen’t ask

Various news stories have criticisms on National’s replacement for Labour’s Three + Waters.

Most of them talk about what it will cost and that ratepayers will have to pay more.

One question that the media doesn’t ask, or at least doesn’t report the answer to, is who would have paid for Labour’s scheme and how much?

What started as Three Waters grew and the costs of its multiple layers of bureaucracy would have grown too.

The organisations that were to appoint board-appointment committees that in turn were to appoint advisory panels would not have been working for nothing.

Redundancy for two water reform chief executives cost $710,000. Keeping them to oversee the bureaucracy would have cost more.

Three Waters was a complicated and expensive system. That the costs of it weren’t going to be paid by money fairies appears to have escaped media coverage.

Water infrastructure needs funding and under Local Water Done Well we’ll be paying either through rates or water charges. But we’ll be paying for the infrastructure and not the multiple layers of bureaucracy Labour was going to impose on us as well.

Ask Me Anything – Paula Bennet & Heather du Plessis-Allan

Paula Bennett speaks to Heather du Plessis-Allan about politics, parenting and surgery.

You can listen at the link above or on iHeart here.

 

‘We are a great little country that “CAN” ‘

A message from Sir Ray Avery:

Lloyd Burr opinion: Christopher Luxon’s ferry snub shows he’s all talk on infrastructure

In line with my New Year’s resolution to call out Journalists who publish inflammatory and negative clickbait stories lets put Lloyd Burr on the list.

The Government has canned a three-billion-dollar blowout for a new interisland ferry service and Lloyd Burr is claiming that Luxon is “all talk” with respect to investment in infrastructure.

Three billion dollars will go a long way to fixing up essential infrastructure like our potable water supplies and our munted healthcare system.

Lloyd this is a personal attack on Luxon’s moral compass so let’s turn the mirror around.
In my opinion you are an idiot masquerading as a journalist.

This government is trying to live within its’ means and you suggesting that Luxon is “all talk “ with respect to infrastructure is just pond scum reporting.

Most of our city beaches are not swimmable due to sewage outflows and many of our Tamariki are drinking unsafe potable water so there are more pressing infrastructure issues facing our Whanau than a three-billion-dollar interisland ferry service that many people will not use along with the previous governments’ planned cycleway across the Auckland harbour bridge.

You guy’s got a $50 million dollar payout for public interest journalism so how does your opinion piece questioning the ethics of our current prime minister for canning a project which would deliver minimal return on investment helpful?

Pond scum

By way of an apology to my fellow New Zealanders I am trying to bring back New Zealand from the brink of failure due to the negative reporting of our journalists.

The persistent negativity of our journalist reporting is not a recipe for success.

We are a great little country that “CAN” but we can’t allow the clickbait media steal our dreams.

Sir Ray

Thugs’ veto muzzling media

An email from the Free Speech Union has a chilling message on how the thugs’ veto is muzzling media:

Yesterday the Free Speech Union were alerted to NZME, the publishers of the New Zealand Herald, turning down a proposed paid advertisement by Shalom New Zealand (a support group for New Zealand Israelis) on the basis that in order for the advertisement/public letter to be accepted they would need to fund security for the newspaper’s headquarters due to the protests might result.

Putting aside the disturbing situation that New Zealand media outlets now fear violent relation by political activists, it sets a terribly dangerous precedent that the victims of political abuse must pay extra “security fees” to have their right to participate in public dialog.

I wanted to know what the advertisement was. I wondered whether it might have been deliberately provocative or offensive. But nothing could be further from the truth. Take a look for yourself:

This is the advertisement the Herald has turned down:

That the paper fears for the safety of its staff in reaction to this calmly reasoned message is in itself frightening.

What does it say about the people they fear?

What has happened to civil discourse and debate?

I would have thought this advertisement perfectly reasonable in a free and democratic society where people can (and do!) have differing views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. But NZME insist that they will need to employ extra security for their offices if they publish the letter, even as an advertisement.

I am sure you will appreciate the disturbing irony. Israeli-expats are wanting to express their concern that New Zealand is no longer safe for Jews (in our country’s newspaper of record) and the NZME team have said the cost for extra security to keep their offices safe is prohibitive so the advert cannot run!

This is not the tolerant country we know and love

This isn’t an issue of censorship by the media, it’s a case of media being censored by the mob. The fact NZME are taking the mob threats so seriously should send a cold shiver down the backs of those who want our media to be free, frank, and unapologetic in tackling tough subjects.

NZME have said they are willing to run the advertisement so long as the NZ Herald’s additional security costs are covered. Clearly they don’t trust the Police to do their job

The Free Speech Union wants to facilitate discussion between Police and NZME bosses to ensure our media are not subjected to threats for doing their jobs. We are asking our supporters to join us in writing to the Police Commissioner asking him to ensure our media are protected by the Police.

Click here to email the Commissioner.

Upholding the rights to free speech of New Zealanders (and the media) is fundamental in a open and democratic society.

Rather than the Police taking a Posie Parker-style “you shouldn’t say that, you’ll breach the peace” approach to these matters, the target should be those who bully, threaten, and intimidate New Zealanders for expressing views activists do not agree with. Not only did Police fail to protect Posie Parker from violence when she spoke in Albert Park, they arrested a woman for peacefully protesting. Now there is a chance for the Police to come goodand stand up for free speech at our largest newspaper publisher.

After all, if the Police won’t protect our fourth estate from the thugs who wield their veto over controversial topics, then they are only serving those who are trying to make the media subject to mob rule.

No law abiding community should feel unsafe in New Zealand.

No people should feel unsafe because they belong to a group that is acting within the law, whether they are members because of immutable characteristics or choice.

No media should feel staff are at risk if a letter or advertisement that meets legal and ethical standards is published.

If the mob wins this time, who will be silenced next?

Right move, wrong time

Former Labour MP Steve Maharey has resigned from the boards of Pharmac and ACC.

It’s the right move but the wrong time to resign, at least from Pharmac.

The right time would have been immediately after sacking the chief executive when the emails showing the organisation’s ugly culture were released after an Official Information Act request from journalist Rachel Smalley who was maligned by them.

But the CE, Sarah Fitt, wasn’t sacked as James McGoram, Chair of Rare Disorders New Zealand, says:

. . .In the latest chapter of a story that has been widely reported on, Pharmac’s chief executive Sarah Fitt has made an apology of sorts for her inappropriate comments about journalist Rachel Smalley. These comments were made in a series of internal emails with other senior staff, revealed in an OIA request lodged by Smalley herself.

Despite the public outpouring of disgust at the comments, Steve Maharey, chair of Pharmac, has said that the board has accepted her apology. . . 

The comments made about Smalley are bigger than a CEO’s frustration with the demands of a headstrong journalist. These comments hurt every advocate who has ever worried they might not be taken seriously, who has ever thought an official was rolling their eyes at them. They reinforce the thoughts of anyone who has hesitated to raise their voice for fear of being slapped down again.

They revealed what I believe is something ugly in the culture of Pharmac: what I view as contempt for the people they are meant to help.

Contempt is poisonous. It spreads throughout an organisation. It colours the way people are perceived. Patients seeking treatment are at risk of being seen as problems first and as people second. . . 

All of which brings us to Steve Maharey and the Pharmac board. Faced with evidence of this contempt at the highest level and the erosion of trust in an agency already beset by a lack of credibility, their response is what I found to be an insincere apology and a list of actions that do not address the core problem: that patients do not have confidence Pharmac is acting in their best interests.

This is foremost a failure of governance. In light of this, Rare Disorders NZ has called for the removal of Steve Maharey as Chair of Pharmac.

Would such a move restore trust in the agency? Probably not, on its own, but it would create the opportunity Pharmac needs to evolve into the agency it ought to be – our greatest ally in the struggle to provide equitable access to medicines in New Zealand. . . 

Maharey has, belatedly resigned and Fitt ought to follow his example.

If she doesn’t it’s up to the new Associate Minister of Health with responsibility for Pharmac, David Seymour,  who will be very unlikely to tolerate that sort of behaviour in a chief executive and will want a much better performance from the agency.

That will require him to find a new chair, possibly a whole new board, of people who will start the much-needed change at the top of the agency.

When focus shows bias

When the Groundswell tractor protests rolled into towns and cities across the country the media focussed on a few isolated banners that were critical of the then-Prime Minsiter Jacinda Ardern.

This image is all over social media but I have yet to see it anywhere on mainstream news sties.

Liam Hehir has helpfully written the story the mainstream media haven’t :

The media vehemently, and repeatedly, denied accusations of bribery last week.

The contrast in their focus on two very different protests is not evidence of bribery but it shows a very clear bias.

It wasn’t just $55 million

Winston Peters reckons media outlets were bribed by the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund.

He is not the first to make such an accusation.

Last year, the Platform outlined conditions media signed up to in return for funds from the PJIF:

. . . That is essentially how the Public Interest Journalism Fund is set up – like a loan. Not only do applicants have to thoroughly explain how they will adhere to the particular co-governance model of understanding the Treaty in order to get the funding in the first place, they have to agree that should they deviate from presenting this perspective NZ On Air can say that they have defaulted on the agreement and demand the funding be repaid. . . 

What are the odds that a funding application that included a ‘Te Tiriti response’ that disputed modern ideas of co-governance – even criticised it – would get funded? Slim to none would be my expectation.

Instead, Kiwis wanting to produce and create their content will need to leaf through the provided Framework, tick the boxes, and fall in line. That means, among other things, promoting ideas laid out in He Puapua, agreeing that due to colonialism we live in a society that perpetuates racism, supporting a vision for constitutional reform of New Zealand, and restructuring of “non-Government organisations…according to te Tiriti o Waitangi”. . . 

If you click on the link above you’ll find the general terms of the agreement include default if you breach the agreement or if we reasonably believe you are likely to breach this agreement.

That would have made the media very, very cautious and very, very unlikely to cover dissenting views.

Karl du Fresne called it Project Pravda:

. . . The government has done its best to ensure continued media support for this ideological project by creating a $55 million slush fund supposedly created to support “public interest journalism” but available only to news organisations that commit themselves to the promotion of the so-called principles (never satisfactorily defined) of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. 

What has been framed as an idealistic commitment to the survival of journalism is, in other words, a cynical and opportunistic bid for control over the news media at a time when the industry is floundering.  This is a government so shameless, or perhaps so convinced of its own untouchability, that it’s brazenly buying the media’s compliance. . . 

Was the PJIF bribery?

Definitions of bribe include: dishonestly persuade (someone) to act in one’s favour by a gift of money or other inducement; to try to make someone do something for you, often something dishonest, by giving them money, gifts, or something else that they want; and to give money or a favour in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. 

It’s going too far to say there was dishonesty but the fund required the media to adhere to the previous government’s Treaty-centric views and influenced the way Māori issues were covered.

Ben Espiner shows it wasn’t just $55 million.

. . . In 2022 TVNZ and Stuff accepted $500,000 between them from the Government in exchange for a number of programming and print deals, including an hour long 1news special on climate change, five news articles on 1news.co.nz, a selection of interviews with climate experts on Breakfast TV and a 7 Sharp interview with a government official.

All of these were presented as news content, none of them were adequately marked as government advertising. To quote broadcaster Mike Hosking at the time ‘if that isn’t media corruption, I don’t know what is’. The story received almost no coverage other than this comment. . . 

On top of that there was a lot of advertising paid for with public money and a friend who worked in the media was told to moderate criticism of the government for fear the outlet would lose these ads and the income that came with them.

It’s no coincidence that trust in the media has declined:

The AUT research centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy (JMAD) has published its fourth Trust in News in Aotearoa New Zealand report, authored by Dr Merja Myllylahti and Dr Greg Treadwell. The 2023 report finds that general trust in the news and news brands is continuing to erode.

In 2023, general trust in news declined from 45% to 42%, continuing a downward trend that was already evident in 2020 when the survey was first conducted. . . 

In 2023, all the major New Zealand news brands suffered a considerable decline in trust. Trust in RNZ fell 14.5%, Whakaata Māori 14.3% and Newstalk ZB 14%.Smaller brands such as interest.co.nz, BusinessDesk and Crux were less impacted. . . 

The media’s hysterical outrage in response to Peters will have done nothing to improve that.

At least one outlet said his criticism had distracted attention from the Prime Minister, failing to see the irony that it was the media’s response to the criticism that created the distraction.

Some went on to criticise the PM for not hauling Peters into line in a manner not dissimilar from children running to parents to get them to discipline a sibling.

The PM isn’t Peters’ parent and his response was refreshingly measured:

. . . Luxon said, “it’s not the way I would describe it, but I actually also don’t support the fund either”.

“Many New Zealanders, they don’t think it was a good idea … and I will be one of those people that didn’t think it was a good idea.

“It actually leads to perceptions of bias, rightly or wrongly, I just say to you, that’s the perception whether that’s real or not, doesn’t really matter. That’s what the perception creates.” . . 

The response of the media to the accusations which showed no self-awareness reinforced perceptions of bias, perceptions bolstered by a survey of journalists:

. . . Fortunately, the Worlds of Journalism Study in late 2022 has now provided some useful data through their survey of working journalists.

The study found a massive 81% of NZ journalists classified their political views as left of centre and only 15% as right of centre. So rather than have a 1:1 ratio of left-leaning journalists to right-leaning journalists, you have a 5:1 ratio.

This is in stark contrast to the New Zealand population. The 2020 election survey by Auckland University found 28% of respondents identified as left of centre and 43% as right of centre. So journalists are very unrepresentative of New Zealand in terms of political views.

New Zealand journalists were also far more likely to hold extreme left views. 20% of journalists said their political views are hard or extreme left, compared to 6% of adults. On the other side of the spectrum, only 1% said their political views are hard or extreme right compared to 10% of the adult population. . . 

That’s more journalists on the far left than the total who regard themselves as right of centre which explains the government war on the new government:

We are in an extraordinary situation where the mainstream media are openly at war with an elected government. This has never happened before in my lifetime, and to my knowledge never in New Zealand history.

Having adopted a nauseatingly sycophantic approach to the former government, consistently ignoring issues that showed it in a bad light and subjecting it to only the gentlest scrutiny while mercilessly savaging the opposition, the media are now in full-on attack mode.

The level of hostility toward the Luxon-led government is striking. All pretence of balance and neutrality has been abandoned. 

The hostility isn’t universal but it’s vehement.

The message is clear. The mainstream media are sulking because they think the voters elected the wrong government. They are angry and indignant that despite all their efforts, New Zealand swung right on October 14.

They are wilfully tone-deaf to the public mood because they think they know better. It means nothing to them that the voters had had enough of Labour’s ideological excesses. At best, the high priests of the media (or should I say high priestesses, since the worst offenders are female) are indifferent to democracy; at worst, they resent it because it gives power to the hoi-polloi – the deplorables, to use Hillary Clinton’s word. . . 

Perhaps it would help if the press gallery got out of Wellington, which opted for red and green at the election in sharp contrast to the blue wave that swept the country, they might understand that there are other views than theirs and then they might also understand why voters wanted change.

Keep us from pettiness

Rural Women NZ’s creed begins:  Keep us oh God from pettiness; Let us be large in thought, in word, and deed.

It is a creed many in the media would do well to follow.

The latest petty point scoring is over the cost of airfares and hotel rooms for coalition negotiations.

Little things add up but would it be any less expensive to have the three leaders and any of their teams who are negotiating and don’t live in Wellington flying to and from there?

If only those focussing on a relatively few thousand dollars had been so assiduous in the highlighting the billions of dollars the outgoing government wasted.

If only they could also find something more to report on than their own frustrations about the time that negotiations are taking.

If only they could keep from pettiness and be large in thought, word and deed.

 

Electorate MPs can’t choose communities

The newly elected Wellington Central MP doesn’t understand her responsibility to her constituents:

New Wellington Central MP Tamatha Paul will need to represent everyone in the electorate, including the people who didn’t vote for her – and Mike Hosking’s listeners.

The Green Party team declined to give Hosking an interview with Paul on Saturday night. Paul said some of the Newstalk ZB broadcaster’s comments can be “inflammatory” for the communities she represents.

”There is a bit of distrust from particular communities about some of the things that he says that can be really quite hurtful,“ she told Newstalk ZB Wellington Mornings host Nick Mills.

”That doesn’t really align with what we stand for with the Greens and so that call was made.” . . .

She has been elected as a Green MP but her responsibility is to serve all her constituents not just Green aligned communities.

Being a local MP means keeping up with local issues and arguing on behalf of local causes in Parliament.

MPs must make themselves available to constituents for any queries they have, including queries that don’t relate to Green Party policy. . . .

She might not be the only MP from one of the wee parties who has to learn that electorate MPs have a wider constituency than their members and supporters.

Doxxing isn’t journalism

The Free Speech Union says we must push back against a journalist’s attempt to publicly shame a doctor:

Hello,

I don’t like to interrupt first thing Monday morning, but we’ve just become aware of a case where we think immediate and overwhelming attention could help turn the tide. It involves someone I’ve long followed on Twitter with the handle @MomoStJohn.

I followed Momo because of tweets that seemed reassuringly well-informed on issues raised by anti-vaxxers and others suspicious of conventional medicine. There were also many sensible comments and corrections in debates about the collapse of morale and service capacity in our health system. I’ve just learned that she is a senior practitioner and is employed by Te Whatu Ora.

Momo needs your help.

But helping to protect her from media and employer oppression could also help turn the tide in favour of other health sector people who want to be able to tell the truth without fear of cancellation.

For years, Momo has had an anonymous Twitter account where she could express thoughts on issues without causing what employers could claim was embarrassment, and to avoid trouble for colleagues. She needed to keep her identity confidential.

Over years of seeing her tweets, I remember nothing offensive. Her opinions  seemed informed and interesting. Sometimes they were blunt (i.e expressed crisply) but Twitter is not a medium for pompous euphemisms.

From what we explain below, there may have been support for gender-critical feminism (perhaps the view that “what is a woman” has had a simple answer since forever) and probably some expression of the widespread medical professional revulsion at rationing medical care on the basis of race, instead of clinical need and usefulness. I recall nothing that any rational professional should be ashamed of.

But last week, someone complained to Te Whatu Ora that Momo was saying things they disagreed with. I saw Momo’s announcement that she was closing her twitter account and then scores of followers tweeting best wishes and regret at the loss.

A journalist at Stuff, Jody O’Callahan ‘with a focus on Maori affairs and diversity’ found out who Momo was and sent this message:

‘Issues with your social media activity’ should read: ‘We’ve found ‘wrongthink’ on your anonymous account.’ Then, two fake questions which are essentially dodgy allegations around statements assuming guilt.

The message is nothing more than ‘We are going to publicly denounce you.’

The fake questions are framed to allow the branding of any careful and accurate answer as denialism, or equivocation, in the classic ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ genre.

In response, Momo released a statement which read:

What’s the story here? 

If there is any story to follow O’Callaghan’s fake questions, they must depend on one or more of the following:

(1) The idea that it is “unsafe” to allow doctors to practice if they still believe in the science they learned and rely on, which denies that men can become women if they want; or

(2) It may be safe to allow doctors to practice while not believing in the new ruling dogma on gender as long as they never express their doubts about the new faith publicly; or

(3) That someone who believes that racism in rationing healthcare is wrong will be dangerous to patients who would ‘benefit’ from getting a race pass to the front of the queue; or

(4) There is nevertheless some technique or way for a doctor who believes that racism in health care is wrong to “ensure” that their opposition to racism won’t “sway how” [they] treat [their] patients.”

All the likely interpretations of the fake questions make them disgracefully silly for the journalist ‘asking’ them.

In reality, the story is a story only for those believe it is OK for employers to use their power to stop doctors working if they don’t believe, or at least pretend to believe, in the recently imposed Wellington official faiths in race preferences and non-binary gender. 

This is a very dangerous takeover of state powers. It treats the idea of the tolerant secular state, which drove the NZ Bill of Rights Act protections of freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, as quaint anachronisms – to be ignored. .

Ms Callaghan and her enablers in Stuff need to answer some questions themselves – genuine ones this time.

“Are doctors not allowed to have opinions themselves? What opinions are forbidden? What if until recently discrimination was considered wrong? At what stage should people with newly-‘sinful’ views be considered to have become dangerous? Who will decide? Have you asked the patients – what if they still want doctors who have the courage to resist ideological bullies? Have you asked if the trans and Maori you pretend to care about should get a choice? As a journalist are you worried if it becomes routine for people to hide their views – because your questions seem to rely on an assumption that things could be fine if the ‘sinful’ thoughts had been harbored unsaid.”

There are scores more pertinent questions to put to Ms. Callaghan and Stuff.

“Have you another line of views and jobs that can’t be mixed? Where is your evidence that the views you are trying to smoke out, are associated with risks? How will you ensure that your views wont sway and bias the “news” you supply to the people who rely on Stuff to be informed? Are you perpetuating mistrust among those of us who seek objective and factual reporting?”

We just want to give you your opportunity to have a say.”

You will be able to think of many more.

Now is the time to smoke out the journalists who want to doxx doctors who don’t share their totalitarian ideological faith. Please send Ms Callaghan and Stuff your questions. We have written directly with some.

Stuff should not be allowed to get away with doxxing medical staff for ‘wrongthink’? Our professionally conducted annual survey of academic freedom shows the pervasive fear now in our Universities; that a career-ending mistake could come from incautious expression of doubt in the current Wellington orthodoxy.

Let’s fight this spread into medicine. Actions like this are why Kiwis self-censor and feel unfree to speak (or think) for themselves. We need to stand up for the right of this medical practitioner to hold opinions others don’t like, and push back.

What you can do: 

Contact Jody O’Callaghan at jody.ocallaghan@stuff.co.nz. If you’re on Twitter, her handle is: @miss_jodyo

Kamala Hayman is also the editor of The Press, which is the Stuff outlet O’Callaghan works for. You can copy her in too: Kamala.hayman@stuff.co.nz. Her Twitter handle is: @kamala_hayman

Remind them that in a free country people like Momo in the caring professions have every right to hold opinions others disagree with, and to express them publicly. Hit jobs like this are the reason many feel like they need to hide behind anonymous accounts on Twitter to say anything at all. Do we wonder why only 42% of Kiwis trust mainstream media?

The Free Speech Union entirely endorses the crucial role of the 4th Estate and the freedom of the press. Media are supposed to perform a vital function to enable free speech and democracy. Yet, actions like those being attempted by O’Callaghan and Stuff are the opposite of this. They now use this freedom to seek out people with diverse thoughts and target them for not holding the approved line.

I hope you will join us today in pushing back against this nonsense.

Stephen Franks Council Member Free Speech Union www.fsu.nz

The FSU has written to Te Whatu Ora. The letter is here.

It has also made a media release:

Te Whatu Ora must stand by employees’ rights to freedom of thought and speech

The Free Speech Union insists that Te Whatu Ora stand by their employees’ rights of freedom of thought and speech after an incident last week.  

We were informed by one of their members who’d had a complaint laid against them due to opinions held on an anonymous Twitter account. The complaint was made to Te Whatu Ora after a member of the public made the connection between the medical professional and the anonymous account, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.   

“When Te Whatu Ora was contacted for comment by The Press, they said they’d be raising the concerns directly with the employee as part of their normal organisational processes.  

“Te Whatu Ora should refuse to comment on any staff member’s private statements unrelated to their work. It is beyond the relationship between the employer and employee, and Te Whatu Ora should have merely noted that it has no business in approving or disapproving of an employee’s opinions on matters not going to the performance of their professional duties. As is noted in the media statement released by Te Whatu Ora on 20 September, there exists no connection between the employee’s tweets and their medical practice. 

“We have written to Andrew Slatter, Chief People Officer at Te Whatu Ora requesting he confirm the organisation’s justification for interfering with employees’ thoughts and speech outside of their jobs.  

“Employees do not give up their rights when they undertake a particular profession. We will not stand by while professional bodies deny their employees’ freedom.”   

I’ve followed, enjoyed and never found anything offensive in Momo’s tweets.

I don’t recall ever seeing any that are racist or derogatory to trans people. But then, unlike the journalist I am quite clear that there is significant difference between discussing issues and expressing discriminatory views.

What the journalist is doing isn’t journalism, it’s doxxing, using the media to harass and bully someone who doesn’t adhere to the religion of wokeism.

When you are being treated by doctors does it occur to you to question their personal views?

Would it worry you that they accept scientific facts?

Would it worry you if they tweet in their own time?

It worries me that when the health system is in crisis and doctors under so much pressure at work, that a journalist should try to destroy one’s career .

It worries me that when there are so many serious issues for journalists to focus on, one is wasting her time trawling through social media and using what she’s found to attack someone.

It worries me that a journalist thinks it’s her role to be the morality police.