He never was the best man

The Listener  editorial gives us a timely reminder of how Winston Peters came to be Foreign Minsiter:

 … the knowledge that Peters was not necessarily the best man for the job, but rather had the right number of MPs to enable Labour to form an MMP government, remains a taint on his appointment.

Fears about how bad a job Peters might do as Foreign Minister haven’t been realised, but the events of the last couple of weeks show he’s still not the best man for it.

Peters’ image is affected, too, by revelations in the past fortnight of secret donations to his party. There are good reasons that donors to political parties should be able to remain anonymous in both their own interests, and to prevent corruption. But there are far too many unanswered questions around these particular donations for public comfort.

So far, Peters has maintained the cautious backing of Prime Minister Helen Clark, mostly because the pair have a mutually dependent political relationship. However difficult the current situation is, it is in both parties’ interests to keep going unless Clark decides Peters has become so much of a liability and distraction that Labour must cut its losses.

Even if the arrangement survives – and MMP makes such deals not only possible but often necessary – all political parties will be tarred by public distaste for what has been revealed. New Zealand First and its leader may have broken no rules, but the obfuscation, and Peters’ Muldoon-like accusatory, bullying and vindictive tactics against individual reporters and the media in general have done him no favours.

On occasions, Peters likes to give a cheeky grin, as though he and reporters know the interview process is little more than part of the great game of politics. But serious questions have been raised that demand answers. This is not a game. The unanswered questions go to the heart of public confidence in the integrity of the political process.

Peters would be the first to blame the media for the low opinion in which the public holds politicians. But his actions and his continued obfuscation only serve to prove that, in his case, that view is more than justified; and questions about the inegrity of an MP then leads to doubts about the integrity of the political system.

Clark Shoots Messenger

A tape of Helen Clark’s speech to a journalism conference in which she criticised the media has been released after an Official Information Act request by a member of the public and the intervention of the ombudsman.

On the tape, Clark is severely critical of journalists for their alleged lack of knowledge of world events, historical context, and “letting the facts get in the way of the story.”

Shouldn’t the criticism be for not  letting the facts get in the way of the story?

She claims TV3 political editor Duncan Garner had told a seminar that “politicians always lie”.

“I’m sorry, politicians don’t always lie. I’m quite appalled by that statement. I think it’s important that scrutiny is not confused with cynicism,” Clark said.

Of course politicians don’t always lie, but Garner says what he actually said was that the first instinct of politicians when cornered was to lie.

Clark says there are large gaps in journalists’ general knowledge, and in geography, sociology, and economic matters.

“Very few journalists have any comprehension of the range of relations New Zealand has, the range of issues New Zealand is involved in.”

Most journalists were too young to remember seminal events in the country’s history, she says.

“Today’s political editors of the two main TV channels were barely in their infancy, if born, when Norman Kirk brought the troops back from Vietnam, the Springbok tour, sent the frigate to Mururoa – events that to many of our age group were seminal events,” Clark said.

“Muldoon and David Lange are basically ancient history too and world war one and two are antedivulian.”

Lack of institutional knowledge in newsrooms is a concern but she’s got to remember that it’s not only young people who don’t share her memories of what she considers important. It’s 27 years since I started journalism and I don’t remember Kirk bringing the troops back from Vietnam – I would have been at high school at the time.  The Springbok tour happened a few months after I started work and I remember reporting on it, but it isn’t nearly as important to me as it obviously is to her.

Clark said trends in journalism included “making the story all about them”, a “rush to judgment” on blogging, a refusal to send journalists on overseas trips, and competition that was leading to inaccuracies.

“There wouldn’t be a day go by when something isn’t just plain wrong,” she said.

There are journalists who blog but not all blogs are journalism and not all rush – some of us take a carefully considered path to judgement 😉

I’ll concede that mistakes happen too often and it must be frustrating – but sometimes it’s not the reporting that’s wrong when it doesn’t reflect your own view.

Clark said New Zealand was fortunate to have a free media, however, and politicians still needed journalists as much as the media needed political news.  

Clark courted journalists when she became Prime Minister, and she got a pretty gentle run for a time. Now they’re reporting a different view of the world from hers and she’s taking it personally.

[Update: Karl du Fresne has another view on the media here]