He’s got the fire and the fury
At his command
Well, you don’t have to worry
If you hold on to Jesus’ hand
We’ll all be safe from Satan
When the thunder rolls
We just gotta keep the devil
Way down in the hole
─ Tom Waits, “Way Down In The Hole”
What's not to like about Stuff Circuit’s Fire and Fury? It’s a well-made documentary of the sort New Zealand television used to make, but now only produces intermittently. It seeks answers to the questions many New Zealanders have been asking themselves since Parliament Grounds went up in flames on March 2. The driving force behind Fire and Fury, the highly-experienced journalist, Paula Penfold, has delivered on her promise to go behind the events of that day and name the names of those who were, at least in part, responsible for the disturbing scenes that marked the end of the weeks-long anti-vaccination protest.
Why, then, has the documentary left me feeling vaguely uneasy? And, before you object – “It’s meant to! – my uneasiness has nothing to do with the unsavoury cast of proto-fascist conspiracy theorists and “influencers” whose faces and words feature so prominently throughout the documentary. Sure, these people are loathsome, and their comments teeter alarmingly on the brink of outright criminality, but that is entirely unsurprising. From the get-go, the tone, sound-track, and crepuscular palette of the production cues the viewer for the darkness of its subject-matter.
Borrowing their title from Tom Waits’ Way Down In The Hole suggests that the makers of Fire and Fury see their subjects as being down there with the Devil. Perhaps that’s it? Perhaps it was my unconscious conflation of “Jesus’ hand” with the hands of the documentary’s producers, that gave me the uneasy feeling that I was being led to someone else’s holier-than-thou explanation for the rolling political thunder of our times.
Bluntly, Fire and Fury relies much too heavily on the “expert” commentary of Kate Hannah, a principal investigator and director of The Disinformation Project, a state-funded research exercise run out of Te Pūnaha Matatini at the University of Auckland. In an interview with Dale Husband on the Māori radio station, Waatea, Hannah revealed that The Disinformation Project had been set up in February 2020, immediately prior to the outbreak of the Covid-19 Pandemic, to counter the anti-government, anti-scientific, and anti-medicine narratives that the authorities were clearly anticipating.
What is it that disturbs me about The Disinformation Project? Surely, having people monitor the misinformation and disinformation being spread deliberately during a major medical emergency is an entirely sensible government initiative? Any undermining of the collective effort to protect the population from the effects of a potentially deadly virus is prima facie evidence of evil intent. Many would say that identifying and neutralising such anti-social elements is an important state responsibility.
True enough, but why bury such a unit deep in the dense undergrowth of academia? And why appoint as its director a woman whose Masters thesis was on Nineteenth Century American literary culture, rather than a qualified medical administrator? If such a unit was needed, then why not set it up within the Ministry of Health, and make it answerable to the then Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield?
The problem is, the moment you start asking questions like this you immediately run the risk of being branded a conspiracy theorist. And that just circles the whole argument back to its starting-point: the dark narrative of evil intent which lies at the heart of Fire and Fury.
The question, never satisfactorily answered, which lies at the heart of Fire and Fury is – Why? What is it that prompts individuals to create false political, economic and cultural narratives in the first place? More importantly, what is it that makes otherwise perfectly sensible and caring people follow these fantasists down their rabbit holes?
Well, what led Alice down the rabbit hole in Lewis Carrol’s famous children’s story? Wasn’t it the sight of a waist-coated white rabbit consulting a pocket-watch and muttering “I’m late!”? Who wouldn’t want to get to the bottom of a sight as peculiar as that!
Many people find themselves caught up in events over which they exercise no control, and which they do not understand. Since, in small matters, they find it easy to identify cause and effect, they assume (wrongly) that big events can be equally easily explained.
This is by no means an unreasonable assumption, given the propensity of governments to explain large events in the most simplistic terms. Those who remain unconvinced by these official versions, all too often discover their scepticism to be entirely justified. Nothing encourages the growth of conspiracy theories faster that citizens discovering that their own governments have conspired to deceive them.
In Fire and Fury, Kate Hannah explains the concept of what she calls “necessary” or “protective” violence. Once a group of citizens convinces themselves that their government, motivated by pure evil, is “coming after their kids”, then there is nothing they will not contemplate to keep their loved ones, and their homeland, safe.
Step this argument back a few paces, and it is possible to grasp how individuals of an authoritarian and/or paranoid temperament, having learned that their government has deliberately lied to them, decide that striking back with lies of their own is not only justified – but also the only effective way to balance the scales.
Like the evil wizard in the tale of Aladdin, the conspiracy theorists come offering “new lamps [lies] for old”. And, like all good liars, they mix in a hefty portion of the truth in with their falsehoods. “Why is it,” they ask, “that you will never encounter people with information contradicting the government’s claims in the mainstream news media?” While most people will respond by pointing out the idiocy of spreading false information during a pandemic, a not inconsiderable minority will accept the conspiracy theorists’ explanation that the news media are nothing more than the paid mouthpieces of a government unwilling to tell its citizens the truth.
It is a great pity that Paula Penfold and her team did not spend more time talking to the fiery and furious individuals around whose behaviour the documentary was constructed. A pity, too, that they did not explore in greater depth the popular conviction that the Public Interest Journalism Fund – which paid for Fire and Fury – is proof of the conspiracy theorists’ contention that the mainstream news media has, indeed, been bought and paid for.
Yes, there is an argument to be made that it is better to allow these “influencers” to condemn themselves out of their own mouths, than it is to interview them one-on-one. Equally, there is an argument for doing both: broadcasting their views – and also asking them to explain why they continually engage in such dangerous speech. Watching Fire and Fury, it is easy to apprehend its makers’ fear of “the mob”. The hostility directed towards journalists who were “just doing their job” by militant anti-vaxxers certainly was frighteningly intense.
And yet, these people are New Zealanders too. And perhaps that is what, in the end, made me feel so uneasy about the Fire and Fury documentary. Watching it, the viewer cannot help being struck by the vast epistemological gulf separating its subjects from its makers.
Listening to Hannah and the other, equally disdainful “experts” consulted by Penfold and her colleagues, the viewers could be forgiven for thinking that they was listening to a team of anthropologists describing the cultural practices of a particularly belligerent tribe of indigenes. Certainly, the inclusion of Rebecca Kitteridge, Director of the SIS, among that commentary team does not bode well for the future safety of this truculent tribe.
Fire and Fury didn’t quite call them “deplorables” – but it came close.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
117 Comments
If you want to give another three years to the most incompetent PM and Government in living memory, vote Labour. My financially comfortable household is rolling in Government largesse. 2 x Clean car rebates and a COL payment. Meanwhile the poor get nothing. Go figure.
Don’t overplay Lanthanide too much GBH. First post here this column, sums it up really. To paraphrase Orwell. Something like - it’s not so much that he loves the Labour Party it his hatred of the National Party that drives him (or her.) Nothing wrong with that. This site gives voice to all facets of the diet; partisanship is alive and well.
If you care about this country then it’s essential to remove Labour from power ASAP. They’ve probably wasted over a hundred billion dollars on unnecessary covid spending. They’ve closed the country for literally years causing permanent financial damage which will almost certainly lower the standard of living in the future. Labour is incapable of ever acknowledging that the covid vaccines, that cost the country it’s social cohesion and a kings ransom, were actually pretty ineffective and unsafe after all, you know - compared to pretty much every other vaccine. By the way, there’s a mountain of peer reviewed scientific literature pointing to that fact. Why any government would encourage vaccinating kids against covid at this stage is beyond me. Labour are still clinging to masks, presumably as a psychological operation. Pretty much everywhere else in the world has stopped mandating the use of masks. Then the media are producing this transparent propaganda piece “fire and fury” designed to discredit any dissenting voices. It's just a bit too much really…
Yep, the monetary base went from 15.0 billion dollars in December 2019 to 56.6 billion in July 2022 (RBNZ stats here). That's a 3.7 fold increase. That will eventually trickle down to consumer price inflation. If you assume that would happen over 10 years, then it implies 10 years of 14.2% pa inflation. I guess it's lucky the government gave the RBNZ other stuff to worry about like employment and house prices. I mean why would a central bank worry about inflation? .... Actually, anything greater than 10% pa is technically hyperinflation depending on ones definition of the word.
The fact that the media just repeat all the government propoganda then label anyone that disagrees as a conspiracy nut is the real problem.
If the media did their actual job instead of just reprinting govt press realeases maybe we wouldn't have so much misinformation in the world.
It's unfortunate that science has become so politicised in your mind so someone presenting health evidence - that was in line with the government that is recognised to have managed one of the best health responses in the western world - is seen by you as being "Government PR".
You claiming this is the worst government in living memory tells me all I need to know.
Alzheimer's is a hell of a drug.
You could also take those rebates you claim you don't need and donate them to someone that does. The government is representative of the wider public.
Lanthanide, we will soon find out more about health evidence. Time will tell in which way the 'vaccines' have worked and which way the have not worked.
You say our government had one of the "best health responses in the Western world". Does breaking basic human rights by subjecting people to experimental genetic modification represent "best health responses in the Western world"?
Why are we now, after the 'vaccination' campaign, one of the countries with the highest prevalence of Covid, as I understand from an article that was posted here on this website a few weeks ago?
I agree, it would've been good if National under Key faced some real media scrutiny.
We would've known about the hospitals with sewerage leaking into the walls for example, and the fact that National was doing nothing to get to the bottom of the meth scare they used to kick tenants out of state houses - which Ardern's government had to pay out the victims for.
Chris Bishop has been making a lot of noise on Facebook about a broken down Fire Truck not being able to make it to a motel blaze recently in Hutt Valley. It's quite ironic really.
16:42, Aug 09 2016
The New Zealand Fire Service rolled out the MAN Type 3 fire trucks over the last two years, with about 20 now in service in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
More than 200 faults had been reported across the fleet since they were introduced, including trucks not starting and slipping out of gear, water pumps breaking down on the job and door handles falling off.
Best said the blacklisted vehicles were "representative of all of the new trucks".
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/82981907/christchurch-fire-engin…?
John Key and Helen Clark, were both saying very early on (in 2020) that the border needed to be reopened. John Key said we risked not being able to "pay our way in the world". It's pretty reasonable to assume that things would have been very different under John Key.
You mean like in Sweden, which had one of the lowest covid deaths per capita in Europe, 25th out of 30 Countries.
And yet Sweden still has 56 /100k pop excess deaths.
They also have a very high functioning health system, relatively low GINI co-efficiency, and fairly low population density (urban and other).
So apples with apples, other Scandinavian countries with similar factors - but also far more stringent COVID controls - had far fewer deaths than Sweden; Demark (32/100k), Norway (1/110k).
NZ is about the same as Norway in excess fatalities.
C19 vaccination in all three countries Norway, Sweden and Denmark was never mandated! All three countries provide evidence for how overzealous and immoral the NZ government's approach was. Also from June 2021 Denmark and Norway withdrew offering the vaccine to children and pregnant women.
True, but the article linked to was about public health measures other than vaccination (principally, mask wearing)
Also worth nothing that while no mandate was enforced all Scandinavian countries have fairly high rates; Sweden sits @ ~73%, Norway ~75% and Denmark ~82%.
Which leads to the fairly obvious conclusion that high vaccination rates + public health measures = good result, not vaccination alone or public health measures in isolation.
"The fact that the media just repeat all the government propaganda then label anyone that disagrees as a conspiracy nut is the real problem."
Except of course, they don't do this at all. This is quite literally one of the key points of Trotter's piece - that this straw-man is consistently presented by conspiracists, and not backed up with facts.
However, your second point has a kernel of truth to it. There is a lot of presser recycling accepted as news without much deeper digging, particularly on the more easy to digest, sound-bite heavy formats (generally the first 10-15 minutes of TV news).
Trotter doesn't quite say what you say he does. He said that the way The Public Interest Journalism Fund was seen as a way for the government to essentially get written what they want, was not explored.
And it wasn't explored because a) This stupid documentary was made with that very money and b) Do you think Stuff want to bite the hand that feeds them?
You must have missed this fairly lengthy para:
"Like the evil wizard in the tale of Aladdin, the conspiracy theorists come offering “new lamps [lies] for old”. And, like all good liars, they mix in a hefty portion of the truth in with their falsehoods. “Why is it,” they ask, “that you will never encounter people with information contradicting the government’s claims in the mainstream news media?” While most people will respond by pointing out the idiocy of spreading false information during a pandemic, a not inconsiderable minority will accept the conspiracy theorists’ explanation that the news media are nothing more than the paid mouthpieces of a government unwilling to tell its citizens the truth."
"He said that the way The Public Interest Journalism Fund was seen as a way for the government to essentially get written what they want, was not explored."
He didn't say this at all.
He said it was a pity that it wasn't "explore[d] in greater depth the popular conviction" (i.e. the belief in some quarters) the conspiracy thinking that claims the "mainstream news media has, indeed, been bought and paid for."
And he's right. The conspiracy thinking could and should have been challenged as it's clearly pervasive.
And, as noted in another comment, the optics are horrible - the Govt has done a terrible job of explaining why the fund needs to exist (i.e. that successive governments have allowed through incompetence and cowardice, strong-arm tactics by powerful media aggregators like Facebook who claim to be non-editorial to dominate news distribution and advertising, without ensuring that they pay for news, pay tax or pay in some way for the burden of proof in allowing disinformation on their platforms).
Once again, profits privatised, costs socialised in what is a very high stakes game.
"The conspiracy thinking could and should have been challenged as it's clearly pervasive."
I agree, but to do this well, requires the ability to also challenge the status quo thinking. After all, you need to be able to definitively prove something is right, to prove the other is wrong.
Our media have shown they cannot be trusted to question anything adequately (whether due to laziness, lack of capability, or corrupted)
MSM lost that trust when they swung from being neutral to showing clear political and situational biases. Both the message and the messenger are now compromised.
The problem with Social media is more complex. The message may be compromised. But, the messenger (Your mate/relative/colleague) is not, so the mental filters that normally spot crap are turned off.
The question is, can the MSM build back the trust?
"I agree, but to do this well, requires the ability to also challenge the status quo thinking. After all, you need to be able to definitively prove something is right, to prove the other is wrong."
If only the world were this black and white.
In principle, I agree - facts should be facts, and they shouldn't be contestable. But when you are dealing with matters of public policy and emergency response which are highly political, things are seldom that simple.
"MSM lost that trust when they swung from being neutral to showing clear political and situational biases. Both the message and the messenger are now compromised"
This depends on whether you accept a public good argument in times in time of extraordinary crisis, or not.
They've never been neutral - that's a myth. To suggest though that this is a new phenomenon is also inaccurate - generally speaking, the news media tends to give the government of the day somewhat of a pass. This is quite simply a factor of access: if journos are too aggressive, they lose access to juicy tidbits.
It becomes self-fulfiling and self-censoring, but entirely predictable when the media is laser-like focused on the "scoop" and more PR people are employed to spin and leak inside of ministerial offices than there are people to advise on policy.
An evolving emergency response has some leeway, but should not be entirely above question. Public policy even less so, if the policy is unclear, then it is bad policy.
Re neutrality, you are right, the media have never been neutral. But now they have moved from primarily informative to almost entirely emotive. Everything is either opinion, sponsored content, or just straight entertainment.
" and more PR people are employed to spin and leak inside of ministerial offices than there are people to advise on policy."
Yes, and then we wonder why people think they aren't getting the truth...
I agree, they shouldn't be above question. And realistically, they haven't been.
There have been plenty of well-aired contrarian views (cf everything that Mike Hoskings has ever said). Free speech has not been suppressed , no matter what various crack-pots suggest. No one has been muzzled, jailed or disappeared by the secret police for expressing their views.
And yes, the sensationalist 'tabloidisation' of NZs media landscape leaves a lot to be desired - but this is a global phenomenon in the West, and not something that started with this government.
"Yes, and then we wonder why people think they aren't getting the truth..."
You'll never 'get the truth' from a political office. I'm not sure why people think they would. People have brains in their heads; they should use them.
If they expect to be spoon fed 'truth' then we have bigger problems in the body politic.
"If they expect to be spoon fed 'truth' then we have bigger problems in the body politic."
This appears to be the crux of the issue, everyone needs to be spoonfed everything these days. If people could critically and logically evaluate the crap they are fed, we probably wouldn't have the issues we have.
Wall-E is a great glimpse into our future.
Noncents - the MSM have never really been neutral. For example, the Herald has always been a centre right paper as long as I’ve been around and that’s been for a while. However the proliferation of opinion writers does seem to be new.
One of the most interesting points Chris Trotter made was that this programme didn’t really explore why this type of conspiracy thinking has become so pervasive in New Zealand and elsewhere.
Good article, thanks for writing.
Your comment about the PIJF is interesting.
I don't think it matters how much the government claims the PIJF isn't meant to influence the media, nor how much the media claims they aren't influenced by it - the optics are horrible.
To paraphrase ... if it looks like a bribe, walks like a bribe and talks like a bribe, it probably is a bribe.
Why wasn't the standard wage subsidy enough for media outlets?
As a wise man once said to me, "you don't s**t where you eat".
Any journalist/media outlet that claims to be able to take government funding and still maintain true impartiality and objectivity is telling porkies (of course this rule applies regardless of the political leanings of the government doing the funding ... after all would you believe that a media outlet could receive funding from the Russian government, or the Republican Party, without that impacting on its journalism?)
Assuming the media splits roughly fifty-fifty left and right. Then when a gov't is in charge all advertising for neutral things such as 'drink & drive' or 'cancer testing' go to the friendly half. Is this a more unfair distribution of taxpayers money than say $10k per journalist or some number of readers?
Last Saturday a friend of mine told me about a conversation he and his wife had with an ordinary looking individual in Paeroa, ex-security guard, who said to them that there were spaceships with lizard people in them around the earth. He then said the “mother ship” was hovering above him. What is the reasoned reply to this? I told him I would have started running away as fast as I could. Funny or scary, I don’t know.
We used to have places for these people called lunatic asylums. Now these people have free access to high speed internet and a keyboard. YouTube is filled with "documentaries" to support anyone's confirmation biases. They're free to roam the streets, to assemble and protest. They're free to use a $25 EMF reader from AliExpress to measure magnetic field from steel reinforced concrete blocks, and claim the Government is conducting warfare using 10 milliteslas of "electromagnetic radiation".
I skimmed though some of it. While I though opening credit had exceptional production quality it quickly devolved into a formulaic government funded MSM hit piece. Using extreme video filters and short clips to represent the protestors. I don't think many sympathetic to the protestors or who have even slight scepticism of media truthfulness would have felt it was fair. I agree with CT, i though the video evoked religious type arguments framing these people as daemons trying to tempt you. Did any commentor who though of these groups favourably have their minds changed?
Once again the complete lack of self reflection on why this is on full display. Stuff reporters really do seem to have the self righteous believe that whatever they decide to publish with the help of the government is the absolute truth (only religious leaders can claim this moral right). The best example being almost everything they informed us about the vaccines is crumbling or at the very lest become nuanced. No one who start questioning them can ever stop seeing the lies and the incompetence and unwillingness to try to do factual reporting and can not be passively reintegrated. I think this worse than calling them “deplorables” that can be abandoned and left to rot, the team is making the moral argument that hostility possibility "re education" or "exorcism" is justified. They are her enemy but Paula can't understand why.
I don't know if I could, I checked out and started skimming when they started applying what I think was the angled multiple tv broadcasting from a wall filter for the protestors video clips (e.g. 2:21). Do you have an approximate place to start? Did stuff at any stage carm down enough to present an unaltered clip of reasonable length?
So it worked on you? There were many groups with different perspectives at the protest and I would have though a few of them had done enough to threaten to overthrow the government to be arrested but to conflate them is just dishonest. I have zero issues with arresting locking up anyone threatening violence against the government and serious death threats against anyone but once you do you might find more legit arguments remain.
I think there is strong argument that all this is a Voices for Freedom hit-job the rest of the groups presented are just used to tar them. There a lot of associated articles dedicated to them.
The problem they have is they discredited themselves on the vaccine by the constant shift of narrative from it provides immunity to it assists immunity to it improves immunity, followed by the dismissing of any criticism even legitimate criticism like the critique of the lack of broader studies on the side effects of the vaccine, the rush to push it out and the gaslighting denial of side effects happening at all.
There was also the narrative of the vaxxed vs the unvaxxed, when a very large pool of people were vaccinated unwillingly because of their employment requirements. I suspect a very large pool of the 'vaxxed' were unwilling and unhappy about it from ancedotal experience. The utter disdain of the journalist class for these people was palpable too, they hated them as unwashed proles with a disdain that only disconnected wannabe elites can have.
I wonder if anyone has tried to quantify the proportion of people who feel the the MSM made a genuine mistake or just straight up knowingly lied to us? I think a significant proportion know they are being lied to on some level but can handle the consequences of loosing the 4th estate.
The majority of serious "conspiracy theorys" keep comming back with better evidence every time and the best our press can do is replete the initial narrative back to us. eg: RNZ this is pathetic, it's the same argument as China presented in Jan 2020. (please don't turn this into a lab leak discussion but if you want to point out something new is in there go ahead)
I watched a great neuroscience interview over the weekend about people in the West's current (apocalyptic) perception of the world and how it is overwhelmingly influenced by the News cycle, Social Media and click bait/outrageous articles.
These 'narrow angle' sources all favor the left hemisphere of the brain, the creative & emotional side, that does not have the attention span to logically assess all the input it is receiving. Being constantly re-started & stimulated over and over again throughout the day the left hemisphere takes control of peoples perception using the sources it is attracted to, and arriving at the conclusions it is wired to do, emotive, short term etc.
The right side of the brain is more calm, strategic, long term and reasoned, coming to more intelligent conclusions as by its nature it takes longer to arrive at them. It takes all information and sensory inputs as a whole, then takes its time to assess.
The results of the left side brain hemisphere dominating popular thought are (part) of what we are experiencing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6Vkhov_qx8&t=2534s&ab_channel=JordanBP…
I know there are a few JP sceptics on here and i don't agree with all his content, however I found this discussion was a scientific one and the interviewee (Dr. Iain McGilchrist) had a lot of interesting things to say.
Sure - but I'm saying why stop at journalists? They aren't the only sector of our society that possesses impartiality or the ability to reason.
Money is money, right? The logical step is that anyone taking government money has been corrupted, and their judgment can no longer be trusted to have a level of impartiality.
To be fair, is that such a stretch?
I mean holistically anyone taking funds from anyone (Govt, private, or personal) is going to be compromised in some way. "Never bit the hand that feeds you" comes to mind.
Take the media, they used to get revenue from their readers buying the broadsheets, then they moved towards advertising, now they are getting govt money and private sponsorship.
"I mean holistically anyone taking funds from anyone (Govt, private, or personal) is going to be compromised in some way."
That means that pretty much every single citizen (certainly, any citizen who uses some form of public service) is compromised in some way, which puts us back to square one.
It's zero-sum thinking.
The further logical extension is to take this to those that take personal or private contracts / compensation - implicitly, they now have no agency to form independent ideas about their employers, and have to question the motives of anyone who gives them a Christmas gift (including their Mum).
Where does it end?
Yes as soon as you take something like that you are definitely corrupted. But it's like most things, ie degrees of corruption, and being able to recognize to what degree you have been, ie to recognize your own bias and then correct that in your behaviour.
These types of programs try to say it's either this or that, ie binary. When in reality they themselves are outliers at one end of the spectrum in that they only represent a small % of people and yet they have the power to report on what is really counter outliers like themselves at the other end of the spectrum.
And just because all of us in between these two groups, ie the other non-outliers, don't agree with them fully or partially, does not put us in the same class as 'those' people.
No, It just makes EVERYONE IN THE WORLD that does corrupt, to various degrees, even if they don't recognize it in themselves.
And to clarify my last question, we can go through a little exercise not only to explain my point but will give you some personal insight.
First question: Do you believe in climate change? YES or NO.
Climate change without automatically believing in anthropogenic factors is not the accepted definition of how that word is used. Othersise it was just me asking whether you believed in the weather and natural cycles.
But as soon as you said, 'to what extent was anthropogenic,' then by Stuff's definition that makes you a climate-change denier.
Stuff's Comment Policy.
Stuff welcomes comments from readers on our website.
........ We reserve the right to reject comments, images or links that: .........
deny anthropogenic climate change;........'
and then under their generic Q&A, they state:
'Why did you reject my comment about the climate change conspiracy?
Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity.'
Note they don't say 'some climate change, or 'x% of climate change, ' but give the impression that 'all' climate change is.. caused by human activity.'
Stuff is not giving you a choice, you either believe their definition or you are in the other camp, there is no 3rd, 4th, etc. alternative view. Just like the protestors, according to stuff, they were all of one mind, and to think anything else makes you one of those people in their doco.
Now does the last paragraph of my previous comment you couldn't understand, make sense?
Yep, makes sense now. Ties in with my thinking also that, as I've stated in other comments, issues of public policy tend to be nuanced rather than black and white.
I'd suggest though that Stuff's proviso is also relatively non-controversial (though I'd have phrased it differently). Let's break down "Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity":
1. Stuff can accept anything they like. They are a private entity.
2. As I understand it, the scientific consensus is overwhelming (i.e. the vast majority agree) re anthropogenic climate change.
To me, it's pretty obvious what there intent is - essentially, to not give airtime on a platform (which is privately owned) to views which they, and probably their advertisers, don't agree with. It's no different to any other editorial position which is, ultimately, at the discretion of the proprietor.
'2. As I understand it, the scientific consensus is overwhelming (i.e. the vast majority agree) re anthropogenic climate change.'
So, by definition, you are a climate change denier. At least that is clear.
Also, the original survey that that statement comes from asked scientists if they agreed humans contributed to climate change, and 97% said yes, ie only 3% said humans had no effect.
However, that was then reported as 97% of scientists agree that humans cause climate change. This is completely different than saying it contributes to it.
And even though a majority of those scientists spoke out against that interpretation, they were ignored.
It's a completely spurious argument in science to provide evidence from others as your only evidence that something is true. as Lord Sumpter ex UK Supreme Court Judge notes, all that more agreeing with something highlights is that more people agree with it, but it adds to further weight to if that information is correct or not, ie 100 people agreeing on a wrong fact does not make it more right than one person with the correct facts. Facts stand independently of the number of people that agree with them or not.
The more people agree, or more experts agree fallacy would have seen the likes of Darwin, and Einstein, not even attempt to put forward their theories.
And yes Stuff can say anything they like but that doesn't mean they won't be called out for the imposters they are by when they say they are being objective.
"So, by definition, you are a climate change denier. At least that is clear."
Not at all. I accept that human activities are an exceedingly likely contributing factor (essentially, borne out by the carbon dating of atmospheric CO2 which indicates that it got there by burning fossil fuels).
I just don't make a claim by how much, not being an expert in the matter. I'm not a scientist, let alone an atmospheric climatologist.
Again you are missing the point. You don't get to decide what the definition is, they do. So by their definition, you are a climate denier.
And since there is an 'overwhelming' consensus amongst these experts, what % do they attribute to anthropogenic climate change? Is it 10%, 50% or 100%. Have you ever seen an MSM article or a scientific paper that quantifies the %?
"You don't get to decide what the definition is, they do. So by their definition, you are a climate denier."
I don't agree. Nowhere has Stuff stated that if you don't agree with their position you are a climate (change) denier. They have merely stated their editorial position, which they are entitled to do.
They have not said "If not A then B". That is something that you are claiming / inferring.
Consensus opinion is false logic. In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one must above all be a sheep oneself (Albert Einstein).
It might be that the 3% who swam against the tide were the same 3% who'd spent hours looking into it. The other 97% might have just been regurgitating what they'd heard repeated ad nauseum.
Uh, no.
I don't know what race you are. And I don't care.
I'm saying people who hold the view that "reverse racism" exists (regardless of race) are thin-skinned snowflakes and lazy thinkers.
However, let's say you are NZ European and I knew this about you, and I went on to say "Because GBH is NZ European, s/he is implicitly a thin-skinned snowflake and subject to lazy thinking, principally because of the colour of his/her skin and his/her cultural inferiority", that would indeed be racist.
I'm confused.
Are you suggesting that if an entity is 51%+ governed by Maori interests, and has between 0 and 100% Maori workforce, that its 'racist' to ensure that 5% of government contracts go to said entities, when Maori make up ~16% of the population?
That's a pretty odd definition of racism.
"Racism implicitly requires you to denigrate others on the basis of race"
You mean like "I'm not going to give you that work because you're not the preferred race"?
Racism is far broader than your definition btw but I agree we need to drop the term 'reverse' racism and just call it for what it is - racism. Because it's for the 'right reasons' (whatever they are this week) doesn't make it any less racist.
"You mean like "I'm not going to give you that work because you're not the preferred race?"
So, if it could be demonstrated that an entity lost a contract on this basis, there would be merit to the claim.
But if a contract wasn't lost, then it's just an entry criteria for consideration - and legally so long as the NZBORA isn't breached, you can establish any entry criteria that you like.
"Racism is far broader than your definition btw"
Please elaborate.
They're just upholding their part in the UN Rights Declaration that we signed in 2010.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-govt-support-un-rights-dec…
"Because impartiality, trust and truthfulness are the qualities to judge journalists on."
Sure, and all these things are in the eye of the beholder, not empirical concepts (unlike say, the number of potholes in a road per km).
That's not to say though that we shouldn't hold journos to a reasonable standard.
You've lost me. Are you saying that Stuff is claiming that impartiality, trust and truthfulness are empirically provable and measurable?
Or are you saying that Stuff is holding an editorial opinion which influences what they will and won't print which of course, they are quite entitled to do as newspapers have done since newspapers came into existence?
The former and they have official sanction of being handsomely rewarded for quality public journalism.
Stuff claim to be disseminating the objective truth on a matter critical to life or death choices in NZ. Anyone disagreeing with them (according to Stuff) are providing dangerous misinformation.
"Stuff claim to be disseminating the objective truth on a matter critical to life or death choices in NZ. Anyone disagreeing with them (according to Stuff) are providing dangerous misinformation."
I'm not sure that your claim stacks up.
I've not read a single article or opinion piece on Stuff that has said if a person doesn't agree with Stuff's editorial position, that this person is de facto peddling dangerous misinformation (I could be wrong though). They have been fairly clear about their own editorial position though, and why they hold such positions. That is their right, just as it's your right to buy into that position (or otherwise). It's basically a negative rights position which has been pretty consistent, given that they are a private entity.
What I have read plenty of is the Stuff team firmly debunking hair-brained conspiracy theories and quackery, which I would expect from one of the country's most widely consumed news sources as a matter of public interest.
Journalists are widely hated for lying and misrepresenting, which is exactly what they more or less did here. The scary music, out of context snippeting of people and the combination of this weirdo fake expert Kate Hannah with the head of the secret police is designed to terrorize both the ordinary people watching this and the conspiracy aligned.
The mistake they are making is that the economic conditions of the vast majority of people are far worse than in the past. I don't think most people care for the government which is widely seen as incompetent and doing very little for ordinary people bar a few token jests. You can't humiliate and terrorize people using documentaries like this which are supposed to push onto the masses the stuff that these thinktanks push.
If anything, they have discredited themselves by taking this approach. The more effective route is to interview them in depth and outwit them/defeat them through the socratic method on their reasoning/thinking. But this whole documentary stunk of an ideological attack on wrongthinkers instead of any disproving of anything.
I'm mystified why "vote labour, vote national" are the comments on this good, serious article by Chris Trotter. Then again, that's possibly the issue. Reduction of serios discussion to political slogans sits pretty nicely with "bought and paid for journalism", lack of contrary opinion in the media, the horrific treatment of a group of Nzers in Parliament (with whom I largely disagree), and shady research groups and experts paid for an opinion by government.
Thanks for your work, Chris.
The broad political establishment feels existential danger at what was exposed at the parliamentary protests. It proved that a significant proportion would rebel if pushed too far. I think there was 25 to 40 percent sympathy for them in polling. The amount of chaos Winston can cause with <10% is nothing compared a real centre populist party. The labour national hegemony would be over if this ever got off the ground. (The first votes in the Aussie election shows their frustration with the main parties will lead to electoral instability.)
If people, like CT, are questioning the hit-piece then the panic reaction of vote for the main parties is understandable to me.
The Govt. must be wondering 'WTF' is going on with themselves. And by their own definition are their own conspiracy.
EG they must be wondering why they couldn't build 10,000 per annum when one building company in the USA does 55,000 per annum and others do in excess of 20,000 per annum, and other policy failures, etc., etc.
It just makes you want to put on some Barry Manilow and water the garden.
Interesting idea. I am sure that's a very significant motivator for counterspin and the American they had on early but watching some of the interviews with the non affiliated attendees (without sound) I saw way to much fear to be seeking notoriety it would have to be courageousness or bravado.
Half the protestors covered their faces during the riot videos at the end (without any recognisable symbols on their clothing), that's not Notoriety. I think they were afraid they had not achieved anything and panicked.
Edit: Just watch that with sound. Both the women at around the 40 min mark sounded terrified of Paula. What kind of person would publish that interview of them bullying the general attendees into something she knows she will later call lies?
I think the authors and 'Stuffs' Nazi Unit have fallen down the wabbit hole.
Pinfold use to be a good journalist. But now she's turned into a bit of a suburban 'karen' News Influencer with this bs. As for their 'reliable' sources.
The Maori Stasi Unit made up of an ex tuhoe-raids criminal turned nark and an ex NZ navy 'seal' commando news influencer amongst other narks.
So much for NZ taxpayers $155m+ investment in the State news agencies integrity and value.
If any of this Gaslighting of voters who don't like what's on offer is true. I guess NZs 27 Security & 'Intelligence' Agencies are onto it? Oh no! They contract this out to the Maori Stasi Unit otherwise known as a Facebook group called paparoa! Money for jam!
Time to get rid of the Mellinial Proto Fascists in government. But what real choices do we have?
C S Lewis - again.
'God in the Dock'
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease....."
When the State, the entire elected political class, prosecutes an agenda of widespread segregation upon the people of NZ. A great many will oppose that. There are consequences, the unique wages of segregation. Mandates, no jab no job and vaccine passports, marginalized hundreds of thousands of Kiwis. Whether they were in favor of personal vaccination or not. The fallout continues for many.
But this is the unmentioned elephant in room right now. Nobody will ever admit participating in the practice of segregation. So all we hear now are endless farcical excuses, misrepresentation and denigration. To somehow support the indefensible. Segregation never belonged in NZ.
This is just another left wing attempt to rewrite history. Lets all pretend the protestors werent protesting about being forced out of their jobs and excluded from society for not wanting to take an experimental gene therapy that is capable of causing permanent heart damage, instead lets all just present them as a bunch of nutters. Fact. The High Court found that the vaccine mandates were unjust, unlawful, and unwarranted. Fancy being of such sound mind that you already knew that before the Court said so, and had the temerity to say it out loud.
And just this week the CDC announced that there should be no different treatment of the unvaccinated from the vaccinated. If only they had come to that conclusion 2.5 years ago, all this would have been avoided. The lies the Govt told, from deliberately undercounting the number of the unvaccinated to make it look like they were an insignificant minority, to "its a pandemic of the unvaccinated" to "2 shots for summer" to "you wont get sick and die from Covid if you get vaccinated" have been proven to be false, so who is the real perpetrator of "disinformation"?
Thank you CT. This is probably the best read I'll get today. And to the posters also. This is all good stuff (a; pun intended b; note small s for stuff).
The topic though, has been around for as long as i can remember, which is to the late 1960's in my case. I'm not even sure why i started not to believe the newspapers & then the television & radio news shows & then the internet news. Perhaps I was always a skeptic. Finding good news is a hard task, as most news is by its very nature is bad, then add in the spin from the distributor(s) & it quickly becomes laughable (or dangerous. You chose).
These days it takes me 2-3 hours per day to get me the news I need to hear. This differs from what I want to hear. To do so takes me around the planet & back again. It's truly amazing what's out there if you go looking.
How I survive is not only a matter of selection but of knowing in my own mind what is right & what is wrong. I learnt this the hard way which is mostly how I learn. There is night & there is day. There is East & there is West. There are children & there are adults (I hate that word). There is right & there is wrong & all of us have to get there eventually. Will it be at the same place? I'm afraid so.
There is life & there is death. And once again, there is a choice.
How do I know that I'm right? Well, firstly, I'm not right all the time but I'm getting better & better at it. Secondly I am surrounded by family & friends over 4 generations, pay all my taxes, stay out of jails, send the kids to schools & people say g'day & smile at me when I walk down the street. And I'm not that pretty to look at.
And lastly, CT's skepticism is a healthy thing. He & I would never vote the same way, but I appreciate his honesty, even if I also add salt to his missives. He too, is getting closer to right & wrong, just like we all are.
Hopefully.
I'm not a covid conspiracist, nor a racist. But I supported the protests in principle, if not in practice. I felt rather buoyed by the High Court that found that many of the vaccine mandates (which was the primary motivation for the protests) were unjust, unlawful, and unwarranted. Watching this makes me feel gaslit; as though because I believe in my fundamental right to determine for myself whether to have a vaccination, and to then keep that decision to myself, that I'm therefore some kind of troglydyte. Bugger off Stuff.
In my eyes Stuff has almost no credibility. If it wants to earn some, then it needs to stop accepting government money.
"Watching this makes me feel gaslit; as though because I believe in my fundamental right to determine for myself whether to have a vaccination, and to then keep that decision to myself, that I'm therefore some kind of troglydyte."
There's definitely something to this - essentially a person's right to privacy and whether or not they wish to undergo a medical procedure. Wanting to preserve these things doesn't make you a troglodyte.
However, to paraphrase SCJ Holmes, the right to swing your fist (i.e. cause injury) ends where the other person's nose begins.
It essentially comes down to the philosophical question of public versus private good - under what conditions does public safety, and therefore the right not to be injured by another's choices, outweigh an individual's right to reasonable autonomy (noting of course that absolute autonomy does not, and has never existed).
This is constantly tested in law under various conditions (speed limits, health and safety legislation etc.) and it's an important discussion to have. But it's certainly one that can do without misinformation being promulgated by wing-nuts who would be laughed out of the room under any other conditions.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.