Hooton on media regulation
December 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pm by David FarrarMatthew Hooton writes in the SST about the prospects of media regulation if Helen Clark wins a fourth term. First he looks at why we have the Electoral Finance Bill:
If she wins a fourth term, Helen Clark’s next move will be to regulate what can and cannot be written in our newspapers or broadcast on our radios and TVs.
Back in the 90s, it was the unions that first became accustomed to running anti-government advertisements.
The teacher unions were prolific. Billboards lampooned ministers while newspaper advertisements said “vote public education”. Mysteriously, these would coincide with Labour prattling on about “privatisation”. Leftist health groups ran similar campaigns.
Even though these campaigns clearly benefited Labour, no action was taken against them by the Bolger government.
…
For the first time, Clark’s government came under the sort of concerted attack that National governments had always tolerated. Clark was determined that such criticism not be allowed to happen again.
Clark’s answer was the Electoral Finance Bill, written secretly by Cullen and Labour’s election strategist, Pete Hodgson, specifically to silence dissent. They took the most draconian parts of Canadian law and merged them with the most draconian parts of British law to create a monstrosity unknown in any genuine democracy.
While the initial draft of the legislation was an outrageous attack on free speech, the revised version is arguably worse in that it recklessly risks next year’s election being decided by the courts. Every newspaper in the country, whether left- or right-leaning, has condemned the bill and the government that dreamed it up.
Media criticism of the government is likely to only get worse next year. The extraordinary arrogance and unpleasantness of key ministers, combined with clear failure across a range of policy areas, including health, mean that Labour is likely to face a media next year that is more sceptical of Clark, and perhaps even hostile, than any she has experienced before.
If she wins, Clark will be more determined that such criticism never be allowed to happen again.
The same arguments used to suppress criticism by paid advertising will be used to suppress criticism by the media. We will be told the media has been guilty of trying to influence public opinion “unduly”, whatever that means. Criticism of the government will be called “attack journalism” by “right-wing hacks”. It will be necessary to take “a closer look” at what is written and broadcast to stop the media “rorting” the next election.
Now you might think that this is all silly, that the Government would never try to control what the media can say. Well look at these warning signs:
Already, the threats have begun. Last year, Clark slammed this newspaper for giving me “endless column space”. This week, she broadened her attack to the media generally. Her foreign affairs minister, Winston Peters, has threatened darkly that he has news for the media, and “it’s all bad”. My colleague Chris Trotter, New Zealand’s most reliable harbinger of emerging leftist thought, says media policy has been a “sleeping dog” of this administration. He warned the media this week to “think long and hard before kicking them into snarling wakefulness” by editorialising against Labour.
It is difficult to believe that Clark, a former social democrat, would take us down this road. But, then again, it is difficult to believe how far she has already travelled. She is not taking us to North Korea, but she is heading to Singapore, where free speech and a free media are tolerated as long as they support the objectives of the ruling party, and where dissent is OK as long as no one hears it.
This gets pretty close to it. Clark sees criticism of her and her Government as criticism of New Zealand. Anyone who criticises her must have disloyal motives. They must be in the pay of wealthy or foreign interests, it is concluded.
Related posts:
- A 4th term Clark Government and the media
- Submission on new media and media regulation
- Let’s not go down the Australian media regulation route
- New media regulation
December 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
The simple fix is to vote the left out of government. People can still do that. Though if the people are so apathetic and uneducated that they actually want to carry on down the road to socialism, who can argue? The irony would be that they used democracy to end democracy.
I’d like to believe people follow all the excellent articles this blog posts, but I see no major evidence of that. Most are still arguing over who will recieve a $10 tax cut, as if that is a reason to vote for a party.
If the new Zealand voters were an animal, they’d be a hibernating retarded bear.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Anyone who constantly refers to “leftists” and “leftism” has no credibility. Its de facto.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Hooton is sounding increasingly hysterical. There is no plan to restrict free speech or ban dissent in the Labour Party – Hooton knows that, DPF knows that and John Key knows that. But it helps in their continued attempts to portray the Electoral Finance Bill as just the latest ‘attack on our democracy’ from an ‘increasingly old, tired and corrupt Labour Government’.
Come on guys, can’t you actually win on your policies rather than relying on misinformation and fear? Oh no, that’s right, you can’t…
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
STC:
when that person arrives, you be sure to tell him.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
tane:
I hope you’re correct. But if there were any suggestion that the Labour party wanted to do anything to restrict the media, would you defend it or oppose it?
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Tane: “Hooton is sounding increasingly hysterical.”
Winston Peters (foreign minister in Tane’s govt): “the rejection came after “fuss” by “minions of foreign-owned interests”. “It’s all very well for a bunch of chardonnay-drinking, pinky-finger-lifting elitists to come up with their view. It’s the ultimate in elitist arrogance. There is no politics in this.”
In fact Hooton is too soft. Tane knows that even the EFB says that the media can print things only if they are designed “solely to inform, enlighten, or entertain”. He knows that that means it will probably be illegal FROM 1 JANUARY for a large newspaper to publish an editorial calling for a change of government, because it would cost more than $120,000 to print and distribute that newspaper.
Also, Tane knows that the EFB will probably lead to people, including Tim Shadbolt, being JAILED for criticising the government too effectively.
Hooton is not hysterical. He is spot on.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Sorry Tane, I simply don’t believe you.
Vote:G
December 16th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“There is no plan to restrict free speech or ban dissent in the Labour Party”
Straight from the horse’s mouth
Vote:Thank goodness for that.
We can all sleep easy now…
December 16th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
The uni educated pm clark is a whimp by nature, having never worked in the REAL world ,slash and burn is the witches response to any situation, you dont learn life bye living a QUEER lifestyle and telling people how to live their lives , by really living a strange lifestyle ie not being like REAL NZs , darn, (MOTHER OF THE NATION ) yer right , what are you pm??????good tui ad
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Tane – seems the love affair with Dear Leader is over. the 3News poll is the only one that Clark has ever said she trusts – tonight it’s
National – 51% (67 seats)
Labour – 36% (47 seats)
Greens, NZ First & United Future all below 5%
Oh yes – Preferred PM:
Key 33%
Clark 28%
Still think the EFB is a beltway issue?
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
The Colmar-Brunton poll on One had very similiar numbers.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Inventory:
Having cited an unfavourable poll, you can now expect Phillip John/Roger Nome to explain why it’s statistically biased, and how another poll taken in April this year (yes, he’s made this claim) shows 81% (goodness – even months before it was introduced?) for the EFB.
Faced with a Nome-smackdown, Inventory, do you want to reconsider your comment?
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I’ll keep my powder dry for now thanks POC lol!
a Nome-smackdown – sounds like something the Member for Dunedin South would enjoy!
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Hooton is sounding increasingly hysterical. There is no plan to restrict free speech or ban dissent in the Labour Party
Let’s try a little thought experiment:
It’s late 2008 and only one week out from the election a well known right-wing publication – say, Investigate or the NBR – is delivered free to 20,000 homes in swing districts around New Zealand. The issue is an election special and contains articles that the Labour Party claim are wildly misleading or false, anti-Labour op-eds by Bassett, Hooton, Long, McManus et al. The lead story contains scandalous allegations about the private lives of several Labour cabinet ministers.
If Labour still won the election you can be damn sure they’d take steps to prevent something like that from happening again and some sort of media regulation legislation would be inevitable and we’d quickly see laws that restricted the publication of political opinion pieces.
The parties passing the laws would argue that laws restricting the publication of political material were actually PROTECTING our democracy by preventing the dissemination of propaganda and misinformation. It would be claimed that our democracy was still robust because it would still be legal to report on the statements of opposition MPs so our integrity as a democracy was still sound. Anyone protesting against the new laws would be accused of defending the rights of the rich and powerful to run smear jobs and attack adds. And it would be endlessly pointed out that the media could still write whatever they liked for 2/3rds of the electoral cycle.
Maybe that’s all wildly implausible and hysterical – but a scenario like an Investigate magazine ‘October Surprise’ could easily occur next year and based on Labours attitude towards our electoral law after the EB debacle in 2005 I can’t see any reason why they wouldn’t move to regulate free speech in 2011.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
More seriously, on the thread topic, the media is a double-edged sword for politicians of all stripes.
On the one hand, media coverage is the political equivalent of oxygen: essential for profiling.
On the other hand, the media shouldn’t be fawning cheerleaders – media coverage should go beyond faithful reproduction of press releases, to critical (and balanced) analysis of the issues. Now the editorial page of, say, the NZ Herald is allowed to take a stance. Why shouldn’t it? It’s an editorial piece for chrissakes, not a page A5 article reporting the news.
I happened to be in Melbourne on the day of Australia’s recent election. I read letter after letter to the editor in the Melbourne Age, berating the editor for setting out the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the Coalition and Labor – but not taking a position.
What Tane et al fail to understand is that media regulation need not be overt legislation, but could take the form of subtle measures aimed at stiffling dissent.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
The TVNZ Poll:
National: 54
Labour: 35
Greens: 4.6
NZF: 2
Maori: 2
ACT: 1
Preferred PM
Vote:Key: 35
Clark: 30
December 16th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Sorry, but some moments are worth savouring
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Don’t you people realise that those figures can’t be correct – what with the media being so shallow and error prone?
Vote:G
December 16th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Danyl:
You raise some interesting points – but surely that’s what defamation law is for? Defamation law is an existing, well-developed (and appropriate) filter on free speech. I’d be interested to know how those favouring media regulation could justify it. Would they argue, for example, that Lange v Atikinson, which went all the way to the Privy Council, creates difficulties for politicians?
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
tv3 poll ,the witches bonked ie *ucked.And the green tree *uckers are *ucked , there is a god, thank you , and both parties of s*itters are on the way out and REAL New Zealanders, will run the country again,Where will the deviants and the tree *uckers move to, AUSTRALIA , go peter and your female friend *elen aussie awaits
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Bwakile – want to smile again?
3News poll has the Greens at 4.8%. Yes, 4.8%!
Oh dear; how sad; never mind.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
Greens: 4.6
And savouring again.
Bye Bye Greens.
Don’t let the door hit your skinny, carbon neutral arses on the way out.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
the greenies have got borar, , dry rot , dropping leaves, GAY WHALES and helen (THE WITCH) davis nee clark ,HAPPY HAPPY, JOY, JOY,,, 4.6,, 4.8 WHO GIVES A *HIT, gone ,ITS evolution, the age of tree huggers and deviants has passed. The normal NZ family amerges.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Emerging leftist thought?!? That’s oxymoronic to the max!
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Tane
Go and take a cold shower, then look in the mirror, think for 2 minutes, hold your breath for 1.minute then go back to your PC and open this site.
Yes the polls are right you are not having a nightmare
Now this in not a good reason for you and your Union mates to have a day off. Built a bridge and learn to accept that your dear leader is now dog tucker well past its prime.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Tane, many of your friends are very quick to make up conspiracy theories about what National would do in power. And justify it based on some book by a guy who used stolen e-mails, and still couldn’t find any evidence so simply hypothesised. DPF’s post is a lot more believable than that crap – why do you never condemn them as having made stuff up? In short, get hard. This is what things will be like all the way to the election. If the left can’t hack the pace they’ll go feral, and their poll ratings will drop even further.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I have been proposing the idea that ‘the media are next’ for a while now.
The EFB is merely a precondion for this.
Not because the FB was designed as part of some masterplan to dismantle free expression, but because it was designed to restrict some kinds of expression. However, it was so badly written that it is a political ‘blank cheque’ for any unscrupulous or paranoid government.
The logical or evolutionary progression of this attitude towards freedom of expression is that once certain people have been silenced, it will then be necessary to silence others who exhibit the pesky tendency to criticise government policy. Why, because it has become the government’s legal right to regulate political opinions at certain times.
That will be the media, then.
That is, in my opinion, why the Herald is opposed to the EFB.
The Government have inadvertently picked a fight with a sacred cow – freedom of journalistic expression – and the newspapers are not stupid enough to believe for a second that if you allow the principle to take hold, it will leave them untouched.
I have stated before that it is the media that wins or loses election. Well, when the government put the EFB out there, and the media realised the implications it might have for them, Labour, The Greens and co took on an enemy they can’t afford. It is one thing to pick on the Exclusive Brethren, not even minnows in the big political pond. But when you take on the press – that is like prodding a Great White.
And no repetition of the mantra ‘It is to stop people like the Exclusive Brethren and John Key rorting the election process.” is going to work; that boat has sailed.
Remember the old saying:
‘A favour, once granted, becomes a right”? There is no way the press is going to grant this, or any other government the right to restrict free expression. Helen’s chummy ‘warning’ to the press this week will do little to avert their fears taht thisis a government hell-bent on quashing criticism, regardles of who it hurts.
other supporting evidence would be Mallard’s petty bullying of civil servants, Benson-Pope’s lying about his influence in the civil servicw andlately a new Labour Minister’s exposure for meddling in the hiring and firing of political favourites over ohers not prepared to toe the line.
It isn’t because the Government is competently deconstructing free speech that the press is worried. It is rather because (and you only have to read the Governement’s apologists for proof that it is happening) the Government is incompetently deconstructing free speech, that the press has felt the need to take up the fight.
This is just another aspect of the argument supporting why the EFB is a turd.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The first thing Margaret Wilson tried to do after the ’99 election was reintroduce criminal defamation.
It got the media in a spin and they railed against it, unsurprisingly.
We should never forget that.
U there Tane? The FIRST thing she tried to was introduce a criminal sanction on defamation.
You’re awake. Now smell the coffee.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Gooner – Why should Tane worry? do you seriously beleive the regulation of free speech and free-spending on parallel campaigning will be applied to a pro-Labour union movement?
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Chicken Little: “Greens: 4.6…Bye Bye Greens. Don’t let the door hit your skinny, carbon neutral arses on the way out.”
Unfortunately apparently there’s a population segment of around 5% (how convenient) who are insane enough to vote Green no matter what.
What a pity, and I’m not kidding.
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
it’s OK reid, a decent final environmental policy from the Nats and the Greens are 4.6, 4.5, 4.4…..
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
OK, Guys, whilst I am very , very ,happy with the polls, National are more than capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
discipline and focus are required to win and maintain office.
Triumphialism will turn off the voters.
We need clear messages and a strong vision of improvement. in order to attain the sunlit uplands!
Vote:December 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Tane ! Tane !! Who shot Tane ?????? Last heard of 5-27 pm exactly 33 minutes before his bullshit world fell apart. Tane R.I.P.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Hi kehua, I learned long ago there’s not much point in arguing the point with a dozen or so angry Kiwibloggers. I’ve made my point and I’m happy to leave it at that.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Golly, Tane you do have a sense of irony. I just hope Labour isn’t listening, because the attempts to paint John Key as a ‘rich prick’ with a horrible secret agenda is working brilliantly.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:41 am
“because the attempts to paint John Key as a ‘rich prick’ with a horrible secret agenda is working brilliantly.”
Only one poll that counts.
Labour are down but Key isnt highly regarded yet. The strategy is working but it may not be sufficient.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:02 am
No Tutae, you didn’t make a point. You came in, took an electronic shit, and left.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Tane:
What’s the point exactly on which you’re content to rest your case?
To take your sentences in turn:
(1) Ad hominen attack on Hooten.
(2) Ad hominen attack on Hooten, DPF and Key.
(3) Diversionary reference to EFB – that’s an entirely separate issue.
(4) and (5) A self-congratulatory backslap.
By the way, even if one were to accept your argument at face value, why is it ok for Labour to campaign against an “increasingly old, tired and corrupt [National] Government” in 1999, but not ok for National to adopt a similar approach after nine l-o-n-g years?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:49 am
NPOG
If John Key not highly regarded, please explain why he beats Helen Clark in Preferred prime Minster stakes!
This must mean that Helen Clark is even leww well regarded than the non regarded mr Key, i.e. her ratings are negative, based on your assertion
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Adam Smith:
Please read closely – I don’t accept Tane’s argument. It’s not based on my assertion.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Isn’t Tane choice? “No plan to restrict free speech or ban dissent in the Labour Party”.
Classic, classic, classic comment of a dyed-in-the-wool “one-party state” man.
A reality with all “one-party” leftwing governments is, because their ideology simply DOES NOT WORK, they are forever needing to create scapegoats. And when they have run out of political opponents to jail or shoot, they have to start on their own.
ANY Labour Minister of Health is on political death row already.
And how “democratic” is Labour’s candidate selection process? (Mind you, if Tane can call the workings of great communist parties of the past and present “Democracy” in action, it is pointless asking HIS opinion on this).
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Chris Trotter: media policy has been a “sleeping dog” of this administration that the media provokes now at their peril?????????????????????????????????????????
F***********************Kin’ WAKE UP, sheeple of NZ. Have you got ANY IDEA what the Chris Trotters and the movers and shakers of the Left in NZ have in mind for YOU?
If there has been ANY “sleeping dog” in NZ politics for the last few years, it is the MEDIA. Editors and Journalists, with the honourable exception of Ian Wishart and his colleagues, have been a bunch of little bootlickers and a**ewipers for the Labour Party and the whole program of creeping Socialisation of NZ. I had actually given up on them, assuming that there was no lengths to which Clark could go that they would not assent to.
Hooton is exactly right. It is these people in the media who need to do an urgent study of the history of leftwing politics and WAKE UP TO THE REALITY OF WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING up to now (and many of them still are. Look at the wimpy efforts from Pankhurst and Co at the Pravda Post). Clark and her colleagues would have actually EXPECTED unanimous SUPPORT from the media for what they have been up to since the last election, going on the media’s performance previously.
We are at an “all-or-nothing” tipping point in NZ now regarding what the media does. Pankhurst’s bemusement at the Herald’s antics and his failure to take this issue as seriously as they have says a lot about where HE stands in reality.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
POC
I was not commenting on your comment, but on NPOG’s at 11.41.
I agree with your comment entirely.
Sorry, if I confused you with my earlier comment
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Adam:
It’s ok – actually I’m the one at fault. I couldn’t recall NPOG commenting on this thread, but when I scrolled back through, I saw his one lonely comment.
I’m kind of hoping Tane will come back to address my 1:08 post.
Vote: