Guest Post: Labour and Jordan Rivers
A guest post by a reader:
Labour and Jordan Rivers are breaking the law as far as I see it. Based on https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/media-insider/popular-social-media-creative-jordan-rivers-employed-in-labour-party-leaders-office-private-post-falls-foul-of-speaker-gerry-brownlee/premium/ENVW6HTILVFTTK7EH7NKAOGYWQ/
If you work for a political party and you are pumping out political content on social media, you cannot pretend you are just an ordinary citizen sharing your thoughts. You are not neutral, independent, or unaligned. You are paid political staff producing political messaging.
That is the core issue with the Jordan Rivers situation. He was hired into the Labour Party leader’s office, a taxpayer-funded and politically sensitive environment, then continued using his large platform to comment on politics without disclosing that he was now financially tied to a political party. Labour hired him because he influences. He knows that and so do they.
The idea that the rules do not apply because he is on a salary instead of being paid per post is nonsense. A salary from a political party is payment for political advocacy. Whether it comes as $500 for a single post or $80,000 a year, the effect is the same. His commentary is not independent.
Under the Advertising Standards Code, if content is controlled directly or indirectly by the advertiser and intended to influence behaviour or opinion, it is an advertisement. The form of payment does not matter. If you work for a political party and post political content that aligns with its aims, it is not magically personal.
Under electoral law, social-media posts that encourage support for a party or candidate can qualify as election advertisements and must carry a promoter statement identifying who is behind the content. The law does not carve out a special exemption for creatives with ring lights and stage make up.
The fact that his posts were not individually commissioned does not create a loophole. The Electoral Commission is clear that the reasonable market value of services provided to a campaign, including staff time, counts toward campaign activity. If Labour hired an influencer knowing he would keep influencing, that value is part of their political machinery.
Covert political influence is corrosive. When someone with a large platform pushes a party line while hiding a financial relationship with that party, it is not clever comms. It is deception. If National pulled the same stunt with a TikTok comedian, Labour and most of the media would be screaming.
Jordan Rivers should have been upfront. He should have disclosed his employment with Labour every time he posted political content. Social-media creators do not get an honesty exemption just because they use emojis and fart noises instead of podiums and press conferences.
If Labour wants to hire influencers, fine. If they want to embed content creators into their comms strategy, also fine. But they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. They must disclose who is paying for the message.