To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X (Twitter).
Could TVNZ's John Campbell be termed an agent provocateur? At the very least he could be - and is - called a bleeding heart. Is it within the bounds of reason to suggest that he or even his employer, the state-owned broadcaster, are treasonous?
"Every one ... commits treason who, within or outside New Zealand, uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government" (Crimes Act 1961). "The government’s most potent communications medium has been hijacked by one of its employees and co-opted in a highly personal political mission" (Karl du Fresne).
Hijacking sounds like force, does it not? Metaphorical perhaps, but real. Campbell's all-but-declared intention - his "highly personal political mission", du Fresne says, is to bring down the government. And things being as they are, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that TVNZ not only condones but approves their show pony's cavortings.
Public trust in the media is declining at about the same rate as journalistic standards and basically for the same reason: New Zealand like most Western societies has repudiated God, which means we have repudiated Truth. No one "in authority" should have to tell a highly-paid journalist that he's not highly paid (by taxpayers) to report his emotions, but simply to give us the facts in regard to the government they elected.
As du Fresne (the other one) puts it:
Once again, state-owned TVNZ has obligingly provided a platform from which its best-known (and no doubt highest-paid) journalist, John Campbell, can flail the government.
This is extraordinary and unprecedented. The government’s most potent communications medium has been hijacked by one of its employees and co-opted in a highly personal political mission.
Campbell’s anti-government agitation is more than simply provocative. It can only be seen as a direct challenge to the government and a gesture of contempt to all the deplorables who voted for change because they didn’t like where we were going under Labour.
Campbell clearly decided on October 14 that New Zealand had made a grievous mistake in electing a centre-right government and set himself the task of leading the Resistance.
Someone in authority should have told him then that this was not his function as a journalist. If he refused to accept that, he should have been told to pack his bags.
That this didn’t happen tells us that TVNZ is happy for its Chief Correspondent, aka the nation’s Hand-Wringer-in-Chief, to continue his crusade. Now we’re in the unfortunate situation where someone in government may be tempted to strike back, because no government is likely to tolerate a situation where one of its own employees is so feverishly working to undermine it.
Journalism is in a potentially perilous situation here. Battles between the state and the media rarely turn out well.
The danger of vindictive politicians punishing troublesome journalists hardly needs to be pointed out. But Campbell has put us in this invidious position by brazenly abusing his power and thus inviting retribution. A combative politician like Winston Peters, whose early role model was media-baiter Robert Muldoon, would need little encouragement to retaliate.
The finely balanced relationship between journalists and the government, whereby politicians accept the inconvenience of a critical press as the price of an open democracy, is at risk of being destabilised when one side is seen as wilfully defying the established norms – which is what Campbell has been doing with his series of assaults on a government that’s ideologically not to his liking.
The danger for the government is that unless it acts to deter egregiously partisan journalism from its own media outlets, Campbell and others like him – including some in RNZ – will feel emboldened to continue.
As a product of the corporate world, Luxon will be familiar with the management maxim that “What you accept, you approve”. Well, it applies here. As long as Campbell and others like him feel empowered to attack the government with impunity, National and its coalition partners can expect to endure a prolonged and self-inflicted form of Chinese water torture.
Lest this article be misinterpreted, I’m not presenting an argument for more pro-government journalism. That phrase is a contradiction in terms, because it is not the function of journalists to support governments.
Neither am I rushing to the defence of this government because I support it. I didn’t vote for it and I have little confidence in it, but the government was legitimately elected and it deserves a fair shake. It's impossible not to be struck by the sharp contrast between media attitudes toward the previous government and this one.
Rather, I’m appealing for a return to traditional journalistic values of impartiality and balance, the decline of which can be blamed for steadily diminishing public trust in the media. Contrary to what budding journalists are taught in universities (of which Campbell is a product), journalism is not activism.
Campbell’s attacks on the government – and in a broader sense, the sustained offensive from the media at large since last year’s election – place National and its coalition partners in difficult territory. Convention says the government shouldn’t interfere in the editorial decisions of its media outlets. Any such intervention would be portrayed as an intolerable attack on freedom of the press.
There would be uproar from the media and their academic fellow-travellers. Those with long memories would recall the bad old days of the 1960s, when the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation was firmly under government control.
Fear of such a backlash is what Campbell and his bosses will be counting on to prevent the government from acting, but there comes a point when Campbell’s moralistic crusade becomes so brazen and arrogant that it can’t be ignored.
Fear - of a backlash or anything else - is very poor motivation. Look where it got us with Ardern and Covid
The question then becomes, what would be an appropriate response? In different circumstances, a stern word in private with TVNZ management might have done the job. But Campbell’s adversarial attitude to the government is so public and so obvious that a low-key strategic retreat is not possible. We’ve moved beyond that point. In any case, TVNZ is complicit in his misconduct.
Besides, this is an open democracy and the conduct of government affairs shouldn’t be carried out via covert, Yes, Minister-type manoeuvrings. If action is to be taken, it should be done in such a way that we can all see it.
That points to the nuclear option: a brutal, decisive and very public sacking on the basis that Campbell has betrayed the fundamental duty of impartiality that the public is entitled to expect of journalists in a state-owned media organisation.
If the TVNZ directors objected – as they would presumably feel bound to do, given that they have at least tacitly condoned Campbell’s activism – then they should be encouraged to go too.
In those circumstances, the government would need to be cleaner than clean in its appointment of a new board.
Someone commenting on du Fresne's page suggests he is the one to chair such a board. It's possible, perhaps - at about the time hell freezes over.
Nothing would destroy its credibility more surely than the recruitment of political favourites and brown-nosers.
All this must sound odd, coming from someone who has written two books about the importance of media freedom (the only ones, to my knowledge, that examined the issue in a New Zealand context). The suggestion that a journalist should be fired because of his political views goes against the grain.
But media freedom cuts both ways. Journalists must be able to report vigorously and fearlessly on matters of public interest. Generally speaking, in New Zealand the law allows them to do so.
But if the media are to retain the trust of the public, they must demonstrate that they can be relied on to report on issues of public interest in a fair, balanced and non-partisan way. Once the media betray that trust, they put their protected status at risk.
Isn't it fair to say they've betrayed it and lost it?
It goes without saying that Campbell is as entitled as anyone to say what he thinks about the government. The crucial difference, in his case, is that his personal opinion is seen as carrying the weight of a major state media organisation which is supposed to be apolitical.
He would be in a very different position if he worked for a privately owned media outfit, but employment by a state-owned organisation imposes a special obligation of impartiality. TVNZ is owned by the people, whose allegiances and sympathies cover the entire political spectrum. It takes a special type of hubris to assume that being the Chief Correspondent (whatever that title means) ...
It might mean about as much as the title "Supreme Pontiff" means when applied to Pope Francis.
... for such an organisation entitles him to impose his own narrow political biases on his audience.
Mention abuse of media power and people tend to think of press barons such as Rupert Murdoch, but Campbell is guilty of abuse in a more subtle form. In fact it could be argued that Murdoch is a more honest abuser of power because he doesn’t seek to disguise his actions behind an ostentatious façade of morality and compassion.
Campbell presents himself as the conscience of the nation, but by positioning himself as the implacable opponent of a democratically elected government, he’s effectively spitting in the faces of the majority of his fellow New Zealanders who voted for it. He clearly regards himself as above them and above democracy.
And perilously close to treason.
He appears to interpret media freedom as giving him licence to wage a divisive and potentially disruptive political campaign, with the backing of a powerful state institution, against a government that he doesn’t think deserved to be elected.
It needs to be made clear to him and TVNZ that his position is offensive and untenable, even in a liberal democracy. If that means sacking him, so be it.
“That faith which is in thee unfeigned, which also dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and in thy mother Eunice, and I am certain that in thee also” (Tim 2: 1-5).
The truth is economic destruction, designed to lower the standard of living for ordinary people, is the whole point of “carbon taxes”. just as it was the point of lockdowns.
ReplyDeleteDeceptive language aside, the undeniable fact that any carbon tax – corporate or individual – would directly harm the poorest is clearly understood by the people who would seek to enforce them.
Not that they have a problem with that, you understand, their concern is merely that public rage and/or civil disobedience makes direct taxation difficult to implement.
Are those Celtic freckles I see?
DeleteShes a nasty Racist creep!!!
ReplyDeleteWho gives a s.... what this treasonous so called journalist thinks. Why is nothing being done about this embarrassment, he needs to resign, let alone be in jail.
ReplyDeleteJohn Campbell is an idiot.
ReplyDeleteEvil White snake.
ReplyDeleteDid Ngarewa-Packer really say that?
ReplyDeleteHobson's Pledge (Don Brash et al) says she did.
DeleteHe is a woke hack
ReplyDeleteWhat codswallop
ReplyDeleteGenocide is the latest key word to emerge from the mouths of these half breeds looking to stay on the gravy train, now that racism and colonialist have lost all their impact. Nobody is buying into it so this will also disappear without trace.
ReplyDeleteAgreed - except for your use of the expression 'half breeds', which would seem to denote the very charge laid against them by decent Kiwis, of racism.
DeleteDebbie doesn't mind taking the money while talking s...
ReplyDeleteShe's doing a great job at discrediting Te party Maori.
ReplyDeleteDont make such
ReplyDeleteS T U P I D comments. It shows your level of intelligence!
Maori need a wake up call in the same way Labour did to all white kiwis by taking 30% of their WINZ cash away and replacing it with food stamps. Once that handout is redefined Maori will understand just where their money comes from - working kiwis who don’t get anything for free.
ReplyDeleteImagine being her living with so much hate in your soul. Tragic.
ReplyDeleteshe must have a hell of a time sleeping at night , arguing with her predominately European ancestors
DeleteWould you just look at this, what is it supposed to be?
ReplyDeletea white Maori with a skid mark on her chin.
Deletean imposter
DeleteA wannabe
DeleteThe shape of the lips say it all.
DeleteWhat an evil comment
ReplyDeleteA whitee with a black heart
ReplyDeleteWhat's that white girl doing with a winz code on her chin?
ReplyDeletemore european than maori, find it difficult to believe that these impostors are allowed to get away with this
ReplyDeletelooking at her you would almost wish it was true
ReplyDeleteDEBBIE PACKER has caught the Nutters Greens disease.Among litards it's very virulent and contagious.
ReplyDeleteJust because New Zealanders reject Maori activist proposition of sovereignty over all New Zealand and New Zealanders on the erroneous judicial ruling creating the non-existent "principles of the Treaty" presuming a fictitious "partnership" instead of the clear cession of sovereignty by Maori to the Queen and the British Crown in the Treaty, it is not justified for these Maori sovereignty activist to accuse the coalition government of being racist, anti-Maori and using emotive name-calling to incite hostility among their misguided and disinformed Maori supporters and Pakeha sympathisers.
ReplyDeleteNow Hamas is in NEW ZEALAND.
ReplyDeleteI think they are managing that themselves, from babyocide, to
ReplyDeletevehicleocide, drugocide, murderocide and on it goes.
What a waste of space she is.
Labour & Greens did a great job too.....now tell me what's the difference between any of them, including your party? Did you object to the posionous jab that killed may Kiwis regarless of colour? Are you another of the paid off?
ReplyDeleteThat thing is such a turn of on every level, specially the way she exploits maori, and is really an irish person
ReplyDeletePlease don’t insult the Irish!
DeleteJohn Campbell is only interested in one thing …. John Campbell!!!
ReplyDeleteAnother on the gravy train and whipping up a frenzied un-informed mob.
ReplyDeleteJohn Campbell got into trouble reporting on the christchurch earthquake, he suggested that the government was slow and negligent. He was very quiet for some time after that.
ReplyDeleteMaybe that is why he has a vendetta against National.
can any provide names of those killed in this genocide ?
ReplyDeleteShe speaks of.
Now perhaps the names of the poor bashed kids killed by their own
Amazing some Labour MP resigned today ..never heard of him..he warned the Government that Moari will not let them reverse Labour's policies...axxxhole does not understand democracy ..er you lot were voted out because the majority elected this govt ..just like Labour was elected 6 years ago .
ReplyDeleteWhy are they not here still ..that's right..an election was held and your lot did win !
What do u call people like her white on outside black in middle.
ReplyDeleteThey are not journalists. They are wokesters. Lefties. Marxists. Weak minded fantasists full of self importance because they are on TV. Simpletons really. Not happy that people be held responsible for their own choices & decisions. Political mouth pieces & perennial under-achievers. Sore losers devoid of any talent & ability for self reflection. Arrogant, pompous twits. Intolerant of democracy, freedom & the views of others. Too stupid to understand how stupid they are. If you think like a Marxist you are by definition brain dead. Cretins.
ReplyDeleteJohn Campbell and a few more journalists plus some members of the opposition in parliament are walking a fine line with their rhetoric in trying to undermine the elected Government. Like this article says how much time do they have before they start falling over. Sooner rather than later. Watching the news tonight I said to my wife it’s amazing how these journalists attack this government over anything yet when labour held power there was silence about everything. We all know the reason for that. I actually think they think they are untouchable. They are going to learn a valuable lesson in life.
ReplyDeleteJohn Campbell is an hysteric therefore loses credibility as an impartial observer. He gets too involved in his own personal opinion and his responses, reactions and questions reflect this undermining any opportunity for an audience to take him seriously or to consider him a professional in any way. But who, in the current media could be called a professional in the old understanding of the word. As for 'vigorous and fearless journalism'. Nice concept and ideal but have we ever had that? It's just more obvious these last three years that this has been sadly lacking in the NZ and world's media. We know this because they are all saying the same thing, using the same words - which is why only the much older generation who have lost the desire and ability to question things, is the only audience left for these outlets. Everyone else is on social media where the truth - and 'vigorous and fearless journalism' seems alive, well and growing.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you specifically mean by 'the much older generation?'
DeleteDo not assume that those older than you have'lost the desire and abilility to question things!'
That's an extremely ignorant statement. Based on NO facts, whatsoever!
We were questioning long before you were ever thought of!
Dear Marilyn. I am not as young as you assume! Getting right up there very quickly. However, in my personal experience people in my generation and those around it talk constantly about what they see in the news each night. And to them, it is gospel. So that is what I am basing my comments on - personal experience. However you are right - not ALL the older generation. Clearly you are one of the independent thinkers who still care about the present and the future and I say, great! Wonderful! Keep it up
DeleteLost all respect for John Campbell during the Chch earthquake, a good friend was his cameraman, he was the biggest primadonna ever, didn't give a f... about the people (his words off camera) it was all about him, being a hero, can't stand the grifter c... .
ReplyDelete