Saturday 17 June 2023

Orthodoxy and Dissidence at Radio New Zealand.

Our Masters’ Voice: Promoting acceptable ideas and suppressing everything that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy may be the winning formula in Putin’s Russia, but it should not be Radio New Zealand’s.

RADIO NEW ZEALAND has appointed a panel of media experts to diagnose the severity of its present crisis. Willy Akel, Linda Clark and Alan Sunderland have been asked to determine exactly how it was that Michael Hall, working in RNZ’s digital department, was able to insert unauthorised material into Reuters wire stories for five years without being either detected or reproved by his superiors.

This seems unlikely to prove a particularly taxing assignment. Hall has confessed, and, as far as we know, he had no confederates. He was trusted by his employers to play by RNZ’s (and Reuters!) rules, and appears to have betrayed that trust. Either that, or he has for five years been interpreting RNZ’s rules in the most creative fashion. The panel must explain why RNZ failed to monitor Hall’s output. It also needs to discover how a man of Hall’s powerful political convictions could enter the RNZ workforce without raising at least one managerial eyebrow?

Conservative New Zealanders will snort derisively at these questions. To their way of thinking the answers are blindingly obvious. RNZ – a.k.a. “Red Radio” – has been hiring people with “powerful political convictions”, that is to say, with blatant left-wing biases, for decades. The wonder is not that Hall “politically corrected” Reuters wire stories, but that he appears to have been the only RNZ journalist with the political gumption to do so!

Except, those same conservatives – as is so often the case – simply do not grasp how dramatically the “Left” has changed, or, to what extent the current “culture” of RNZ has changed with it. At the heart of RNZ’s transformation are generational, professional, and philosophical divergences sharp enough to have turned the Radio New Zealand of 15 years ago inside out.

What turned Radio New Zealand into RNZ? The short answer is “Generation X”. It was ten years ago this year that the Board of Radio New Zealand, led by Jim Bolger’s former press secretary, Richard Griffin, appointed Fairfax Executive Editor, Paul Thompson to replace Peter Cavanagh. A champion of public service broadcasting, Cavanagh had fought a noble rear-guard action against the John Key-led National Government’s relentless financial strangulation of Radio New Zealand.

Thompson moved swiftly against the Baby Boomer managers of Radio New Zealand. He restructured them out, and brought a younger, leaner and meaner generation of broadcasters in. These new brooms had a very different take on the profession of journalism when compared to the broadcasters they were replacing. Not so much speakers of truth to power as strivers who revelled in their proximity to it, the Gen-Xers were not the least bit embarrassed or hesitant about wielding power to advance their own agendas. Where their predecessors had set out in search of “The Truth”, these new broadcasters went after scalps – the more illustrious the better.

It made for a very different kind of public broadcaster. The Baby Boomers had tested themselves against a powerful status quo, harassing its leaders and challenging its values. Institutional power was a beast to be mistrusted and confronted. No rumour involving the government should ever be believed until it has been officially denied. And while it may not be possible for journalism to beat the powers-that-be, no self-respecting journalist would ever dream of joining them. Baby Boom journalists leaned towards the maverick outsider kicking against the pricks. Generation X admired those who had learned how to pick the locks to the House of Power.

This divergence wasn’t just generational and professional, it was philosophical.

The Baby Boomers had hero-worshipped Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two Washington Post journalists most closely identified with exposing the Watergate scandal and bringing down the malignant administration of Richard Nixon. “Woodstein” led many Boomers to the conclusion that not only could the world be changed for the better by virtuous action, but also that journalism – especially investigative journalism – was one of the most effective means of doing so.

Generation X grew up under the influence of a very different duo – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. “Virtuous action” was a mug’s game. More often than not, those who spoke truth to power ended up having their tongues cut out. Play it safe, play it smart, play to win. What else were the Eighties about?

The status quo has little to fear from cynicism, which meant that, with one or two honourable exceptions (like the editor of The Daily Blog) the status quo which emerged from the economic and social liberalism of the 1980s and 90s had little to fear from Generation X. After all, the triumphant neoliberal order and the global economy it brought into being was Gen-X’s world, and in it the sunny optimism of the 1960s and 70s was as outrĂ© as tie-dyed T-shirts and flared jeans.

The journalism of Generation X followed the neoliberal flag – as evidenced by the fourth estate’s general capitulation to the extraordinary deceptions of the War on Terror. Newspapers that had risked Nixon’s wrath by exposing Watergate, eagerly repeated the Bush Administration’s lies about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”. The American motion picture industry, which had given the world Easy Rider and Billy Jack, served up the television series “24” – a cold-blooded primer on the mechanics of torture.

Meanwhile, back here in Godzone, as one-by-one the rearguard actions of Boomer journalists and editors like Cavanagh ended in defeat, the principle of going along to get along became ever more deeply entrenched. Careers were not enhanced by challenging the fundamentals of the neoliberal status quo, nor by questioning the social-liberal values that offered the economic brutalities of neoliberalism such excellent political cover. Paul Thompson’s RNZ led the way. The people’s broadcaster became both the purveyor and defender of neoliberal and social-liberal orthodoxy – as swift to denounce Posie Parker as Vladimir Putin. Contracting-out economic commentary to the Aussie banks’ in-house economists, and political commentary to PR firms. It’s journalists appeared to be more comfortable attacking Hate Speech than defending Free Speech.

At least, they were, until Michael Hall tossed an old-fashioned left-wing spanner into RNZ’s works. The special, three-person panel appointed by RNZ’s board-of-directors will have little difficulty removing that spanner. Their most daunting responsibility, and a task not specified in the panel’s terms of reference, will be to acknowledge how dramatically Hall’s behaviour has exposed the poverty of RNZ’s journalism. Promoting acceptable ideas, and suppressing everything that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy, may be the winning formula in Putin’s Russia, but it should not be Radio New Zealand’s.

Think about it. If a journalist in Russian state radio had done what Michael Hall’s been doing for the last 5 years, RNZ would have hailed him as a hero. Which is why Willy Akel, Linda Clark, and Alan Sunderland should think long and hard before presenting our public broadcaster’s very own journalistic dissident as a villain.


This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Friday, 16 June 2023.

34 comments:

  1. "Promoting acceptable ideas, and suppressing everything that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy, may be the winning formula in Putin’s Russia, but it should not be Radio New Zealand’s"

    “Putin’s Russia”? In case you hadn’t noticed Chris, the formula of promoting “acceptable” ideas while suppressing ideas that challenge them is the norm in liberal democracies, and has been thus for decades. Liberal democracy requires just as much enforcement and artificial promotion as any other ideology, because it is not normal – liberalism is an abstract organising principle born of the Enlightenment thinking and a belief in the possibility of human progress. Its man-made artificiality is its biggest flaw, and it is grounded in hope more than it is in any recognition of human nature as it actually is.

    Under the liberal orthodoxy, certain heterodox ideas are considered “off limits” because they run counter to the “end of history” notion that liberalism is the apex and that all political change is completely unnecessary and must be prevented. The fact that this gatekeeping system is in place has just become more blatantly obvious in recent years, although in hindsight, it has always existed.

    Labels thrown at dissenters like “neo-Nazi” or “racist” or “homophobe” or “White supremacist” or “anti-vaxxer” and accusations of “hateful” motivations are not supposed to be descriptive – they are all just noises carrying negative connotations that people make whenever they want people to shut up, and to stop others from listening to them.
    Without censorship and the placing of certain ideas in the “off limits” category, liberalism would collapse. Thought control and Pavlovian social conditioning are necessary to sustain it. All you have to do is attribute "far right" thinking (whatever that means) to someone, and that is supposed to be a rebuttal with no further mental exertion required.

    The idea is to make people assume that the liberal paradigm is the self-evident norm, and that the expression of any other political idea is a sure sign of mental illness or of nefarious intent. Ideological conformity is demanded, because the cumulative effects of 200 years of liberalism are only too apparent to anyone with the eyes to see it. It is the problem, not the solution, but it is also the ideology favoured by and advantageous to our rulers, so they must protect it and keep the flock from straying to other pastures.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To bomber Bradbury and the daily blog I would add the other one tim Selwyn and tumeke

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just tried to look at that tumeke blog but it only came up articles from 2014 sadly

      Delete
    2. That's strange as the daily blog which carried on from where tumeke left off started in 2013

      Delete
  3. This blokes only "crime"" seems to be rewriting. some might say explaining, the Reuters left wing media releases.

    Is there a right wing biased international news organisation.
    If not why not?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Never been a fan of arbitrary divisions. A theoretical twin born at 11.50pm 31 December 1964 is a Boomer, the sibling born 12.00am 1965 is a Gen.X? Is this suggesting that social development in America is the same as that of Europe or that of NZ? Is this categorization the same for the developing world? Within NZ are we suggesting consistent socialisation for Pakeha and Maori? Did the 1960's counter-culture reach Mataura before the 1980s?

    Basing an argument on unproven pop-culture pseudo-intellectual pulp undermines what is a reasoned evaluation of changes within the perception of NZ media over time.

    I am also curious regarding the view of right wing and left wing in the article. Michael Hall is throwing a left-wing spanner, the media seems wrong to associate Posy Parker with the right. Is Vladimir Putin supported by which political spectrum?

    My view is that RNZ has siloed different sections to the point that taken as a whole it means nothing. The editing team of nine to noon, afternoons, nights, Saturday morning or Sunday morning, let alone that of the website, are uncoordinated and only linked by search for populism. It is complaints defensive and avoidant of self-reflection. It is risk adverse and reluctant to take substantive positions on substantive issues. This gives the justified perception that it is compliant towards power structures. The culture has been dictated by a limitation of national input and a mirroring or Australian media culture. All this can be put to the accountability of the Editor in Chief, regardless of his generational molding. Boomer, Gen. X or millennial, an opportunist is an opportunist.

    Still, sadly, better than MediaWorks. The race to the bottom will only end in abyss.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is all assertion. I'd love to see some evidence provided for those of us who aren't privy to the inner workings of political journalism. I've certainly heard one or two journalists in the mornings put hard questions to ministers and opposition MPs. And I would always give credit to that shock jock who left radio NZ years ago for the money – he also used to badger the buggers.
    It wasn't so long ago that you were bitching about the right-wing proclivities of Ms Ryan for crying out loud. Not to mention that over the years radio NZ has employed a number of extreme right and moderately right people – Maggie Barry, that shock jock arse whose name I can never remember thankfully. And of course the famous Libertarian chap whose name I've also thankfully forgotten, who described radio NZ as "brain-dead".
    So in the words of the little old lady in that long ago American advertisement (showing my age here I know) – "Where's the beef?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GS: "....that shock jock arse whose name I can never remember thankfully. And of course the famous Libertarian chap whose name I've also thankfully forgotten..."

      Mike Hosking and Sean Plunket. But you knew that.

      RNZ brain-dead, huh? Well: who knew....

      Delete
    2. Lindsay Perigo

      Delete
    3. Lindsay Perigo. Oh, of course. I'd quite forgotten about him: it's a long time since he was on NatRad. The 1980s, as I recall. And I note that it was TVNZ he described as "brain dead", not RNZ: though he'd have been correct about that as well.

      Delete
  6. Michael Hall: New Zealand's last champion of the long vanished 'Free Press'. You don't seriously believe we have a 'free press' in this country, do you?

    I recently heard praise heaped upon Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who published the Pentagon Papers, for his role in preserving the freedom of the press. I agree: the thing would have taken courage to do, and he deserved the plaudits. But then we observe the ongoing fate of Julian Assange, imprisoned for no crime, and threatened with further imprisonment for the crime of reporting crime.

    I also observe that in this country, the reportage of the conflict in Ukraine (inter alia) studiously confines itself to output from US, European and occasionally Ukraine sources. that's it. Other narratives? What other narratives? That doesn't look like a free press to me.

    So, good on Mr Hall, for serving a master higher than his employers: the public the press that is failing to carry out its duty to inform.
    Cheers,
    Ion A. Dowman

    ReplyDelete
  7. I recall Linda Clarke huffing at Dr Hugh Barr on the Foreshore and Seabed "oh it doesn't meant that!"

    Do we have more clarity on that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Than you Chris, you didn't mention the distortions to the Israeli reports.

    What is it with sate media? A fatal attraction to lies? The ABC (Australian state funded) and BBC have also become partisan, as with our lot a pervasive anti Israel bent.

    "For decades, the western media has acted as a malevolent echo chamber for demonisation of Israel. Channeling Palestinian Arab propaganda as if it were fact, the media has twisted the western mind, inciting it to hate Israel and to give Israel’s Palestinian Arab persecutors a free pass. The impact of this cannot be exaggerated."

    "The harm done by the BBC to the security of Israel is incalculable. With some notable exceptions, its overall narrative about the Jewish state, which it pumps out month after month, inescapably foments hatred. As Tal wrote, this helps incite acts of terror against Israelis and attacks on Jews in Britain.

    The BBC is staffed by people who take their obligations under the BBC’s charter to be objective, impartial, balanced and fair very seriously. The frightening thing is that they cannot see that their treatment of Israel breaks all those obligations. Sealed inside a liberal echo chamber, the BBC is a closed thought system."

    https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/challenging-the-bbc-on-israel

    ReplyDelete
  9. Who on earth listens to RNZ these days? Life is too short. I have no confidence in the NZ media at all, and gather information from subscriptions to world class journalism In the UK and Australia. New Zealand journalists can hardly string two sentences together without tripping over their shoelaces. They are a clown circus.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just one journo.

    That RNZ isn't any longer for the people which it was long into the realm of the rich is another thing.

    We remembered the vicious battle for our soul and then Helen won and we rested and our soul was stolen. They didn't know how to talk for the people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just released: Thomas Cranmer raises some good points on RNZ's "Slack Editorial Practices and Management Failure". He considers the disestablishment of the New Zealand Press Association in 2011 as a contributing factor to the collapse of trust in the media with regard to RNZ and more generally.
    https://cranmer.substack.com/p/inside-rnz-slack-editorial-practices

    PS: apologies for the typos in my earlier comment. Do better David.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In my experience from here and other blogs, people who don't trust the mainstream media tend to seek out sources of information that simply confirm their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hosking is the name of " that shock jock". A misnomer ... (S J) if ever there was one.)

    And he provides at ZB precisely the mix of acute observation and entertainment that daily assures him pre eminence in listenership.

    Surely a.better Guage of the man's worth than all the dense and pretentious mumbo-jumbo of this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry, I remember Hosking on Morning Report. He was an excellent interviewer, and a loss to NatRad when he left; to go to TVNZ, I think.

      Delete
  14. "....able to insert unauthorised material into Reuters wire stories for five years without being either detected or reproved by his superiors."

    Obviously, RNZ doesn't read its own output. But then, neither does anybody else, so it's not alone in that.

    "Putin’s Russia..."

    Putin's Russia? A dead giveaway: commenters using such terminology have fallen victim to Western propaganda.

    There is no such place. We have extended family there. It's their country, too, along with that of all other citizens.

    Russia has long had a lively public political discourse, though, with TV shows devoted to politics. Remember when we in NZ had such things?

    There's plenty of dissent, publicly-aired. Were it not, nobody in the west would ever have heard of that Navalny fellow, with novichok in his undies.

    Putin isn't universally popular, but apparently enough citizens support him that he's re-elected over and over. I'm guessing that many people there must look overseas, see the numpties governing sundry Western states, and re-elect him. He is smart, with very good political instincts. Which is more than can be said of his Western counterparts.

    Upthread, Madame Blavatsky has pointed out that the suppression of dissenting views is an intrinsic part of liberal democracies such as ours. Nobody in the West can straightfacedly make such an accusation about Russia, without having to accept the "pot: meet kettle" riposte.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 'Aboot' reality, only reality comes first.

    Far too many details, or divide and rule.

    Let's address reality.

    Climate change (end of our species in our lifetimes) and not looking after the neediest upon 40 years.

    The neediest and reality come first.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In April 2022, Chris' piece 'Where Is The Peace Movement?' accompanied by a photo of what was now called the Bucha Massacre opined:

    One paragraph stands out for me.

    "The bodies in the street, the terrible revelations of rape and torture: these only make matters worse. Our instinctive response, when confronted with such images is not to calmly contemplate the best means of extricating all concerned from the horrors of war, but to punish those responsible for such atrocities."

    The images of Bucha was a turning point for Bowalley Road. Prior to that point, Chris had stated a "sneaking admiration" for Vladimir Putin and commented "I have, by and large, been sympathetic to the aims and objectives of the Russian Federation". Previous opinions were instinctively aligned to the realist school of international relations, calling out warnings for "baiting the bear" and that media messaging seemed to have echoes of cold-war propaganda. Bucha however seemed too much of a horror to accept. The grotesque images of executed civilians was a sea change with Bowalley Road. Later opinions on the conflict repeated that "Ukraine is fighting for us all" against “the dark monstrosity that is the Russian state”.

    Those images were a pivotal event for me as well. In trying to find more detail, I discovered that former intelligence officers like Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson and Scott Ritter from the peace group that 'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)' were regularly providing professional analysis of reported information (as they still do today). My disbelief at the time was realising and seeing that the bodies lying on the streets of Bucha had white ribbons tied around their arms. White ribbons or cloth indicated the victims had been supporters of Russian forces. The importance of the arm bands wasn’t reported anywhere mainstream. The chorus of media narrative was so great that atrocities committed against Russian supporters could be labelled as Russian war crimes despite what was before our eyes. Later I would watch Eva K Bartlett travel to reported "mass grave" sites of "Russian atrocities" to discover they didn't exist and watch Patrick Lancaster interview dozens of civilians at the sites of shelling in Donbas to conclude that Chomsky was right, and the role of our media isn't to hold power to account but rather to “manufacture consent”.

    In the past two days, there have been a flood of stories talking about Putin interrupting an African peace delegation and rejecting their proposals for peace. Radio New Zealand would publish the Reuters article (unedited I bet) under the title "Russia's Putin lectures African leaders seeking to mediate in Ukraine". It's a great example of our media pushing narrative over honestly reporting events. No mention is made in the report that Putin presented the peace agreement actually signed by the Ukrainian negotiators from a year ago that committed to Russian withdrawal for a Ukrainian commitment to neutrality. This agreement (apparently) prompted the Russian withdrawal of troops from Kiev as a sign of Russia's commitment to the deal. Ukraine would renege on the agreement (which after Minsk & Minsk 2, is the third negotiated peace agreement Ukraine walked away from) and Zelensky would then make it illegal for any Ukrainian to negotiate peace with Russia after that.

    When the Reuters feed is compared to the actual transcript of the meeting, Reuters misreporting through glaring omission shows the dire state of our failing media.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In April 2022, Chris' piece 'Where Is The Peace Movement?' accompanied by a photo of what was now called the Bucha Massacre opined:

    One paragraph stands out for me.

    "The bodies in the street, the terrible revelations of rape and torture: these only make matters worse. Our instinctive response, when confronted with such images is not to calmly contemplate the best means of extricating all concerned from the horrors of war, but to punish those responsible for such atrocities."

    The images of Bucha was a turning point for Bowalley Road. Prior to that point, Chris had stated a "sneaking admiration" for Vladimir Putin and commented "I have, by and large, been sympathetic to the aims and objectives of the Russian Federation". Previous opinions were instinctively aligned to the realist school of international relations, calling out warnings for "baiting the bear" and that media messaging seemed to have echoes of cold-war propaganda. Bucha however seemed too much of a horror to accept. The grotesque images of executed civilians was a sea change with Bowalley Road. Later opinions on the conflict repeated that "Ukraine is fighting for us all" against “the dark monstrosity that is the Russian state”.

    Those images were a pivotal event for me as well. In trying to find more detail, I discovered that former intelligence officers like Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson and Scott Ritter from the peace group that 'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)' were regularly providing professional analysis of reported information (as they still do today). My disbelief at the time was realising and seeing that the bodies lying on the streets of Bucha had white ribbons tied around their arms. White ribbons or cloth indicated the victims had been supporters of Russian forces. The importance of the arm bands wasn’t reported anywhere mainstream. The chorus of media narrative was so great that atrocities committed against Russian supporters could be labelled as Russian war crimes despite what was before our eyes. Later I would watch Eva K Bartlett travel to reported "mass grave" sites of "Russian atrocities" to discover they didn't exist and watch Patrick Lancaster interview dozens of civilians at the sites of shelling in Donbas to conclude that Chomsky was right, and the role of our media isn't to hold power to account but rather to “manufacture consent”.

    In the past two days, there have been a flood of stories talking about Putin interrupting an African peace delegation and rejecting their proposals for peace. Radio New Zealand would publish the Reuters article (unedited I bet) under the title "Russia's Putin lectures African leaders seeking to mediate in Ukraine". It's a great example of our media pushing narrative over honestly reporting events. No mention is made in the report that Putin presented the peace agreement actually signed by the Ukrainian negotiators from a year ago that committed to Russian withdrawal for a Ukrainian commitment to neutrality. This agreement (apparently) prompted the Russian withdrawal of troops from Kiev as a sign of Russia's commitment to the deal. Ukraine would renege on the agreement (which after Minsk & Minsk 2, is the third negotiated peace agreement Ukraine walked away from) and Zelensky would then make it illegal for any Ukrainian to negotiate peace with Russia after that.

    When the Reuters feed is compared to the actual transcript of the meeting, Reuters misreporting through glaring omission shows the dire state of our failing media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loz: many thanks for your comment.

      "My disbelief at the time was realising and seeing that the bodies lying on the streets of Bucha had white ribbons tied around their arms."

      Indeed: the significance of the white armbands appeared to have completely escaped the notice of Western reporters.

      From the outset, I was sceptical of Western reportage. Early on, I'd seen on Telegram a video - posted by the UAF - of their troops walking back into Bucha. Their blue armbands identified them. There were no bodies at all in the streets. Subsequently, the UAF posted another video showing bodies with white armbands lying in the street. This latter video was notable for the fact that none of those bodies had blood pooling around them, or running from them, indicating that they'd been shot elsewhere, and brought to where they were filmed. Those white armbands were a dead giveaway: definitely not a Russian atrocity. The evidence was there for all to see.

      "This agreement (apparently) prompted the Russian withdrawal of troops from Kiev as a sign of Russia's commitment to the deal."

      Also the withdrawal from Bucha, I believe. And of course the Ukraine reneged on it. The Zelensky regime cannot be trusted: it's in thrall to NATO and the US.

      Delete
  18. I'd like to suggest a renaming, from "Red Radio" to "Rainbow Radio". I think that sums up the changes you describe Chris, and gives the new, unchallengable, "trans rights" orthodoxy a name. An orthodoxy for which the slightest hint of dissent is "hate speech" by "nazis", and not to be mentioned, let alone repeated, over Rainbow Radio.

    To be fair to RNZ, this does seem to have had a fairly recent and rapid onset. As recently as May 2022, the "gender critical" (i.e. reality based) author Kathleen Stock was interviewed by Kim Hill on Saturday Morning. The RNZ website even described the interview as on "....the hazards of gender self-identification".

    But I'd like to mention three things Rainbow Radio now seems to want to avoid at all costs:

    1. The granny bashing at Albert Park on March 25. The Herald is prepared to cover this. The issue of June 21 has a headline "'Punches to my face were unnecessary'" They interview the victim, without naming her. Apparently the police have offerred diversion, to avoid a conviction, to the perpetrator. This is supposed to be offered only if the victim agrees. The victim was not asked, and does not agree. A newsworthy story around a highly contentious issue that print media are covering. I'm not holding my breath that RNZ will pick it up.

    2. The behaviour of some trans activists at the White House. There was a "family friendly" Pride affair, on the lawn, during the day. In a self described "moment of trans joy" three trans activists went topless, two showing "top surgery" scars, the other his breasts. This was too much for even the White House. The official spokesperson described the behaviour as "inappropriate", and that none of the three would be invited back to the White House. There is some trans activist behaviour even the White House will not condone. I'm not sure there's any such thing for RNZ.

    3. The closure of the Tavistock centre in London, accompanied by the announcement that puberty blockers will no longer be used routinely, only in trials. Routine treatment will concentrate on counseling instead. BBC journalist Hannah Barnes covered the Tavistock scandals, and has written a book on them, "Time to Think". She has been interviewed on ABC radio, but searching her name on the RNZ site brings up "Nothing found". Is the BBC no longer a reliable source as far as RNZ is concerned? If so, is that generally, or only on "rainbow" issues?

    ReplyDelete
  19. It was lindsay perigo who described tvnz news as brain dead not radio new zealand.

    ReplyDelete
  20. CHRIS!

    Someone has hacked your blog and put the face of some old bald man where your photo used to be !

    ReplyDelete
  21. GS, Lindsey Perigo? But I think he said it about his TV station. I remember complaining about TV News to Mum from then about it being for children. It was so suppressive in those years that the only person who got into the national TV news was a guy who thought NZ was not Right enough.

    Your forgettance of the names of all these foulities for the rich reflects my own. It's pure emotional truth. The people need to have the final decision. By which I mean a strong people's party. Or, even an individual strong enough to talk for the people. Otherwise there'll be an idiot on the side of authoritarian short-term silliness.

    ReplyDelete
  22. https://www.alternet.org/fox-news-dominion-2661758851/

    Radio New Zealand makes a mistake – Fox News does it as a matter of policy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GS: I'm not seeing the problem with Fox altering those stories.

      "...gender-affirming care..."

      What sort of euphemism is that? By changing it, Fox is being more honest: "sex change" is what's meant.

      Delete
  23. D'Esterre ... You read too much into my lack of memory. It's simply the gradual encroachment of age. And a disinclination to go to the Internet to look him up. But thanks for reminding me about Sean Plunket – I had completely missed him. He was another good interviewer when he was with national radio, and has turned into a raging right-wing nut job shock jock. An obvious sign that these people are overpaid.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "What sort of euphemism is that? By changing it, Fox is being more honest: "sex change" is what's meant."

    Actually that's what doctors call it, and it is far more than simply a sex change.

    https://www.aamc.org/news/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered.

    But of course that's not Fox's only slip – they have posted doctored photographs of so-called BLM protests, they have published photographs of buildings alight and claim that they are BLM protests but a quick image search shows that there nothing to do with it.

    They have maintained that the 2020 US election was stolen at least in public while privately admitting that it wasn't. I presume then you missed the lawsuit and subsequent payment?

    They published photographs of buildings on fire in Minneapolis and let people believe that it was a riot in Atlanta. Similarly a photograph from Minnesota, which was allegedly from Seattle.



    There's a whole raft of problems with Fox – mainly centring on lies. And I'm sorry I have to say this but if you believe anything on Fox you are one of nature's gullible.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tumeke left kiwiblog and whaleoil in its dust.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Same Anon. as 21 June at 16:24, (The one with the "Rainbow Radio" suggestion).

    I only heard, shortly after posting, that there had been a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about the "transphobic" interview with Kathleen Stock. The complaint was not upheld. I wonder if that would still be the case for a similar interview today.

    However, things recently got weird with Kathryn Ryan, discussing research on aging, with one of the authors of a just published study. The research looked at the idea of chronological age compared to biological age. Different tests, and/or scans, can find an organ, (the brain,for example) may appear younger or older, compared to actual, chronological, age.

    The weirdness came in when Kathryn asked about "gender". The researcher answered to the effect that they hadn't really looked at that, more research would be needed.

    Really? I thought it was well established that women, on average, live longer than men. Shouldn't research on aging look at that? Fortunately, there was a link to the paper on the RNZ website.

    From the paper, the researchers do indeed see differences between men and women. And among the factors considered are age at menarche, age at first live birth, number of live births, and age at menopause. Early menopause is related to biological age appearing greater than chronological age. Conversely, greater age at first live birth is associated with biological age appearing less than chronological age. Clearly, these are factors affecting only females.

    So why the reticence? The author seemed to me to react to the question as if he thought Kathryn meant "gender identity", not biological sex. Did Kathryn indeed mean that, in which case his answer was accurate, or was she referring to biological sex? What ever the case, the confusion meant presenting clear and accurate information on one important aspect of a medical topic, affecting everyone, was hindered.

    Everyone, including trans people considering, or undergoing, medical transition. Does feminizing a natal male extend life? Conversely, do male hormones in a natal female shorten life? If so, would the person considering the transition think that is a trade they are willing to make?

    I think we're in trouble when scientists and doctors, at least on RNZ, seem to feel inhibited from discussing medical and biological research openly and honestly.

















    ReplyDelete