No Other Suspects? The mainstream news media was willing to print and broadcast harsh Opposition criticism of the Government, even though they knew that the source of the leaked information was a National Party MP. Even though, by pushing the story up towards the top of every news bulletin they were stealing oxygen from the Prime Ministers keynote address to the Labour Party Congress. It’s a very strange kind of journalism that keeps more information hidden from the public than it reveals!
THIS LATEST SCANDAL will be the making of Todd Muller. The
news media, up to its armpits in Hamish Walker’s and Michelle Boag’s leaking of
confidential medical information, will do everything possible to deflect its
impact. Radio NZ, Stuff and NZME, the outlets that received the leaked
information all have a powerful interest in moving the story on.
Fortunately for them, this will not be difficult. The
villains of the piece have conveniently identified themselves. Muller has ended
Walker’s political career, and the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust is in the
process of dealing with/to Boag. As a news story, the scandal has lost its
“legs”.
Over the next few days we should expect to see the
mainstream media pivot away from National’s bad behaviour and begin praising
Muller for his decisive cauterisation of the Walker-Boag wound. The right-wing
commentariat will already be bashing-out commentary pieces for the weekend
papers celebrating the “fact” that, at last, National has put the era of “dirty
politics” behind it.
Todd Muller will be hailed for seizing the moment and
driving the National Party in a new direction. The Right will be encouraged to
rally around its new, ethical, leader. Walker’s and Boag’s indiscretions will
be presented as having given Muller his moment to shine.
As I noted in my last posting, a malign symbiosis exists
between the mainstream news media and the parliamentary opposition. The
passing-on of information – from MPs to journalists – constitutes a crucial
stage in the production of major news stories. Journalists mask the highly
tendentious nature of this exchange by invoking their core professional
obligation to “protect one’s sources”.
No matter that this obligation originated from the need to
protect the relatively powerless providers of information from the excessively
powerful institutional players committed to its suppression. Under the current
interpretation of source protection, even a National Party MP, determined to
disprove the charges of racism levelled against him by breaching patient
confidentially, is deemed to possess the same expectation of anonymity as a
genuine whistle-blower. From an ethical perspective, however, such an
expectation is outrageous. To facilitate an already powerful politician’s
absurd quest for personal vindication, by concealing his betrayal of powerless
Covid-19 sufferers beneath the cloak of anonymity, is morally and
professionally indefensible.
Just consider the likely sequence of events in this latest
case. A journalist is contacted by an Opposition MP claiming to be able to
prove that his racially-charged allegations are backed by official information.
Before viewing this information, however, the MP extracts from the journalist a
promise that both his identity and the nature of the proof will be kept under
wraps. Rather than demanding to know what he’s insisting she keep hidden from
the public, the journalist gives the MP her promise – and he hands over the
confidential medical records of citizens who have tested positive for Covid-19.
At this point the journalist finds herself horribly
compromised. She has in her hands clear proof that not only is a National MP
guilty of an appalling breach of the public’s trust, but also that someone
within the Ministry of Health is passing highly sensitive information to a
person or persons closely associated with the National Party. The clear public
interest in her revealing these facts is obvious, but she can’t – not without
“revealing her source”.
Inevitably, somebody further up the chain of command called
“bullshit” on this insanely conflicted situation. The leak of information
identifying Covid-19-positive patients was made public – but not the identity
of the leaker. Entirely predictably, the release of this information
immediately sparked yet another round of harsh National Party criticism. Once
again, the Leader of the Opposition, Todd Muller, and his Health spokesperson,
Michael Woodhouse, castigated the Government’s “shambolic” handling of the Covid-19
crisis.
Just think about this for a moment. The mainstream news
media was willing to print and broadcast these criticisms of the Government,
even though they knew that the source of the leaked information was a National
Party MP. Even though, by pushing the story up towards the top of every news
bulletin they were stealing oxygen from the Prime Ministers keynote address to
the Labour Party Congress. It’s a very strange kind of journalism that keeps
more information hidden from the public than it reveals!
It would be nice to think that Hamish Walker and Michelle
Boag “came clean” because of a belated attack of common decency. More likely,
however, their confessions were driven by fear of the official inquiry into the
leak ordered by Minister of Health, Chris Hipkins. The powers given to Michael
Heron QC, the man charged with undertaking the investigation, were certainly
comprehensive enough to inspire such fear. He had the ability to subpoena
witnesses and extract testimony under oath. Scary stuff.
Will Mr Heron, knowing the identity of the leakers, be
content to deliver a pro forma report to Minister Hipkins? The
mainstream media will be hoping so. They have nothing at all to gain from
someone asking too many searching questions about the way this story was
handled. The poor, misinformed public, however, has every reason to hope that
Mr Heron goes hard and goes early to lock down all the elements of this
scandal.
Was there, for example, some sort of quid pro quo arrangement
by which the National Party was encouraged to offer up Walker and Boag in
return for the mainstream media pivoting swiftly towards Muller’s “decisive
handling” of the crisis? Certainly, that would take the spotlight off the
implications of the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust’s insistence that Boag
could not possibly have obtained the Covid-19-positive patient’s details from
them. If National, as seems increasingly likely, has a “Deep Throat” located in
the heart of the Ministry of Health, or, even worse, in the Prime Minister’s
Office, it will not want such a useful informant dislodged.
I am not optimistic, however, that these sorts of questions
will be asked or answered. With the General Election less than three months
away, it is most unlikely that anything like the entirety of this scandal’s
moving parts will be examined too closely – by anyone. The voters need to be
able to believe that New Zealand’s major political parties conduct themselves
ethically and responsibly at all times. Bad behaviour must always be presented
as the product of “bad apples”. That National’s whole apple tree might be
blighted and diseased is not a conclusion which this country’s political
establishment will ever allow to pass unchallenged.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog
of Thursday, 9 July 2020.
