Deconstructing The Dirty, Neo-Liberal Media

Politics Of The Democratic Deficit

- Dennis Small

“Conservative attacks on the adversary culture in the 1980s in the US, and then again in the aftermath of 9/11, brought with it an overarching attack on the Welfare State and civil liberties in the name of nationalism, militarism, and imperialism” (“Critical Theory: A Very Short Introduction”, Stephen Eric Bronner, Oxford University Press, 2011, p91).

In warning New Zealanders about commercial, governmental and digital processes endangering their democracy, former New Zealand Herald Editor, academic, and media expert Dr Gavin Ellis comments: “Why is such a warning necessary?  It is needed because the NZ public has generally accepted inroads into this fundamental democratic right (i.e. the freedom of information) with not so much as a whisper. And the effects are cumulative. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations are an example of what can be done under a veil of secrecy. Extrapolate that to other Government and commercial activities and you may have an inkling of what could lie ahead” (“Complacent Nation”, Gavin Ellis, Bridget Williams Books Ltd., BWB Texts series, 2016, p17).

Dame Beverley Wakem as Ombudsman “acknowledged, on the TV programme The Nation, that (former) Prime Minister John Key's attitude to the (Official Information) Act is 'cavalier' and 'shows a disregard for the law'” (ibid., p63; The Nation, 17/10/15). Dame Beverley herself copped strong criticism for failing to properly safeguard the public's right to freedom of information (e.g., Editorial: “Chief Ombudsman Shows How Not To Be An Information Watchdog”, Stuff, 7/12/15, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/74763977/editorial-chief-ombudsman-shows-how-not-to-be-an-information-watchdog).

“The force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake [is]: neo-liberalism”, Naomi Klein, Guardian, 9/11/16, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate

“It's not about how you win (elections), it's about getting results once elected” (former PM John Key).

One of the great paradoxes of Western culture relates to how certain well-known themes can be part of this body of knowledge, discourse, and awareness, and yet be so widely ignored when it comes to the public understanding of political power in action. And this can happen even when the relevant evidence is openly, even blatantly, available to scrutiny. It is all a most chilling testament to the machinations of the Western power elite and their crony media. Most dramatically in terms of policy and practice, the greatest cultural paradox perhaps applies to what we may well call “Orwellianism”.

The epithet “Orwellian” can be defined in the following way: “Characteristic or reminiscent of the writings of George Orwell (1903-50) – mainly used with reference to … his nightmarish vision, published in 1949, of the year “1984”, about a totalitarian dystopia using the perverted, ideological language of “Newspeak” to help control the masses or the “proles” (“The New Fontana Dictionary Of Modern Thought”, ed. A. Bullock & S. Trombley, 3rd ed., 2000, Harper/Collins, pp618/9). In Western society today, we have the pervasive structure and functioning of the mainstream media with their own versions of “Newspeak”. Yet this hegemony has been virtually unchallenged for decades among so many people who should know better.

The current article is another in a series on the politics of the NZ media, again in light of international trends impacting on the local scene in recent years. The ongoing focus has been on deconstructing this media's very pronounced Rightwing bias and its “Dirty Politics”-style machinations (to date see: “Media Manipulation” in Foreign Control Watchdog 136, September 2014, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/36/07.html; “Subverting Democracy” in Watchdog 137, December 2014, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/37/13.html; & later: “Contesting Crony Media & Neo-Liberal Dirty Politics”,  Watchdog 142, August 2016, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/42/12.html; plus: “Media Machinations, Cronyism, And Dirty Politics”, Watchdog 143, December 2016, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/43/06.html  – this last article in particular has some detailed case studies that document, and exemplify the recently demonstrated perfidy of the corporate media). Even though the articles form an ongoing series, I have tried to make each one a “stand-alone” read in its own right.  

Public Relations Propaganda

Public relations (PR) and the policy and practice of propaganda are embedded in the very operation of the mainstream media, especially in foreign policy and what is defined as “national security” (http://johnpilger.com/articles/inside-the-invisible-government-war-propaganda-clinton-trump, 27/10/16). A most pernicious form of “Newspeak” comprised both the media manipulations and language employed by the “neo-conservative” (“neo-con”) George W Bush Administration in orchestrating its illegal and savagely calamitous invasion of Iraq in 2003 (e.g., “Weapons Of Mass Deception: The Uses Of Propaganda In Bush's War On Iraq”, Sheldon Rampton & John Stauber, Tarcher/Penguin, 2003).

This propaganda was the cover for its neo-imperialist project of grabbing more of the planet's oil and gas reserves. The State terrorist “shock and awe” invasion was thus cheered on by the Anglo-American media at the time, and then later excused and rationalised ever since. The same propaganda syndrome is constantly at work, although newly elected President Donald Trump has openly boasted that he would have just taken over Iraq's oil. This is what has effectively happened anyway! 

US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's expansion into Eastern Europe, and especially the Ukraine, is characteristic today of Western capitalist aggression, with Russia naturally painted as the villain for its demonstrably self-defensive actions. The US is directly responsible for this horrific nuclear brinkmanship, with even the German Foreign Minister warning of the dangers (e.g., “German Minister Warns NATO Against ‘Warmongering'”, BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36566422, 18/6/16).

A very up-to-date example of Western malign posturing has been the utterly hypocritical and artificially contrived propaganda in aid of Islamist jihadists, including al Qaeda, during the recent siege of Aleppo in Syria. This was in stark contrast to the ongoing siege of jihadist-held Mosul in Iraq (http://johnpilger.com/, op. cit.).  There have already been many civilian deaths in the siege of Mosul but these are simply “collateral damage” for the eminently self-serving Anglo-American axis, along with all the human misery inflicted on Yemen and other Muslim countries under attack from the West and its proxies.

Yemen, in particular, is a heart-breaking case of the evils of Western neo-imperialism, with the United Nations (UN) warning that 12 million people are at risk of starvation, including a disproportionately large number of children. The damning lack of humanitarian response on the part of the West – and above all of the criminally responsible Anglo-American axis - cries out in condemnation of their vicious interventionist record in this poor, wretched country, so tragically torn apart by international geopolitics. Warmongering, and the machinery of war, comprise so much of the essence of Western civilisation these days!  Most symbolically, President Donald Trump's “first military raid” on the rest of the world was delivered against Yemen (“Trump's Raid Doomed From Start”, Press, 4/2/17). 

Even the conservative International Crisis Group described the raid as “a good (sic!) example of what not to do” (ibid.).  It warns that: “The use of US troops and the high number of civilian casualties (including children) ... are deeply inflammatory and breed anti-American resentment across the Yemeni political spectrum” (ibid.).  Blowback goes on as ever! (for background see my article “Middle East Turmoil And Beyond: Political Blowback In Action” in Peace Researcher 43, May 2012,  http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/pr-backissues/pr43.pdf). 

In recent times in regard to the Yemeni tragedy, it was indeed heartening to see a most exceptional case of NZ journalism talking truth to power, and this on the very Americanised Newshub onTV3. Reporter Lisa Owen admirably tackled the then US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Powers, head-on in an interview about the silence and collaboration of Powers' government with Saudi Arabia and its aerial war on Yemen (The Nation, 20/11/16).                                                                                                      

Such US silence and collaboration stand in glaring contrast to all the stridently emotive American rhetoric and charges of atrocities against Russia for the latter's participation in the bombing and siege of East Aleppo. The horribly hypocritical Powers was clearly defensive and very uncomfortable under Owen's probing scrutiny (ibid.). She denied that the US is bombing Yemen via its Sunni proxy Saudi Arabia, which is using American attack aircraft, backed by the superpower's full political and logistical support (ibid.).

This joint Saudi-US operation is part of their strategy to try and counter the influence of Shiite Iran. For Powers, civilian casualties in Yemen were just so much more “collateral damage”, in grim comparison with the propaganda value of civilian casualties of East Aleppo. The face-to-face exposure of America's close cooperation and support for genocide obviously cuts to the bone.

Orwellian “Newspeak”: Hypocrisy Running Amok!

Powers has an academic background supposedly concerned with the prevention of genocide but her real focus is tribal geopolitics and the promotion of American self-serving propaganda.  Her life is a walking lie! (e.g., “US Hypocrisy's Face At The UN – Samantha Power”, OffGuardian, 4/11/16, https://off-guardian.org/2016/11/04/32078/; “Samantha Powers Condemns Russia For Condemning A US War Crime”,  Counterpunch, 21/9/16, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/21/samantha-powers-condemns-russia-for-condemning-a-u-s-war-crime/).

Despite Lisa Owen's exceptionally fine interview, TV3, along with TV1, regularly pumped out American “Newspeak” during the siege of Aleppo in the latter part of 2016. David Swanson, the Director of WorldBeyondWar.org and Campaign Director for RootsAction.org, puts the American record straight on foreign policy and war crimes with a satirical gloss on the Orwellian official line (“The United States Is Innocent And Has Never Killed Anyone”, Scoop News, 7/2/17, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1702/S00024/the-united-states-is-innocent-and-has-never-killed-anyone.htm. Scoop News is an excellent alternative NZ source of news, commentary, and opinion). 

In comparative terms, the virtual media blackout until about mid-February 2017 on the siege of Mosul and civilian casualties (especially during the peak of the Aleppo crisis) has been very pronounced here in NZ, both on our propagandistic TV channels and other media. This is despite the fact that there are even some mainstream media and non-government organisation (NGO) reports readily available overseas about the large number of civilian casualties there.  Many Mosul civilians were victims even at the peak of the siege of Aleppo. 

There were intense US-led Coalition air “strikes at Manbji, Mosul and Raqqa, (which) saw record numbers of civilians killed and injured” during the period July-December 2016 (“Civilian And 'Friendly Fire' Casualties”, Airwars: https://airwars.org; see also e.g., “Battle For Mosul Has Barely Begun But The Civilian Death Toll Is Already Rising”, Sydney Morning Herald, 18/10/16, http://www.smh.com.au/world/battle-for-mosul-has-barely-begun-but-the-civilian-death-toll-is-already-rising-20161017-gs4kay.html).

The UN has said that almost half the deaths sustained in the siege of Mosul have been civilian. Even the Rightwing British newspaper The Telegraph acknowledges the tragic human cost of the siege from both increasing hunger and Coalition airstrikes (“750,000 People Trapped In Mosul Are 'On Brink Of Starvation' As Iraqi Forces Advance”, 22/2/17, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/22/750000-people-trapped-mosul-brink-starvation-iraqi-forces-advance/).

This American-orchestrated bombardment on Mosul goes on relentlessly. The Orwellian-style news coverage here is therefore sparing, artificially contrived, and highly selective, although by late February 2017 TV1 had begun regular updates. Take a typical CBS item on TV3, typically our very own “Voice of America” channel in its constant use of the big US networks (Newshub Live at 6pm, 30/1/17). It referred to American air strikes and special forces backing the progress of the Iraqi troops. There was, of course, no mention of any Coalition-induced civilian casualties.

Instead, we were given more charges of human rights abuses by Islamic State (IS), including the allegation that IS even confiscates toys from children. But, most revealingly, this particular CBS report acknowledged that the ranks of IS include a considerable number of locals, who blend in with the city's inhabitants. This reality confronts the city's attackers more and more as they press on. Thus, the bitter sectarian strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, unleashed by the American invasion and blitzing of so much of the region, continues to deepen in its consequences and ramifications (“Middle East Turmoil And Beyond”, Peace Researcher, op. cit.).

Triumphant Tribalism

State TVNZ has long been a dedicated agent of tribalist Anglo-American propaganda. For instance, in its own edited presentation of a short item on the Assad regime bombing of a suburb in Syrian Damascus, it showed video footage from the US-backed jihadi “White Helmet” rescue teams, just as was regularly done during the siege of East Aleppo (1News at 6pm, 21/2/17). An unfortunate little girl was shown being dragged from the rubble (ibid.). Again, the emphasis was on civilian casualties. But in a parallel, longer item by the BBC's Quentin Somerville on the siege of Mosul, there was no mention of any civilian casualties at all (ibid.).

Somerville only cited military casualties, and of the cost in this connection exacted by the occasionally “blitzkrieg” advance and progress of the allied Coalition, which includes American and British special forces (ibid.). To be sure, TV1 presenters Simon Dallow and Wendy Petrie portrayed the Coalition advance as a “ferocious assault” (ibid.). They concluded, however, with a positive endorsement of how the Pentagon is looking at stepping up its fight against IS (ibid.).

In Anglo-American war propaganda, framing has proven pervasively effective. There is a host of basic techniques – from blaming the victim to simply stating certain, apparently unconnected facts, even horrible ones, without any moralistic gloss. Media treatment of the Indonesian genocide (1965-70), in which NZ collaborated, set the model for a range of propagandistic techniques (Peace Researcher 44, November 2012, “Case Study: The 1965-70 Indonesia Genocide”, Dennis Small, http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/pr-backissues/pr44.pdf).

Another TV1 item by the BBC's Quentin Somerville graphically illustrated the bald, factual technique (1 News At Midday, 24/2/17).  After describing the fiercely fought progress of the Iraqi Army Coalition in its siege of West Mosul, Somerville spoke of encountering civilians in a “wretched” state (ibid.). He interviewed one deeply distressed man, who told him about the mass slaughter of civilians, including six members of one family (ibid.). Somerville then gloated how IS was now “on the run”, and that we were “witnessing the final days of the caliphate” (ibid.). 

The mass civilian deaths had obviously been due to the slamming Coalition artillery and air attacks that Somerville had mentioned earlier (ibid.). Once again, however, TV1 presenters Wendy Petrie and Simon Dallow were positive about the Coalition's progress (ibid.).  A later BBC item by Wyre Davies highlighted the use of drones by IS, citing individual cases of unfortunate civilian casualties (1 News At 6pm, 26/2/17). Then, with typical malign hypocrisy, the use of the pounding, powerful American artillery and other support was spun by Davies as the future “decisive” factor in the conflict (ibid.).

There was no mention about any unfortunate civilian casualties (ibid.). In another item of its own edited version of news, TV1's Wendy Petrie told us how more civilians are coming under the Coalition's umbrella, and how some of them have been sad casualties of IS-planted roadside bombs (1 News At 6pm, 27/2/17). But, as usual, there was again no mention of any Coalition-inflicted civilian casualties (ibid.).

As a dedicated cog in service of the American Empire, TVNZ's propaganda record on Iraq is a story of stinking, manipulative hypocrisy in line with the propagandistic BBC and other Anglo-American agencies. George Orwell himself learnt a lot about the BBC's methods when he had his own direct “hands-on” experience during World War II (WWII). Of late, in true Orwellian fashion, TV1 has been running adverts telling us how truthful it is. 

Barbarism And Blowback!

Overall, the West has a very selective view of what constitutes “barbarism” in international relations. There is not the space here to further update this theme in this particular article but it is important to both record and stress its intimate relationship with the very predominant Rightwing media bias on the domestic scene. As described and documented over decades in many editions of Watchdog and Peace Researcher (PR), there is a long tradition of corresponding Orwellian propaganda and protection by the media for this invasive and imperialistic militarism.

Recent documentation on both American overt and covert predatory warfare is extensive (for covert war see, e.g., “Days Of Revolt: America's Death Squads”, YouTube, 5/1/16, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN6InTMWt7Q  – interview by Chris Hedges of the intrepid investigative journalist Allan Nairn; &, “Terrorism With A ‘Human Face’: The History Of America's Death Squads”, Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalisation, 14/7/16, http://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-with-a-human-face-the-history-of-americas-death-squads/5317564).   

Most ironically, recently installed President Trump has highlighted American foreign policy hypocrisy and its routine “killer” practices in a comment on Putin as compared with the US leadership (“The Interviewer Told Trump That Putin Is A Killer. His Reply: 'You Think Our Country Is So Innocent?'”, Stuff,  5/2/17, http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/world-news/89110587/The-interviewer-told-Trump-that-Putin-is-a-killer-His-reply-You-think-our-country-is-so-innocent).

Trump is peeling away the moral mask of America's current brutal imperialism (see e.g., “Obama's 'Kill List' Is Here To Stay”. The National Memo, 13/5/16, http://www.nationalmemo.com/obamas-kill-list-is-here-to-stay/;  “Killing Machine: The American Presidency In The Age Of Drone Warfare”, Lloyd Gardner, The New Press, 2013). Our former “nice guy” PM John Key, the “smiling assassin”, was very happy to cheer on drone killings, including the thousands of civilian deaths. 

Trump freely proclaims that the US has a “lot of killers”. Unlike the former Obama Administration and the antics of Samantha Powers, Trump makes little effort to dress up his own barbarism in any of the standard moral posturing. It was certainly most revealing to see all the contortions of the Western media in their feigned moral outrage against Trump's comments. Western “freedom” has been built over centuries on the oppressive exploitation of both peoples and the environment.

This global exploitation is now disintegrating. Handwringing angst is now being expressed in some conservative circles about this process of imperial unravelling, with its tattered cover of morality being blown away (“For Trump, 'We Have A Lot of Killers' Isn't A Criticism”, The Atlantic, 6/2/17, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/for-trump-we-have-a-lot-of-killers-isnt-a-criticism/515748/). American self-serving mythology is imploding.

Trumpism Triumphant?!

The neo-liberal era has resulted in Trumpism. From a historical perspective, Trumpism can be seen as a version of what is called “paleo-conservatism”, a form of reactionary American politics with deep roots but never before ensconced in the White House (“An Intellectual History Of Trumpism”, Politico,  11/12/16, www.politico.com/, 11/12/16, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trumpism-intellectual-history-populism-paleoconservatives-214518; “Steve Bannon Wants To Start World War III”, The Nation, 8/2/17, https://www.thenation.com/article/steve-bannon-wants-to-start-world-war-iii/). 

The background and context for the takeover of power by Trump and his paleo-conservative clique have been set by the ravages and perversions of neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, the Deep State, and Anglo-American imperial history. “The US policy of perpetual war and the expansion of the military-industrial-surveillance-incarceration complex have taken on an Orwellian overtone and are justified under the aegis of promoting democracy” ([Prof.] Henry Giroux on “State Terrorism And The Ideological Weapons Of Neo-Liberalism”, Truthout, 28/2/16, http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/35007-henry-giroux-on-state-terrorism-and-the-ideological-weapons-of-neoliberalism). Savage geopolitical crimes continue in the name of liberty, although the mask is slipping.

Trumpism, to be sure, blends a number of American reactionary trends and groupings together in its own peculiar toxic combination. Far from “draining the swamp” of Washington, Trumpism is bent on deepening the cesspool (http://journal-neo.org/2017/01/30/rex-tillerson-and-his-friends-the-end-game-of-America/). The new Administration openly embraces crony capitalism (including brazenly corrupt nepotism), all under the guise of liberty in aid of an even more extreme free market fundamentalism and privatisation of the public sector (ibid.; “Can Anything Stop The US Turning Into Trumpistan?”, Paul Krugman, New York Times, reprinted in the Press, 4/1/17).

With regard to the global environment, President Trump – in riding the cusp of evolutionary overshoot – has bizarrely declared that environmentalism is “out of control”. He was giving the green light for two very controversial oil pipelines in the US to go ahead in his own personal contribution to global warming. Trump is, indeed, the very embodiment of suicidal capitalist stupidity in action! Meantime, some of the greediest people on the planet are seeking safe havens in Aotearoa/NZ, and have the scary potential to screw our political system even more to the Right (“Super-Rich Buying Up NZ Boltholes”, Press, 26/1/17; http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/88745476/ peter-thiel-is-a-new-zealand-citizen-this-is-what-you-need-to-know). The neo-liberal rich have screwed up our  world, and are now trying to escape it (“To Billionaire Doomsday Preppers: Your Wealth Won't Save You”, Resilience, 23/2/17,http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-02-23/billionaire-doomsday-preppers-wealth-wont-save/).

But neo-liberal media commentators like Sam Sachdeva tell us that “Eccentric US Billionaire (Trumpite Peter Thiel) Has Plenty To Offer NZ As Citizen”, and that: “We should welcome the world's best and brightest with open arms” (Sunday Star Times [SST], 29/1/17). Sorry, Sam, your embrace of some of the world's greediest and most exploitative capitalists only demonstrates the sort of values you promote!

Caught between American and Chinese tycoon capitalists, our politics are destined to get even dirtier, more corrupt, more unjustly perverted, more damaging to the environment, etc. - i.e. unless we can marshal enough resistance to roll them and their comprador mates back from the levers of power.  We need to both save what is left of our democracy and inject new civic life.

Poisoning The Political Environment

The foreign-owned or controlled corporate media have been central to the neo-liberal/free market conditioning of the NZ populace with all its accompanying political manipulation. So far as the specific strategy of “Dirty Politics” is concerned, the original revelations and background were devastatingly presented in investigative journalist Nicky Hager's book “Dirty Politics: How Attack Politics Is Poisoning NZ's Political Environment” (Craig Potton, 2014, reviewed by Jeremy Agar in Watchdog 137, December 2014, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/37/13.html). 

Along with the darker machinations of “Dirty Politics”, the manipulative ploys of the corporate mainstream media are constant, variously employed, and pervasive (see previous issues of Watchdog cited above, op. cit.). Enforcing the neo-liberal hegemony has been the prime aim of the corporate media since the Rogernomics era of the 1980s implemented this Rightwing regime in Aotearoa/NZ.

As I have continually indicated and emphasised, the media's methods of manipulation are multifarious and diverse. Silence is a long practised media technique on embarrassing matters. Don't mention 'Dirty Politics'” has been the maxim of the NZ mainstream media (with the very odd exception) since 2014, the year of the last national election, when the National Party's dirty attack media strategy and tactics were so tellingly exposed by Hager (Craig Potton, op. cit.). 

With the 2017 general election due on 23 September, it is most important and fitting to be reminded of what happened in 2014, and how the National Party with the concerted help of its corporate, crony media won that particular election (see: “New Zealand Elections: Dirty Tricks Helped John Key Win Another Term”, Nicky Hager,  Guardian, 24/9/14,  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/new-zealand-elections-dirty-tricks-helped-john-key-win-another-term; “About Dirty Politics” https://dirtypoliticsnz.com > about; “The Media Wot Won It!”, The Coalition for Better Broadcasting: www.betterbroadcasting.co.nz > news > blog; “Dirty Politics”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Politics).

The NZ media is indeed almost entirely Rightwing (“The Media Wot Won It!”, ibid.). In 2017, it is also very important to take account of what the National Party government has done, and continues to do (e.g., “Top 10 Examples Of How Deeply Rotten New Zealand Has Become Under National”, Daily Blog, 25/1016, http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/10/25/top-5-examples-of-how-deeply-rotten-new-zealand-has-become-under-national/). The corporate and media peddling of the neo-liberal creed – and its crony capitalism – continues to take a heavy toll within Aotearoa/NZ.

Don't Mention The N-Word!

The mainstream media rigorously abjure any mention of “neo-liberalism” as much as possible; and yet, of course, ironically enough, this same media is very deeply imbued in the doctrine of neo-liberalism. Indeed, the very same media is central to its dissemination. This sensitivity was highlighted most revealingly on a TVNZ Q & A episode when presenter/interviewer Greg Boyed responded quickly to panellist Dr. Maria Bargh, Tumuaki/Head of School and Senior Lecturer, Te Kawa a Maui/School of Maori Studies, who brought up the implicit theme of this particular Q & A episode as she saw it – neo-liberalism! (TV1, 30/10/16).

Boyed, in obvious damage control, swiftly commented that the programme aimed to be coherent in presentation! To even have this term mentioned on such a programme, or indeed anywhere in the media, is highly unusual (if only we had regular panellists of the calibre of Dr. Bargh! Such panellists appear only very occasionally on Q & A, and TV3's The Nation.  An almost standard fixture panellist is the ever so boringly predictable and prejudiced PR agent and former National Party President, Michelle Boag, who naturally fits in nicely with the Party's control of TVNZ.  She is regularly allowed to commandeer the discussion)

The term “neo-liberalism” has yet obvious problems for wider communication and discussion in the public arena. Understandably, it remains pretty esoteric for most people. To a very large degree  the public framework of mainstream discourse within Aotearoa/NZ is determined by the transnational corporations (TNCs), which have driven and shaped the free trade and Big Business agenda since at least the mid-1980s. Their hidden agenda is to try and systematically undermine our democracy as much as possible. The logic of profit, and therefore neo-liberal deregulation, drive this corporate agenda.

Brave New World

The new Bravo channel on Sky and Freeview is certainly expressive of some key values of capitalist neo-liberalism. Promoted on the cover and inside page of the SST (3/7/16), the values pitched for audience appeal are very much those exemplified by TV1's Mike Hosking and other such media agents. So, there is constant conditioning and reinforcement for the neo-liberal creed. Bravo's advertising in SST broadcast the appeal of greed, capitalist accumulation, conspicuous consumption, status seeking, and generally obscene privilege.

Some noteworthy wording touting the various programmes were: “Million Dollar Listing New York – New York's top real estate agents broker deals for some of the city's most expensive apartments”; “Real Housewives” soap operas starring women who “showcase their lavish lifestyles and jaw dropping bling”; and who “live in the lap of luxury”; along with Chelsea “Brits” inhabiting “one of London's most exclusive postcodes” (ibid.). The Bravo “entertainment-lifestyle” TV channel is evidently intended for women viewers.

A parallel sexist channel Duke, “TVNZ's channel for boys” (with lots of sport content, action dramas, etc.), is explicitly aimed at males. The equivalent of the dispensation by Roman emperors of “bread and circuses” certainly has its parallel these days. Lavish media “infotainment” promulgates rampant consumption and indulgence worldwide – all at the cost of enormous and rapidly mounting human and environmental exploitation.

In a world of growing population, diminishing resources, increasing inequalities (including 65 million displaced people and refugees!), declining ecosystems, and mounting risk of nuclear war, capitalist “boom and bust” culture relies more than ever on mind-numbing trash entertainment for the masses. This stuff includes an emphasis on vicarious identification with the rich and powerful, and grossly expensive, hedonistic consumerism.  The psychological conditioning and warfare practised by the Pentagon and the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has had its spinoffs for the power elite across American culture and further afield.

For example, “Bravo”-style soap opera sagas have long been a mainstay of such social conditioning in Brazil, and elsewhere in Latin America, as well as in the Hollywood-besotted US itself. Cultivating the future hopes and expectations of wealth creation is vital for ensuring the social acceptance of capitalism. Many of these techniques, given American programming and machinations, have come to be integrated in the wider Western mainstream media as well. Fantasy and escapism, along with the celebration of interventionist militarism and “dirty work”, are hallmarks of such programming and commercialised presentation. 

The Turmoils Of Trumpism

While the immediate dangers arising from a Hillary Clinton election and consequent confrontation with Russia may have been thankfully sidelined for the moment, the underlying geopolitical conditions making for war go on. This zeitgeist is potentially taut with tension, especially since the intelligence agencies of the Deep State, along with so much of the media, are bent on warmongering against Russia. The prestigious Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) has again moved forward the hands of its doomsday clock (now two and a half minutes to midnight - “World 30 Seconds Closer To Doomsday”, Press, 28/1/17).

Meantime, the tentacles of the Deep State are reaching into the mainstream media as never before (e.g., “Demonising Russia: Fake News And The Conflict Of Interest Involving Amazon, The Washington Post, And The CIA”, Julian Assange, 20/12/16: https://medium.com/@SarahRRunge/amazon-the-washington-post-and-the-cia-d68a4ee802e#.7krbmvrebNation, 22/2/17, https://www.thenation.com/article/why-we-must-oppose-the-kremlin-baiting-against-trump/).  They are even being helped by some traditionally oriented conservative factions in the US that oppose Trump (ibid.; Democracy Now, Glenn Greenwald 16/2/17).

By February 2017 President Trump also seemed to be seeking a confrontation with China in the South China Sea. He is already engaged in a “War of Civilisations” with Islam (http://anotherdayin theempire.com/trumps-islamophobe-guru-hits-cpac/). He wants to increase the defence budget by $US54 billion (10%) in order for America to win future wars, and plans to substantially reduce spending on environmental protection and foreign aid.

Overall, the omens are very dark with neo-fascism on the rise (https://www.thenation.com/, op. cit.). For those of us who lived and protested through the 1980s’ Reagan era, we know how madly apocalyptic crackpot American leaders can be! Today, the zombie media is permeated with the capitalist culture of death. Trumpist media wars are indeed brimming with ironies.

Apparently, the survivalist “doomsday preppers” movement in the US has really taken off, with lots of underground bunkers being built, etc. (e.g., “Doomsday Prep For The Super Rich”, New Yorker, 30/1/17, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich* ).  The BAS cites the lack of action on climate change and the advent to the American Presidency of Donald Trump as the main reasons for the latest move forward of the hands of its Doomsday Clock (Newshub Live at 6pm, TV3, 27/1/17). The “Walking Dead” are already among us on a number of fronts. Metaphorically speaking, we need to bury them and affirm the future of life!  

*The same New Yorker article included this: “The growing foreign appetite for New Zealand property has generated a backlash. The Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa - the Maori name for New Zealand - opposes sales to foreigners. In particular, the attention of American survivalists has generated resentment. In a discussion about New Zealand on the Modern Survivalist, a prepper Web site, a commentator wrote, ‘Yanks, get this in your heads. Aotearoa NZ is not your little last resort safe haven’”. CAFCA’s fame has obviously spread. We’ve never been contacted by the New Yorker. Ed.

To return to the definition of “Orwellian” again: “Orwell's iconic and prophetic novel ‘1984’ pictures a future world divided into totalitarian super-states, each permanently at war” with one another (“The New Fontana Dictionary Of Modern Thought”, op. cit., p619). Ever since the end of WWII, the US has been at war in some form or other with its endless enemies. Now, the military-industrial complex, about which President Eisenhower once warned so prophetically, has clearly taken over the central, presiding control of American society. 

As continually stressed, the Anglo-American mainstream media operate as its propaganda arm (http://johnpilger.com/articles/, op. cit; “Truth, War, Propaganda, CIA and Media Manipulation”, Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalisation, 23/4/16, http://www.globalresearch.ca/truth-propaganda-and-media-manipulation/23868Peace Researcher 41, July 2011, “More Media Warmongering: Part 1”, Dennis Small, http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/pr-backissues/pr41.pdfPR 42, November 2011,  ditto, Part 2, http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/pr-backissues/pr42.pdf).

Academic Assessment

In my previous articles on the media in Watchdog, I examined a range of factors at work making for media bias.  In a very important little treatise, media commentator, academic, and former NZ Herald Editor, Dr Gavin Ellis, does not deal directly with the bias of the media as such but instead looks at how a whole set of factors is affecting, and will very likely increasingly affect, the structure and functioning of the media, e.g., Government abuse and manipulation of the Official Information Act (“Complacent Nation”*, op. cit., see quote cited above at the very start of my article; “Too complacent about a right to know”, Press, 15/8/16).

These combined factors are undermining the proper role of the media in protecting and safeguarding democracy. Regarding newspaper and print, a major international trend is to fewer subscribers and less advertising. Consequently, traditional news journalists and reporters have also markedly declined in number. “Census data shows that the number of print, radio and TV journalists was cut almost in half in seven years – from 2,214 in 2006 to 1,170 in 2013” (ibid., p21). “Infotainment” has come to dominate. * “Complacent Nation” was reviewed by Jeremy Agar in Watchdog 143, December 2016, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/43/11.html . Ed.

I would add here that those senior journalists who remain tend to be the most Rightwing. This naturally reflects and fits in with the corporate agenda of the media bosses and owners. There are a few notable exceptions, thankfully.  Dr Ellis's book constitutes an urgent wake-up call for us all, with some recommendations for positive action. For example, he notes the idea for “a levy on all advertising as proposed by Dr Peter Thompson, who is the chair of the Coalition for Better Broadcasting, (and that this) could fund public service journalism” (ibid., p139).

It is most pertinent then, at this stage, especially in another election year (2017), to take account of some recent academic research with bearing on the previous general election, i.e. the 2014 one. A relevant study is contained in the book “Politics And The Media”, 2nd Ed., Geoff Kemp, Babak Bahador, Kate McMillan & Chris Rudd (Auckland University Press, 2016). This worthwhile book has a range of contributors from diverse viewpoints. 

Bizarre Protectionist Political Analysis

Even in academia, former PM Key and National can be protected in de facto fashion by political “science” analysis that purports to address the question of the role of the media and democracy, viz., chapter 13: “Media Coverage Of NZ Elections: 2008-14” by Babak Bahador, Mark Boyd, and Kate Roff (ibid.). Bahador is a senior lecturer at the University of Canterbury, while Boyd is a PhD student, and Roff a freelance writer. Their election studies apply a pretty simplistic quantitative methodological approach.

Using this approach, they conclude that: “The findings show that there is some bias against incumbent governments and the National Party in particular. However, this was not necessarily anti-democratic, as the media's watchdog role should place extra scrutiny on those holding power in order to identify any preferential abuse of power” (ibid., p216). This may well seem stunning stuff for some of us, after having followed the 2014 election closely, and in the wake (and legacy) of the “dirty politics” revelations. 

In fact, the superficiality of the specific study just cited is certainly stunning indeed. The basic research technique for the 2014 election was to analyse the content of a selected certain set of media, comprising print (newspapers): NZ Herald, Dominion Post, & the Press; and TV: One News (TVNZ), and 3 News (MediaWorks) from “'writ day' to the day before election day” (ibid., p202). So, a number of very politicised media channels were consequently excluded from this particular research study, e.g., the TV programmes Q & A (TV1) and The Nation (TV3), along with the TV shows starring National Party PR pundits Mike Hosking and Paul Henry. 

There was no monitoring of talkback radio, which has long been mostly hosted in Aotearoa/NZ by hardline Rightwingers. To cite another media analyst in “Politics And The Media”: “As is the case internationally, talk hosts in NZ are concentrated on the Right side of the political spectrum” (ibid., p268). Moreover, the same analyst, Kate McMillan, Senior Lecturer in Politics at Victoria University, makes the observation that most New Zealanders listen regularly to radio about two thirds of every day! (ibid., p257). The radio waves, of course, are generally dominated by music and “infotainment”, not talkback as such, but there is certainly plenty of the latter too. 

Air-Brushing Out “Dirty Politics”

For the Bahador et al study, content was broadly classified as “positive” and “negative”, in conjunction with some other similarly broad criteria of classification, and the totals for various categories counted according to political party. There was found to be actually very little difference (as assessed) between the type of coverage given National and that given Labour in the 2014 election. The analytical superficiality, as indicated, is staggering.

Most significantly in this regard take the following judgement: “With party leaders some notable differences exist between the larger parties. With National, which was led by John Key in all three elections studied, the leader always received the most media coverage of any leader and a higher proportion of media coverage than the party” (ibid., p206). The authors attribute the explanation for this to Key's popularity! This is quite mind-boggling, especially since the “Dirty Politics” revelations in 2014, and given that there is no scrutiny as to how Key both got and kept his popularity, despite all the very critical things that the media could have thrown at him.

There is an implicit circular argument here. Former PM John Key's popularity is explained by his popularity, rather than selective and very biased media coverage accounting for so much of his popularity!  In general, the popularity of any political leader in a Western democracy depends on his/her treatment by the media, including the extent of coverage given. This is the only way that the majority of people ever learn about the particular person concerned. 

Moreover, there is also an inherent contradiction in the authors' thesis. On the one hand, as noted, they assert that PM Key got more media attention at the time because of his popularity. On the other hand, they claim that a significant reason for the greater attention given to Key was due to the extra criticism he received when contrasted with the other political leaders! (see further explication later below). There is nothing here at all on media spin-doctoring. Nicky Hager's book “Dirty Politics” leaves such trite and inconsistent “political science” analysis and assessment in the dust. The basically very broad brush quantitative methodological approach applied by the authors has blinded them to issues of real outstanding qualitative substance. 

This has gone hand in hand with a gross misperception of what the whole “Dirty Politics” affair entailed in 2014 and beyond. Moreover, let me again reinforce this point. It is very important to understand how so much of the mainstream media is still closely integrated with the National Party political agenda today, and how that this will still apply under the prime ministership of the newly appointed Bill English (see relevant case studies in the previous Watchdog article: “Media Machinations, Cronyism, And Dirty Politics”, op. cit.).

Scrutinising Scurrilous And Superfluous Scandal?!

In presenting their findings on the general elections studied, Bahador et al try to determine how much what they call “non-policy issues” are being given space at the expense of “policy issues” like the economy (“Politics And The Media”, op. cit.). They highlight these non-policy issues by certain “scandals” that took place in the 2008, 2011 and 2014 elections. For instance, they say that in 2011 there was the so-called “tea-tape” scandal and in 2014 the “Dirty Politics” scandal. The greater attention assigned to non-policy issues by the media is indeed taken as the study's major finding. They find this disturbing for democracy.

What is again so absolutely stunning for a political science analysis of the media and elections is that the latter episode of “Dirty Politics” is construed as characteristic of the non-policy issue. This kind of issue is sadly distracting the media from their proper focus on political policy issues, and thus proving detrimental to democracy. How bizarre can such an interpretation be in relation to the policy and practice of “dirty politics” as exemplified by National Party strategy. For sure, “Dirty Politics” is certainly disturbing for democracy!  As we shall see below, thankfully, certain other academic political analysts in the book “Politics And The Media” see the so-called “Dirty Politics scandal” very differently to Bahador et al.

What is so remarkable about all of this is that the issues involved in “Dirty Politics”, as revealed in 2014, obviously went right to the very heart of the conduct of democracy in a veritable multitude of ways - not only just for elections. What was revealed strikes at the heart's core of the structure and functioning of a democracy! Further, in elaborating this point, what indeed has proved so significant is how the mainstream media, the supposed and self-proclaimed guardian of democracy, has instead been deeply implicated in helping to undermine it.

This syndrome continues to prevail (see, e.g., “Media Machinations, Cronyism, And Dirty Politics”, op. cit.). In all, the political science study cited constitutes a quite outstanding case of how insipid and bloodless political science can be in comparison with the raw gritty substance uncovered by good investigative journalism, and Nicky Hager's excellent achievement in this specific case.   

Deconstructing Dirty Media

There is a host of issues and concerns raised here. As emphasised, in so many ways the election and media study cited is grossly superficial and even very misleading (op. cit.). The opening sentence of the relevant chapter actually declares: “Elections lie at the heart of democracy” (ibid., p201). Indeed! The key central issue of the so-called “Dirty Politics Scandal” was how the 2014 election process was being malevolently warped by National Party attack bloggers in conjunction with pivotal agencies of the crony mainstream media, and how our democracy was consequently being systematically undermined. This dirty work strategy was organised by the presiding Government in the most conspiratorial, covert and devious fashion. Yet, to hammer home my own line of argument, all this is just weirdly dismissed as a “scandal” by these “political scientists”! 

After observing that the National Party got most coverage in the 2014 election, they very conclusively declare: “This focus on the incumbent party may be read as the media fulfilling its watchdog role, critically analysing and reporting on the Government's achievements and mistakes over the years in power, which in itself is another democratic duty of the media” (ibid., p205).

But, despite Key, according to the study, getting more negative criticism than other party leaders, there is no scrutiny as to the nature and style of this criticism, except for the following observations. The authors explain the greater amount of criticism levelled at Key by the tendency of the media to pick up and relate the criticisms of the various Opposition parties, as well as allegedly getting “extra scrutiny” (ibid., pp207 & 212).

The fact, for sure, that the National Party got most coverage, can have a readily alternative explanation, at least to some extent. It can easily be interpreted as extra publicity being given to the party favoured by the corporate mainstream media. In regard to policy issues, the mainstream media have often been woeful in holding the National Party government to account. To take the vitally important issue of the environment and sustainability, for example, any such attempt is best described as farcical. The same goes for all the crony capitalism on exhibition. Neo-liberal economics has reigned supreme! 

Dirty Media In Action

So far as “Dirty Politics” itself is concerned, the media operated to confuse and confound the public over the charges of the case mounted by Nicky Hager in his “block-busting” book. It acted quickly to further protect former PM John Key and the National government, closing down debate and discussion on the implications of the startling revelations about National's nasty machinations in the immediate run-up to the election.

The mainstream media, including State TVNZ, most egregiously failed to hold Key and National to proper account, and carry out its trumpeted guardianship role for democracy (“When The Media Say They Covered Dirty Politics – Did They?”, Daily Blog, 30/9/14, http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/09/30/when-the-media-say-they-covered-dirty-politics-did-they/). They have continued to suppress scrutiny for the most part ever since. Yet they still unashamedly flaunt themselves as the guardians of democracy (e.g., “Threats To The Truth” editorial, Press, 28/1/17). 

Political maverick and paleo-conservative President Trump's fractious relationship with most of the American media, along with the related controversies over “alternative facts” and “fake news”, are indeed dangerously portentous for the future of Western democracy. We have noted new threats, too, from the Deep State (“Demonising Russia”, op. cit.).

American democracy at the national level is largely a facade but its further erosion has very serious implications for everyone. However, the issues also reflect the media's own egregious failures and abuses of power. “Professional journalism, such as that practised by CNN (and) the New York Times”, certainly does not have the unbiased eyes, commitment to truth, and clean hands touted by the Press editorial (op. cit.). And this surely holds for the overwhelming majority of the NZ mainstream media too. 

To help ensure future credibility with their publics, the media need to clean up their own act as well. The “self-interested parties” interrogated by the media should include themselves! (ibid.). “Rigorous and honest reporting and analysis is needed now more than ever” (ibid.). For sure!! Most importantly, to the chagrin of the crony media, “Dirty Politics” author Nicky Hager has pursued the personal human rights abuses, which he has suffered from the authoritarian National Party State through the courts with resounding success.

Ironies abound as usual. Dr Gavin Ellis has highlighted the importance of Nicky's case, and how vital it is for the continued conduct of investigative journalism in his book “Complacent Nation” (op. cit.). This, of course, counterpoints what journalism should ideally represent in the face of all the deleterious trends and problems currently plaguing the mainstream media and undermining its traditionally touted democratic role.   

Promulgating Media PR

As outlined then, the study of media and the 2008, 2011, and 2014 elections (chapter 13) in the book “Politics And The Media” (op. cit.) purports to treat the significance of media coverage and the way issues are framed.  “While media bias may be revealed by the relative volume of party or party leader coverage, even more important is how parties and leaders are framed. There is much to show that how candidates are framed in political coverage impacts on how voters perceive them” (ibid., p207). But, as earlier noted too, the really essential qualitative questions are not addressed by this particular study and its use of the very broad categorisation of either “negative” or “positive”, or the corresponding tone of an article or item.

This methodological approach eminently fails to come to grips with these deeper questions. To reiterate and emphasise, Key's popularity depended so much on media presentation, which dealt lightly with any criticism of his leadership while regularly reinforcing his “nice guy” image. After 2014, the media blithely and blatantly continued on in the vein of the National Party's two track strategy of “nice guy” public image and “nasty guy” covert action (as modelled by the US Republican Party). It has been almost as if “Dirty Politics” never happened! 

While the exposure of National's “Dirty Politics” may have dented this strategy (at least temporarily, given long-term trends) as it had applied to the dirty undercover work, the majority of the media were more than happy to effectively act as the Party's glove puppets anyway. After moving as quickly as possible to dampen down the dust of “Dirty Politics” in election year 2014, this media still kept up their promotion of John Key’s “nice guy” image, with PR agents like Paul Henry, Tracy Watkins, Mike Hosking, and Duncan Garner excelling themselves in their nauseatingly flunky and sycophantic style. This sort of PR has gone hand in hand with regular disparaging commentary for the Opposition parties, especially for Labour as the main one. Documentation has been very easy to find (e.g., see again “Media Machinations, Cronyism, And Dirty Politics”, op. cit.).

Given that today, NZ elections have increasingly been cast in a perversely and superficially American Presidential mould, in which individual leadership and imagery are seen as so decisive (rather than actual policy issues anyway!), any quantitative assessment of criticism needs to be complemented by close qualitative analysis on a number of grounds. In the case of criticism directed at party leaders, there have been very definitely significant factors at work, including the elements and style of critical comment, plus a variety of other aspects.

Media Cronyism

There are at least two very important points that I see as necessary to strongly register here: (a) in 2014, the type of criticism against PM John Key was not nearly as nastily and personally construed as that directed against Labour Leader David Cunliffe; (b) later on, even when dealing with a personally unprepossessing issue like Key's ponytail pulling fetish (trichophilia) and his persistent, perverse bullying of a waitress, the critical treatment was only temporary in nature and generally pretty indulgent.

On the other hand, Cunliffe was viciously and continually pilloried for his admirably emotive remark about being sorry for being a man (when taken in context) at a Women's Refuge gathering on the subject of male domestic violence. This was just one of several significant nasty labelling/pillorying techniques employed against him. I have noted this particular case in more than one article to date. But it is a case that I feel is especially both important and revealing, and so deserves some further elaboration and updating. Furthermore, there are most enlightening comparisons to be made in term of media treatment and bias.

In contradistinction to David Cunliffe's emotive remark made at a Women's Refuge meeting, John Key's grossly sexist, persistent, and bullying ponytail tugging behaviour directed against a waitress obviously spoke volumes of Key's repressively superior attitudes both to women and workers. His trichophilia penchant, as disclosed in 2015, even got some international ridicule from satirists. All the more reason then for the corporate media to protect Key and pillory Labour leaders instead! 

As indicated, in 2014 David Cunliffe was ridiculed harshly on a range of matters, besides his emotive remark – from quite unjustified labelling as “tricky” and untrustworthy, to even wearing a red scarf during winter! This last particular ploy was a specialty of TV3 Political Editor Patrick Gower, a close contact and confidant of National's principal “Dirty Politics” attack blogger Cameron Slater.  Gower was revealed as Slater's top media contact on his notorious cell-phone list. I shall take a closer look at this list later below.

Spinning The Bull

All this sort of thing was intended to make Labour Leader David Cunliffe seem personally very suspect and, moreover, in male eyes, even wimpy and somewhat feminine. It certainly worked. Even on Cunliffe's announcement of his resignation from Parliament in 2016, the Rightwing media were outrageously unrepentant. Fairfax Media's Vernon Small, who, incidentally, is one of this TNC's more fair-minded journalists, saw fit to weave the criticisms and imputations of untrustworthiness and wimpiness together (“Cunliffe Triggers Long Goodbye To Politics”, Press, 2/11/16).

Ironically, at one point during election year 2014, Vernon Small himself had pointed out how National Party machinations were behind the main case that the Party and the media used to paint David Cunliffe as untrustworthy (Press, 26/6/14). In his farewell wave to Cunliffe, Small however remarked that Cunliffe's “lack of 'authenticity' was his fatal flaw. Voters could somehow see it; that he was doing, and saying, what he thought they thought they wanted him to be” (Press, 2/11/16, op. cit.). 

This is all so hilarious in that John Key cynically constructed his political career so much from the monitoring of public opinion by National's pollster, PR agent, and “Dirty Politics” player, David Farrar of Kiwiblog infamy!  Facilitated by the corporate media, eager to systematically engender and cultivate their Dear Leader's image, Key could regularly come across as “Mr. Nice Guy” (in a long-established mode originally flagged by Dale Carnegie of “How To Win Friends And Influence People” fame).    

Most perversely again, journalist Vernon Small cites Cunliffe's “most celebrated gaffe” as illustrating the then Labour Leader's lack of authenticity “perfectly” (Press, 2/11/16, op. cit.). Small says of Cunliffe that: “Facing guests at a women's refuge symposium, he blurted out he was 'sorry to be a man'” (ibid.). For those who have never grown up with domestic violence, or who are unconcerned about it, David Cunliffe's remark might be funny. 

Watching Cunliffe (on film) say it at the time, he certainly came across as genuine enough in his feelings. Even Vernon Small's description of “blurted out” suggests this. I have already commented on the calculated malevolence of the subsequent media campaign. How wonderful then Vernon, that we had the absolute authenticity of John Key's persistent bullying and hair-pulling of a hapless waitress!  The utter malign hypocrisy of the mainstream media stands unashamedly revealed, let alone Key's own character. 

Sorry, Vernon, what you call Cunliffe's “most celebrated gaffe” perfectly illustrates the derelictions of the malevolent mainstream media when set in context. Whatever the criticisms that can be made of David Cunliffe, these pale into insignificance with what the crony media allowed John Key to get away with. The gross self-interest that really motivates Key is today very much on public display, no longer screened so assiduously by the crony media (e.g., Mark Reason, “John Key Goes From PM To Shameless Salesman In Record Time”,  Stuff, 19/2/17, http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/89532461/Mark-Reason-John-Key-goes-from-PM-to-shameless-salesman-in-record-time).

National's Two-Track Strategy

“Dirty Politics” itself has been almost comprehensively swept under the covers for all intents and purposes. Corporate media PR flunkies like Bill Ralston even openly boast about this success! (Listener, 17/12/16, p94). Obviously, with all the dirty work connections to the very core and functioning of the National Party, the media could have done a real hatchet job on this particular party and its leader - and very justifiably so!

But, of course, this same media was not going to try and hold their Dear Leader and corporate confreres/political mates to proper account. Most comically, but also soberingly enough, the media even succeeded in selling the John Key “brand” as the amiable “guy next door”. The elitist multi-millionaire money trader was constantly portrayed as your likeable everyman “Joe”! This is not to ignore Key's own skills in self-portrayal and salesmanship, but the spin was carefully calculated and relayed to the public. 

Most ironically, Rightwing cheerleader and Fairfax Media's Parliamentary Bureau chief, Tracy Watkins, says that the “Leftwing blogs” called John Key critical names (“Nats Grab Early Running As Labour Falters”, Press, 11/2/17). “But he was also 'Teflon John'” (ibid.). Key's “nice guy” teflon image was due to the very fact that Watkins and the rest of the crony PR media were so assiduous in protecting him! Tracy Watkins is certainly keen to keep the media-cultivated Key cult going as much as possible, with the afterglow of his Prime Ministership hopefully rubbing off on new PM Bill English (“Just Like That, Key Is Yesterday's Man”, Press, 25/2/17).

This Press item was graced with a photo of Key and English together (ibid.). Watkins dismisses episodes like the ponytail pulling and instead spins Key as “one of the world's most respected politicians” (ibid.). Her neo-liberalism is to the fore in advocating both former Labour PM Helen Clark and Key as having “the sort of strong, rational voices the world needs now, more than ever” (ibid.).

Sorry, Tracy, in a world in evolutionary overshoot, the very conventionally capitalist, blinkered, American-oriented, and free trade outlook of both these two former leaders is precisely the sort of thing we do not want. We desperately need instead a fresh wave of creative, alternative, and truly informed thinking about the state of the world, and the need to genuinely challenge vested predatory interests in charting new, fairer, and more sustainable development paths.

As previously mentioned, a couple of political scientists in the book “Politics And The Media” (op. cit.) see the “Dirty Politics” affair in the run-up to the 2014 general election very differently to that presented by Bahador et al in their chapter about the general elections (ibid.). Donald Matheson, Associate Professor in Media and Communications at the University of Canterbury, aptly sums up the situation: “While those media (i.e. the established news media) continue to employ nearly all of the country's political journalists, ‘Dirty Politics’ showed that (attack blogger Cameron) Slater, and through him, a powerful faction of the National Party had influence over a number of journalists”.

“Slater, who by 2012 was connected to the PM's office, became a major source for journalists for scandal stories about the Auckland Mayor or the Labour Party” (ibid., p188). Similarly, well-known media commentator and Otago University lecturer, Dr Bryce Edwards, observes that: “Nicky Hager's ‘Dirty Politics’ has provided NZ society with a unique source of information about how politics works. In particular, it shows how spin culture is changing politics, and how much of that management of the media and information is modernising and therefore shifting from being overt to covert. Above-the-line activities are being superseded by those below… a disturbing trend” (ibid., p236).

In an entirely separate study to those contained in the book “Politics And The Media”, Massey University academic Claire Robinson analysed the coverage and presentation of political imagery from the last election campaign and concluded that it was heavily biased towards National, e.g., “images of the PM [John Key] outnumbered those of (Labour's) Mr Cunliffe by three-to-one” (“Shock Horror Media Bias Exists In New Zealand”, The Standard,15/2/16, https://thestandard.org.nz/shock-horror-media-bias-exists-in-new-zealand/). 

National Party/Media Collaboration In Election Year 2017

This all leads us on to consideration of the recently installed National PM Bill English, following Key's sudden, surprise resignation in December 2016. As the former Deputy PM, English was clearly privy to the implementation of National's “Dirty Politics” dual track strategy. But, at the time of the disclosure of this particular strategy, Bill English commented that it was not his style. However sceptical we might be about what National Party politicians might say on such matters, I think that in this specific case there is some truth value.

But while English may not be so likely as Key to indulge in the regular practice of covert and poisonous attack politics, whether courtesy of attack bloggers or not - although he can certainly be personally unpleasant as witness certain exchanges as seen and heard on Parliament TV! - various mainstream media players have already been stepping up in glove puppet fashion to help him out. The “disturbing (covert) trend”, noted by Dr Bryce Edwards, will also carry on in one form or other, owing to the media's hidden agenda.    

As I have outlined, there is a long-established pattern of such behaviour, whatever the exact mixture of overt and covert practices. The problem for the media is that PM Bill English ranks right up among the top MP contenders for being the most boring man in Parliament. He almost invariably starts his reply to Parliamentary Questions with the opening phrase: “Well, Mr. Speaker”. And the rest of what he has to say is then so often dully pedestrian, and very predictable. Moreover, according to a Press editorial early last year, English may have “a steady pair of hands but he would be a case of 'been there, done that'” (“Fourth Term For Key A Good Idea?”, 26/1/16).

But wait! - with the help of the mainstream media, English is now trying to present himself as some sort of freshly innovative “social investment” reformer, with a proven grounding in sensible and sound economic policy and practice. Moreover, he is really such a nice, decent guy, who has been so under- appreciated until recently. He has already played the “law and order” card, with a declared policy of boosting Police numbers. Certain prominent media commentators and virtual National Party PR agents are keen to give PM English a helping hand. Some examples are given below

State TV's Sly Machinations

Routine TV news presentations can be grossly biased. Spin these days is endless. It is often subtly and insidiously presented. For example, after reporting a large shortfall in available and affordable housing of some 60,000 homes, TV1's Political Editor, Corin Dann, another neo-liberal National Party pundit, said of the housing crisis that the Government had made a “huge” effort in addressing it (1 News at 6pm, 13/2/17).

Given that the housing crisis is a major ongoing election issue with the Opposition parties rubbishing the Government's self-styled “comprehensive plan”, Dann's remark simply represented another instance of the multitudinous mainstream media electioneering ploys for National. The media have virtually ignored the most newsworthy challenge delivered by Labour Leader Andrew Little to PM Bill English to have a public debate on the housing problem. English has declined any such debate, and this in election year! 

In another item, TV1 announced the results of its first Colmar Brunton poll for the year as good news for PM Bill English (1 News At 6pm, 19/2/17). Yet the poll had indicated a small, positive gain for Labour (+2%), with National taking a bit of a hit (-4%). The emphasis on good news for National and Leader English was more or less reversed in a later summary of the headlines during this very same evening news bulletin (ibid.). But first impressions can certainly count! 

Pushing Drongo Brain Waves For The “Walking Dead”

Interestingly, TV3 can be more balanced at times in its political reporting than State TV1, e.g., coverage of the Auckland (Gay) Pride festival on 12/2/17. The former channel highlighted PM English's expedient volte-face on gay marriage, and gave a fair portrayal of Labour Leader Andrew Little's more positive participation at the festival. In an item by Will Hine, TV1 instead focused in sycophantic style on English. It ignored Little's attendance altogether. But when in crony media mode, the TV channels often sing the same tune. For instance, TV1's Corin Dann put a very positive spin on PM English's relatively brief cellphone chat with President Trump (1 News At 6pm, 6/2/17).

This media item even promoted a closer “alliance” with what was billed as “the leader of the free world” and the US (ibid.). It threw in, for good measure, that English had purportedly dared to criticise the new Great Leader. TV1 knew that English needed a better look, given that the PM had been widely criticised for tamely bowing to Trump's racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Muslim policies, and for his failure to attend Waitangi Day celebrations at the traditional marae. So, TVNZ helpfully stepped up to the PR plate. It was happy to endorse Bill English's crawling conformity to the dictates of Trumpism. 

TVNZ's Americanisation of Aotearoa/NZ was highlighted on the same news bulletin with its fawning coverage of the American Superbowl football extravaganza (ibid.). That coverage actually outweighed the positive aspects shown of our own Waitangi Day celebrations. But the news bulletin did stress that English seemed very comfortable at the particular Waitangi Day celebration, which he had attended in Auckland. In all, the PM had had a “fantastic” day, especially given his chat with President Donald Trump!

Patrick Gower, Political Editor of MediaWork's TV3, sang from the same scripted songsheet in praise of PM English (Newshub Live at 6pm, 6/2/17). A standard technique in such domestically attuned PR items was also very evident. In both cases, there was no hint of any criticism of Trumpism. The basic aim of these two crony TV channels is to get us fully integrated back in the expansionist American war machine, and thus reinforce NZ's very subordinate role in the nuclear weapons ruled “alliance”. Get real! After all, this is what is called “national security”. So much then for our supposed nuclear free zone!

Ramping Up The Rush To Self-Destruction!

Both channels, too, gleefully grabbed the opportunity the very next day to paint a bad start to the year for Labour, given the controversy over its selection of Willie Jackson as a potential Party candidate in the coming election. In stark contrast to the media's treatment of the earlier Nick Leggett affair and the purported need for the Labour Party to accommodate a “broad church”, the TV channels and the rest of the mainstream media presented Willie Jackson's new membership as yet another sign of internal division (for the Nick Leggett affair, see “Media Machinations, Cronyism, And Dirty Politics”, op. cit.). 

The dirty media play the factionalism card for Labour, according to the media's own consistently malevolent agenda. Instead of congratulating the Labour Party for having a “broad church”, as demonstrated by its leadership welcoming Willie Jackson's entry to the Party, and also generously tolerating dissent, the media portrayed the debate as Labour being divided once again. In fact, Jackson's membership could actually pull many young urban Maori into support of Labour, broadening Labour's “church” even more. By the end of November 2016, anyway, “waka jumper” Nick Leggett had hoisted his true colours, even announcing his wish to stand for National in the coming election. 

Oh, well done, dirty crony media! They want to constantly try and divide the movement for positive social change.  We need more idealistic young people to get involved in shaping their future. Yet the media constantly seek to play the card of factionalism, both within the Opposition parties and between them. As another example, take the competition by new contenders for possible Parliamentary seats within the Green Party. 

TV3's (& also RadioLive's) political reporter Lloyd Burr put a negative factionalist spin on this situation (Newshub Live at 6pm, 25/2/17). Yet the Greens have a number of talented young women in particular coming forward, and should instead be lauded for this. At worst, in the face of growing challenges, the zombie media want to herd the nation into the yawning maw of nuclear self-immolation!

Fighting For The Future

Chris Finlayson, National MP, Cabinet Minister, and Attorney-General (so help us all!), who specialises in very snide, nasty, and venomous political attacks, had a neo-fascist rant in Parliament in which he compared the Greens to a Marxist-Leninist style party, cynically using the Labour Party as a bunch of “useful idiots” (Parliament TV, 15/2/17). This is, of course, a routine cue to the crony media to keep targeting the Greens as “far Left”. The media regularly let such poisonous ranting go uncriticised.

The two Green Party speeches that immediately followed showed exactly why Finlayson, David Bennett, and other National Party Members indulge in this sort of “off-the-planet” crap. Green MP, Dr Kennedy Graham, incisively highlighted the gravity and urgency of the challenge of climate change, while Mojo Mathers similarly highlighted the National Party's ongoing destruction of our environment and the corresponding enrichment of its comprador class (ibid.). The Greens' campaign directly challenges National's crony capitalism and their “blue-green” bullshit, as most dramatically illustrated by their lowering of water standards.

Dr Nick Smith peddles his “junk science” in line with globally mandated standards. Back in the mid-1990s, CAFCA published several reports on the NZ environment and important resource issues, warning of lowered standards and ecological abuse at the hands of the TNCs and their comprador mates, along with other concerns (“In Deep Water?: Fishing In New Zealand”, 1993, & “Clearcut: Forestry In New Zealand”, 1995, both by Murray Horton; & “The Cost Of Free Trade: Aotearoa/NZ at Risk”, Dennis Small, 1996).

It was heartening to see some surprisingly good and spirited media criticism of the Government's new water standards, with TV3 in particular implying the policy is a “con job” (e.g., Newshub Live at 6pm, 22/2/17). Finally, at last, some of our mainstream media seem to be better monitoring official policy and actions on the environment.

Attacking The Principles Of Social Justice & Environmental Sustainability

But PR media agents like Duncan Garner constantly peddle their “brain dead” views of the world, in line with the kind of rubbish promoted by our Attorney-General and his Party mates. For instance, Garner has remarked that: “Snuggling up to the Greens took Labour to the Left when they needed to sound less loony and look more rock solid in the (neo-liberal) middle” (“Cunning Key's Shameless Power Play For A Fourth Term”, Press, 15/10/16).

Garner's conventional looniness is par for the course. He is certainly a “shameless”, Rightwing National Party pundit, who openly pushes for more corporate foreign control. In further panning Labour, he even heartily congratulated Bill English on avoiding the Waitangi marae, asserting that “English cares deeply about how policy affects [Maori] families” (“English Right To Snub Waitangi Wreckers And Hotheads”, Press, 28/1/17). 

Duncan Garner's openly paraded Rightwing bias has long been a disgrace to NZ journalism but then he is so typical of the crony media. Remember Garner's vicious persecution of former Labour MP Chris Carter (see e.g., “TV3's Garner Confirms Vendetta Against Carter”, The Standard, 28/6/10, https://thestandard.org.nz/garner-confirms-vendetta-against-carter/). Garner happily put the boot again into Labour in December 2016, using the standard attack techniques of the corporate crony media (Duncan Garner, “After Nearly 3,000 Days In Opposition, Little's Labour Has Lost The ‘Everyman', Stuff, 2/12/16, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/local-body-elections/87115662/Duncan-Garner-After-nearly-3000-days-in-opposition-Littles-Labour-has-los).

He gave open vent to his neo-liberalism. In the most cynical fashion, he deplored the disappearance of Labour's factions, i.e. its disruptive Rightwingers like Nick Leggett. He used language that would be unthinkable for him in application to the National Party. He railed against “Little and his lightweight (i.e., in his terms, ‘Leftwing’) mob”, and the “current mob” (ibid.). Moreover, he said that: “jumping into the quicksand with the Greens was a disaster”, and that Labour has “lost the working bloke” with the loss of “the so-called broad church”, and rejection of the “everyman” (ibid.). The fact of the Labour leader's union background is a running sore for the likes of Duncan Garner. Any move to the Left is a threat for the mainstream media.

Narcissistic Personality Politics

The American-engendered cult of the celebrity media commentator is proving particularly pernicious on the NZ scene. To some extent, Duncan Garner performed in this sort of style on TV3's former Story. He now performs even more so on TV3's new breakfast programme, The AM Show, replacing Paul Henry in this particular time slot. The most prominent current celebrity case, of course, is that of Mike Hosking, who exemplifies the neo-liberal creed in action. He functions as an unashamed PR agent for the National Party, being especially to the fore on his 7 Sharp show courtesy of State TV1.

There has been a public movement to hold Mike Hosking to personal account. A petition was started in June 2016 in a spirited attempt to get rid of Hosking from TVNZ (Petition TVNZ: Get Rid Of Hosking,  Change.Org, https://www.change.org/p/tvnz-get-rid-of-hosking-1347aa6d-8044-4a33-ba59-7fe0a5dba42b). This petition to get rid of him got 22,000 signatures. It is good to see, as well, that there is still enough diversity, independence and integrity among mainstream media journalists for some of them, at least, to critique the worst of the neo-liberal trends, at least by critiquing the role played by Mike Hosking.

In our volatile age, it is more important than ever to try and ensure the conditions for civilised, democratic debate, political review and assessment, and proper scrutiny.  But, as Press columnistJane Bowron aptly observed in 2016: “(TV1's) Seven Sharp and (TV3's) Story have pretty much given up any pretence of actually interviewing politicians and holding them to account. These 'current affairs' shows have become increasingly irrelevant as National Party fan Mike Hosking (Seven Sharp) is allowed an unbridled free political shot with his end of programme nightly rants, while Story devote[d] itself to great chunks of promoting the narcissistic Life & Times of Heather Du Plessis-Allan”(“Who Decided We Want Presenters Instead Of Politicians On TV?”, Press, 6/6/16).

Ironically, it was Heather du Plessis-Allan's grovelling promotion on TV1's Seven Sharp of the National Party's dirty attack blogger Cameron Slater in 2014, which revealed some most interesting names at the top of his cell-phone list (Seven Sharp, TV1, 22/7/14). Besides that of Patrick Gower, TV3's Political Editor, there were the names of Josie Pagani, Jordan Williams, and Jonathan Milne (ibid.). Mike Hosking and Heather du Plessis-Allen also lovingly promoted scumbag Slater's contacts with then PM John Key, as well as other “powerful” friends like Paul Henry, and National MP Judith Collins (ibid.). The crony media can wallow in sickening self-congratulation.

 “Greed Is Good”!?

TV3's Story has been replaced by the even more blatantly “infotainment”-oriented The Project, and Heather du Plessis-Allan summarily dumped. But Jane Bowron's general assessment certainly holds, even more so. Bowron expounded tellingly about the political pap being presented on the TV channels, and how the democratic process is being systematically undermined (“Who Decided We Want Presenters”, op. cit.). In her words: “It has been like this for so long the audience has become habituated and stupefied to the mushroom treatment (keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit!), so much so that we don't even notice that we're being sold short on the democratic process” (ibid.).

The “cut and thrust” of really meaningful political debate has been stifled by PR games and other manipulations. Much of TV time is now taken up with personality preening and incestuous self-indulgence - of “elevating the chosen few of the remaining Fourth Estate to pop culture status”, all at the expense of “public service television”, which is so sadly in rapid decline (ibid.). Bowron even notes what she calls “the anal-retentive recapping of celebratory deaths”, as exemplified by the demise of some American Hollywood icon, or other entertainment, or sporting star (ibid.). Right on the mark again, Jane! Freud is indeed so often relevant!!

Another Press commentator Eleanor Black strongly criticised Mike Hosking but pointed to his high ratings, and so “his employers at Newstalk ZB and TVNZ” will keep him on (“Hosking Isn't Going Anywhere”, 29/6/16). Hosking is indeed a symbolic expression of neo-liberalism and its deliberate and calculated cultivation by NZ's ruling elite under the National government. It should be noted here, however, that Radio NZ (RNZ)'s John Campbell has now surpassed Hosking in popularity on the radio medium.

Black observes (after noting some personal matters relating to Hosking like his garish clothing) that: “much more importantly, Hosking is, as petitioners complain, a man in position of great power (my emphasis), sharing his opinions on multiple platforms, at least twice every weekday. In addition to television and radio, he writes a newspaper column and shoots Mike's Minute videos for their Website… He is a confirmed and happy capitalist (a Gordon Gecko-type (“Greed is Good!”) in a country where the gap between the haves and haves-not is widening at a sickening pace” (ibid.). 

Redneck Rabble-Rousing

Eleanor Black also pertinently noted several media commentators/presenters who exhibit such similarly obnoxious features as Mike Hosking – Leighton Smith, Larry Williams, and, of course, former TV star Paul Henry – and other such “outsized talkback radio personalities, who are paid loads of money to be bombastic and entertaining and, yes, a little bit shocking” (ibid.). So, shallow, supercilious, and exuberantly egotistical people are elevated to be the arbiters of Western culture! And hence the advent of the outrageously narcissist President Trump!! 

One such Rightwing commentator is Mike Yardley, who also writes for the Press as well as pontificating on Newstalk ZB (NZME Radio). For sure, this radio network includes a line-up of Rightwing hosts, including also Hosking, Smith, Williams, and Rachel Smalley. The National Party's chief “Dirty Politics” blogger “Cameron Slater has been a regular commentator on the drive programme for several years” (Newstalk ZB – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newstalk_ZB). 

An example of a trend to even more rabidly Rightwing opinions in our media, take Yardley's piece in rooting for Trump's win in the American Presidential election (“Left's Anti-Trump Sentiment Hypocritical”, Press, 24/1/17). Yardley starts with the comment: “There is something nauseously disturbing about the far Left's duplicitous affection for the voice of democracy and free expression” (ibid.).

Quite unashamedly as a white, privileged male, he goes on to lambast the mass women's protests against Trump's inauguration in Washington, and similar marches around the world. For Yardley, these marches were expressions of hypocrisy because the people are supposedly rejecting democratic values, instead of upholding them. For Yardley, the “female activists” are simply motivated by “hate-filled loathing for Trump” (ibid.). He wrote off protesters in Aotearoa/NZ as merely the “far Left”.     

Mike Yardley is a typical media hack in ascribing to the myth that the US is a genuine democracy instead of a plutocracy within the grip of a military-industrial complex dependent on plundering the planet and its peoples (see, e.g., Michael Parenti's “Democracy For The Few”, Wadsworth Pub., 1974 – now in its 9th edition published by Barnes & Noble!; Michael Parenti, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Parenti). Yardley acknowledges Trump's “crude and misogynist talk” (ibid.).

But, in cheerleading for the far Right and rooting for “revolutionary rookie” Trump, Mike Yardley actually accuses the Left of: “Pandering to minority groups, gender politics, and playing the grievance card, (which) is a manipulative brand of politics” (ibid.). He says this “identity politics” ploy has backfired for the Left, wallowing “in their vast collective vat of self-imposed victimhood” (ibid.).  So, Yardley tries to turn the widespread international opposition to Trumpism on its head. Mike Yardley exhibits plenty of corporate cronyism as well, e.g., his neo-liberal PR for the liquor industry (“Booze Advertising Already Tightly Controlled”, Press, 17/1/17).

Countering Reactionary Politics

Reactionary Pakeha politics is set to try and inflame the culture of Aotearoa/NZ, given any opportune opening, following the aggressive models overseas and trends to neo-fascism (Watchdog 135, April 2014, “Reactionary Pakeha Politics”, Dennis Small, http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/35/11.html). We have our own paleo-conservatives here (ibid.).

Besides columnist Mike Yardley's obvious own patriarchal and misogynist bent - as witness phrases like “liberal feminazi doctrine” - he has also demonstrated a correspondingly redneck racial prejudice in other articles. He has even labelled the American “Black Lives Matter” movement an “odious organisation” for supposedly being selective in campaigning about black deaths from violence at the hands of law enforcement officers when far more blacks are killed by other blacks (“Clinton Winning But Don't Ignore Trump”, Press, 18/10/16). 

Yardley displays the most primitive and egregious racist ignorance about how racial discrimination actually takes its toll on its victims. In the US, the police are often an arm of capitalist repression of the lower classes (“Damning Report Exposes Racist Policing”, Press, 12/8/16). The historical, socio-economic, and political roots for these conditions run very deep (“Report Of The National Advisory Commission On Civil Disorders”, Bantam Books, 1968). 

There are: “Two facts are crucial to an understanding of the effects of high crime rates in racial ghettos: most of these crimes are committed by a small minority of the residents, and the principal victims are the residents themselves” (ibid., p268). It was predicted back in 1968 that the resulting insecurity and antagonism towards police caused by “the problems associated with high crime rates” would worsen in the future (ibid.).

Yes, indeed, Trumpism certainly reflects Yardley's own values and attitudes. Black lives really do not matter to him and, unfortunately, we have plenty of similar rednecks in our mainstream media. 70 million poor people are facing hunger in Somalia, Yemen, Nigeria, and South Sudan, with “global hunger levels” now “at their highest for decades” (“Somalia Famine Fears Prompt UN Call For 'Immediate And Massive' Reaction”, Guardian, 3/2/17, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/feb/03/somalia-famine-fears-un-call-immediate-massive-reaction). Where is the Western concern as expressed in our media? The predominant silence is damning yet again. 

With the departure of Paul Henry, Mike Hosking's case has become the most obvious touchstone of neo-liberal and reactionary media influence. Hosking has been criticised for being misogynist, and for being racially prejudiced against Maori. Along with his corporate cronyism, he fits the profile of a Pakeha reactionary. And we have documented this kind of sentiment expressed by the likes of columnist and radio talkback host Mike Yardley, and others (whatever the varying expressions).   

Within the US itself, Trumpism is likely to severely test the social fabric with one recent TV report saying protest now looks to be permanent there. While the Press had the good grace to balance Mike Yardley's nasty article with some other alternative opinions in this particular issue of the newspaper (op. cit., 24/1/17) his toxic style reflects a disturbing proclivity in the mainstream media exercised by some regular Rightwing writers – a style likely to be inspired and encouraged by the model of Trumpism. While it certainly should be noted and appreciated that several other columnists in the Press, along with editorials, have been very critical of Trump (as freely expressed in other mainstream media as well), and even satirical of Mike Yardley's piece, we need to stand resolutely firm against any media support for Trumpism. 

Monstrous Media Wars

There is indeed now even a battle within the Western media as to either basically endorsing what President Trump openly proclaims and represents, or firmly opposing it. We, the people, have to be fully engaged in all of this as the future hangs on the outcome. I have already observed how the TV channels, when it comes to perceived material interest and “national security” are only too happy to line up behind Trump. Take another example. Danielle McLaughlin is the SST's American correspondent (“Our Kiwi In New York”). McLaughlin took part in the protests against Trump (“America will endure, even in this new time of uncertainty: Resistance starts now – and we must all step up and play our part when democracy is under threat”, SST, 22/1/17).

But she was soon counselling some respect for Trump and time for him to strut his stuff (“Let Trump show us what he's got: The President is only doing what he promised, and we need to give him a chance – at least for now”, SST, 19/2/17).  McLaughlin is a lawyer and media commentator on Fox News, CNN, and other American media, with a feed too into TV3 NZ.  So, she is pretty conventional in outlook. The dangers of growing conformity to Trumpism are very evident (“Gordon Campbell On The Media Normalisation Of Trump”, Werewolf, 25/11/16, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1611/S00111/gordon-campbell-on-the-media-normalisation-of-trump.htm).

To complicate issues somewhat, it is alleged that the Deep State has been trying to undermine President Trump (e.g., “Demonising Russia”, op. cit.; https://www.democracynow.org/, op. cit.; “Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA  As Kingslayer”, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46488.htm; Chris Trotter, “Deep State, Big Trouble”, Stuff, 21/2/17, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/89604206/chris-trotter-deep-state-big-trouble).  Billionaire Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post, is now closely linked to the CIA (ibid.).

The Washington Post vigorously peddles the supposed Russian threat and its links to the Trump Presidency, and accuses what it calls “conservative” media, e.g. Fox News and the New York Post,of trying to protect him (“Chilling Effect Of Trump's Mainstream Media Freeze”, Washington Post article by Chris Cillizza in the Press, 17/2/17).  Accusations and charges of “fake news”, “alternative facts”, “post-truth politics”, and the “partisan press” fly as there are even seem to be some signs of fissures in the Deep State itself (dependent on its exact definition). The many-headed hydra monster of the military-industrial complex is starting to consume itself! 

“Infotainment” Rules, Ok?!

With the advent in 2017 of TV3's The Project and The AM Show, the media trend marches on ever deeper into the “infotainment” domain. The overlap today in various ways of journalism and PR, with all its deleterious consequences, is becoming more and more evident. There is thus an overall, increasing trend in what purports to be political commentary and analysis to more neo-liberal superficiality and a narrowing perspective.

In 2017, the SST has got on board some new correspondents, including self-styled “passionate libertarian” Damian Grant (“'Now, I Get The Last Word'”, SST, 29/1/17). Grant, who once served a prison sentence “after being caught smuggling gold bars on a launch”, later “went on to start Waterstone Insolvency” (ibid.). Grant views “tax as the State taking assets by force …It is political” (ibid.). SST Editor Jonathan Milne is always keen to promote the far Right and neo-liberal greed.

In general, the mainstream media like the SST push the corporate free market but overwhelmingly exclude strongly articulated Leftwing opinion and viewpoints. Despite some signs of greater concern, this discrimination is also still pervasively implemented against the desperately urgent environmentalist case for genuine sustainability, rather than the blind pursuit of “trickle-down” economic growth. And so it goes in another election year…

Being Positive

Globalisation and capitalism are reeling from deepening crisis to crisis. Confronting the conditions of this growing global crisis has always been challenging for its critics. There has so much to tackle and try to expose in the face of the vested interests, who control the Western the political system and mass media. It has always been easy for these vested interests to paint their critics and opponents as negative, pessimistic, misguided, or whatever, while ruling elites have been generally construed as doing their best for the people they govern. Witness the pernicious influence of the Murdoch media empire within the Anglo-American axis.

But with Trumpism we have reached a new stage of the struggle for a fairer and more sustainable type of society and the future of humankind. What is heartening at present is the worldwide rebellion and outrage against so many of the values, attitudes, and policies that this President represents. We need to turn protests increasingly into positive, pre-emptive and alternative action. This needs to include activism in fostering greater provision and scope for public service media.


Non-Members:

It takes a lot of work to compile and write the material presented on these pages - if you value the information, please send a donation to the address below to help us continue the work.

Foreign Control Watchdog, P O Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand/Aotearoa.

Email cafca@chch.planet.org.nz

greenball

Return to Watchdog 144 Index

CyberPlace