As someone who was living in Britain when the Princess Diana phenomenon first took hold, I have witnessed first hand how the media can harass a private individual, and once she became a member of the Royal Family, she was fair game. There was at least some protection for her while she was part of ‘The Firm’, but once she and Charles had separated, the press were ruthless. It is not exactly true to say that she was killed by the media; she died in a car crash while not wearing a seatbelt, where the driver was allegedly over the alcohol limit; but it is probably true to say that the media played its part in her demise. Having said that, Diana used the media for her own purposes on many occasions, and so there really are two sides to that particular, rather tragic story.
But everyone who goes into public life knows there will be media scrutiny, and if they are not prepared to tolerate it, then they are better off shunning the attention and choosing another career path.
President Trump is the worst example of media brutality in all history. I really don’t know how he gets out of bed most days, knowing that, no matter what he does, the media presentation of him will be ruthless and damning. Kudos to The Don for staying on task. Most of us would simply never survive it.
But politicians in all countries have no right to refuse to be challenged by the media. They are in charge of the public purse, of taxpayers money and are responsible for decisions that can dramatically affect people’s lives. Those who vote them in do have the right to question their actions and to hold them responsible. It is an essential aspect of the democratic process.
The freedom of the press is a fundamental principle in the free world. It means we have the right to publish newspapers, magazines and other forms of media without government control or prior censorship. Those countries that do not have freedom of the press are generally considered to be totalitarian states, where few freedoms exist.
But, in just over 2 years, this government has made a number of attacks on the basic principle of freedom of the press.
First, there was the Christchurch massacre. This was a terrible tragedy, made worse by the fact that the perpetrator live-streamed the whole awful event on social media. Shutting it down, under the circumstances, was probably fair enough. But then Jacinda, in her new-found sainted status, tried to control the media by insisting on limiting live streaming of all videos. Social media companies had little option but to agree, although they knew full well that, because of the nature of individuals uploading data onto their platforms, they are limited as to how much control they have. It created a mental image of rows upon rows of faceless Facebook employees staring at screens, trawling through hours and hours of videos uploaded by private individuals. If that reminds you of Orwell’s 1984, you are not alone.
The government also made it a crime to download a copy of the perpetrator’s manifesto. I admit I read the document, or more accurately, tried to before it was banned. It reminded me of the ramblings of another psychotic from a century ago; “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler. Oddly enough, the book that resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews and Slavs is still on sale, if you care to find it. Holding a copy of Brenton Tarrant’s foray into political journalism is, however, a crime, punishable by prison time. More images from 1984 come to mind.
And then, just before leaving for Japan, Winston Peters made a statement that sent chills down my spine.
“When we get back, we’re going to sort out the media.”
If he means another court case, then fair enough. Even under the general provisions of freedom of the press, there is room for individuals who feel they have been wronged to bring a civil action, and if that is his intent, I have no problem with it. But Winston, of course, is deputy prime minister and is in a position where he can do much more than merely bring court cases. He could, if he chose, severely restrict the freedom of the press by passing legislation that does exactly that. And while he is in a governing arrangement with parties such as the Greens who are thinly-veiled communists, not to mention Jacinda who wants to control social media, do you not think his coalition partners would be quite happy to support such legislation?
The problem for Winston is that the media does have the right to ask these questions. If it appears that there has been inappropriate handling of political donations, then the media should be asking about them. If NZ First has done nothing wrong, this will no doubt come to light, and all will be well. But the rules are there to provide transparency around political donations, to ensure that no one party or organisation has undue influence over politicians, and is therefore sacrosanct to the integrity of our political system. As has already been pointed out, the National party is currently undergoing similar investigations. This is an essential part of the freedom that we enjoy in this country; to hold all politicians to account.
I have considerable sympathy for private individuals who have had their lives wrecked by the media, but politicians are different. They choose to run for public office, and therefore must be expected to be held to account by the public and the media. They must abide by the rules, and if they do not, or are perceived to not be doing so, then they must expect scrutiny. We cannot allow politicians who find that media attention does not go their way to then threaten one of the fundamental principles of our freedom. That sets us on a downward path of destruction, towards state-controlled media. We do not want that in any form.
Yes, the media overstep the mark sometimes. Yes, they make life difficult, if not impossible for some people. I am not saying it should be so. But I am saying that freedom of the press is very precious. If we allow it to be threatened, it is all downhill from then on.