Unfortunately in modern politics we have become infected with two weeping sores. The first is tribalism or hyper-partisanship. The second is media bias, or what I used to see described as the involvement of the Media party. Both are affecting the way we discuss politics.
We saw hyper-partisanship rise to the fore in New Zealand with the cooperation between political parties of the left and complicit media and so-called journalists intent on smearing people for daring to have differing opinions and voicing them. Make no mistake, Dirty Politics was all about trying to silence strong conservative voices.
That has also manifested itself in US politics in the 2016 election and the war on Trump mounted from the get-go by unhinged Democrats, which has culminated in the failed impeachment of Donald Trump. In the UK we have seen something similar with the Brexit debate.
We are about to experience it all again in New Zealand, so it was interesting to read a story published on PJ Media about a Democrat who is making a stand over a yard sign in favour of Donald Trump. Kevin Chambers is at war with local authorities over a joke sign his mate placed on his front lawn. It has turned into a battle over freedom of speech, and although he is a Democrat it is about a Trump sign. It is interesting, but what is more interesting is his comments about partisanship:
The lengths to which political opponents will go to censor each other really bothers Chambers. “The thing that has been highlighted in this thing is how divided we’ve become politically,” he said. “We used to be able in this country to agree to disagree. I now must stop you from sharing your opinion because you’ve offended me. I think it’s dangerous.”
Chambers is rare among Democrats these days. He told me, “I’ve often said on my show that if Donald Trump would just stay off Twitter, he’d be regarded as one of the greatest presidents of our time. If you look at the employment numbers, if you look at the employment numbers for minorities, if you look at consumer confidence, if you look at the economy as a whole, all of these metrics are really strong. The problem is that he’s undermined himself on Twitter so much that that becomes the narrative.”
He goes on to point out that the extremes in his own party have completely ignored moderate Democrats. “The Left is taking a beating on the Right about being so far left,” he said. “I really want to remind Republicans that there is a large number of moderate voters that have been completely omitted from the process that are seeing the slant from the leftist media, that are seeing the economic numbers, that are seeing the value in protecting what you guys would call conservative values – property rights, gun ownership, free speech. I think there’s a lot of Democrats that are not that far off from Republicans on those key issues. I think that’s why Donald Trump won.”
PJ Media
And he is dead right. In the rush to burn people on Twitter and Facebook, we seem to have side-stepped the ability to have sensible discourse over politics. America has Never Trumpers; in New Zealand we have Never Winstoners.
The left hates the right and vice versa. Both sides use trolls in social media to put smears, cast sledges and try to drown out or shout down differing voices. We even see that here on this site.
I happen to know that some commenters and subscribers believe that this site must wear blue undies and push National no matter how out of whack they are with their core principles. It seems that those principles can and are to be pushed aside for the so-called greater good of having the blue team win. SB has told me that periodically someone will throw a wobbly and cancel a sub because they don’t like the tone of an article. It is my belief as a humble contributor that this site should accept all points of view.
We are starting to see this now, but it has been there for a long time. The BFD welcomes dissenting voices. We even have Chris Trotter amongst us. I think that SB does a fabulous job as editor in exposing readers to differing points of view. That is why we are seeing ACT, New Conservative and other points of views emerging. It would be my wish to see NZ First views here and views from National as well. Unfortunately, I believe National will continue to shun this audience, which is a shame. Still, all power to ACT, New Conservatives and all others who see value in a thinking audience.
Which brings me to an article by Dan Hannan in The Telegraph, about the role of the media and their grandiose self-importance.
Why do politicians give interviews? Seriously, why? Ten years ago, it would have been a ridiculous question. The media were precisely that – media, channels for whatever you wanted to tell your electorate. If you had something to say, it made sense to say it where it would reach the widest audience – which, unless you were targeting a very niche constituency, generally meant television. Even five years ago, an MP who decided to stay off, say, Newsnight, was excluding himself from the national conversation. Not any more.
Donald Trump is the finest example of this. He bypasses media and speaks directly to the voters, and the media hate it. He has emasculated them and destroyed their power, which is why they are acting now as political players.
Consider the recent general election, where Boris Johnson filmed and disseminated his own broadcasts. A video of him chatting as he made a cup of tea in a microwave was watched by millions. His Twitter and Facebook campaigns were brilliant. He knew how to use apparent gaffes or incongruities – comic sans font, for example – to get his messages repeated and discussed.
And weren’t the media incensed by that! Those campaigns were, of course, the genius of his Kiwi campaign team of Topham|Guerin. What is a shame though is that they sacked National, so we may not see as witty representations here in New Zealand.
The legacy media fell about like affronted Victorian matrons. The electorate, they averred, would surely punish the PM for “avoiding scrutiny”. But the general population, as usual, proved wiser than the broadcasters. Voters were quite happy to make up their own minds about the various candidates without demanding presenters to frame things for them.
Will we see the same thing here? I certainly hope so, as it would de-power the traditional media in a sorely required manner. A case in point:
TV editors sincerely see themselves as tribunes of the people, fighting for truth and transparency. But most voters see them as self-important and entitled. The general election didn’t just bury Corbynism; it also buried any lingering sense that the old media could set the political agenda.
On Friday night, broadcasters pompously refused to carry the PM’s address to mark Brexit. So he put it out himself, and it has been as widely viewed as if the BBC had run it live. Which can’t have been pleasant for the BBC.
I’ll make a prediction now, something I am normally loath to do. The only politician who will do this in the coming election will be Winston Peters.
There is simply nothing to be gained from appearing with interviewers who will grandstand, interrupt and show off. Nor is there much point in letting yourself be intermediated by someone who loathes your party (the reason that almost all Tories have given up on Channel 4 News). Even generally professional interviewers can unexpectedly go rogue – as, for example, Andrew Marr did during the election campaign, when he decided to cut the PM off four seconds into every answer.
In an age when it is just as easy to broadcast yourself, why not simply say what you want in your own words?
Why not indeed, and now you can see why I have linked the two articles. This site has a large and growing audience. The editor shows no fear or favour. This election promises to provide a clear bypass of the mainstream media. This is why tribalism is so toxic, especially when coupled with a complicit media more intent on becoming the Media party, but without having to face the voting public whom they seek to manipulate.
Some media have adapted to the changes in technology. There is, for example, a growing market for long-form interviews, in which ideas are properly explored and discussed. The demand for podcasts is rocketing. But old-style gladiatorial contests – especially the laziest and most common form of them, the “gotcha” interview, in which the journalist triumphantly quotes some past words at the politician – have had their day. Politicians know this. Broadcasters, by and large, have yet to grasp it.
I believe this site grasps it; will you as readers and subscribers grasp it too? I sincerely hope you do. It makes for a far more interesting place to share ideas.
