Damien Grant in his Stuff opinion piece last week questions Judith Collins’s lack of economic vision. His assessment is brutal (I don’t agree, but I am not questioning his right to an opinion). However, to complete his demolition of her he exaggerated her involvement in the fall from grace of Ian Lees-Galloway, as the time-line did not fit: thereby, in my opinion, defaming her.
“Collins would have known that blurting out this made-up scandal would force the prime minister to act. The National Party leader destroyed a man’s career, humiliated his family and brought unnecessary pain and stress to those affected“
I emailed Grant to respond to his allegation that Collins “destroyed” someone’s career, saying that the time-line of Galloway’s sacking would refute that possibility. (To his credit) he responded:
“I was not aware of this version of events, my information differs from this, however. You may be right, of course, but my sources have a different time-line.”
A different timeline? His sources? The only reputable source is the original source, the PM’s press conference Wednesday morning where she laid out the time-line. There is no doubt, the deed was done and Lees-Galloway sent home in disgrace Tuesday night.
In some ways Grant could be forgiven for not getting the facts correct. Reporters and commentators have made much of Collins’s response to Duncan Garner’s question but ignored the timeline, which shows that Lees-Galloway was already sacked and sent home in disgrace the night before.
However, as a reputable journalist (which I believe he is) Grant’s failure to go to the original source (the PM), but instead rely on biased media chit-chat, saw him take a reckless approach to his commentary on the new National leader. I believe Collins has a right to feel aggrieved. I was hoping for a correction from Grant in his next column. But no such luck.
Boot on other foot. Imagine if someone wrote scathingly about Ardern without due diligence? They wouldn’t dare for fear of being sent to the Tower.
On that point I saw a comment online about Obama’s easy treatment from the media during his presidency and reelection:
“This guy floated through his presidency with the soft winds and gentle caresses of left-wing media waves lapping at his hull“
Just substitute Obama for Ardern and you get the New Zealand scene. A left-wing government seeking re-election is always going to get an easier ride from the media than a right-wing one.
Remember the lengths the media went to to destroy John Key and his family during his campaigns (no kindness allowed), compared with our current scene with our MSM, aka the government propaganda machine, who strategically skew stories in the government’s favour and publish puff pieces about the PM.
Currently in the NZ Herald online, with accompanying photos, of course:
- “PM admits to stealing snacks from Neve’s lunch box” (my favourite)
- Ardern’s hair stylist on the pressure of doing the ‘do’ (promo for a reality show)
- Weeks old video “Covid-19 the four levels that changed NZ” to keep us looking backwards and fearful.
- The headline on a Letters to the Editor section, a defence of Bloomfield facing legal action over the shut down “Whether Bloomfield acted illegally or not – it worked” – to limit damage to Ardern
The media have the power to sway the people by careful placement of positive stories about the government and puff pieces about the PM, keeping positive stories about the Opposition on the down-low. They will continue to do this shamelessly until September 19th.
If you enjoyed this BFD article why not share it with a friend?