OPINION
Tim Tripp
Cartoonist, Writer, Photographer, Marketing & Advertising – Christchurch, New Zealand.
ACT 1
“I have seen too many frightful proofs in court – the devil is alive in Salem, and we are not quail to follow wherever the accusing finger points.”
Arthur Miller, The Crucible
Standing in the docks is a young woman, Chantelle Baker of media company Operation People. Next to her is fiance and videographer Jacob White and business partner Phil Shaw. But it is clear, the focus of this trial is on Chantelle. A confident and successful business woman is not natural; there are clearly ominous forces to be found here that make Chantelle particularly dangerous.
The accuser is the New Zealand Herald and journalist David Fisher. Her crime… she is possessed by online personas and agents of the far-right conspiracy movement.
David’s opening statement expresses concern that she has turned her success at the Wellington Protests into a donation stream. Unfortunately, I cannot access the article as it is behind a paywall – I need to subscribe.
Apparently, Chantelle is not the only one who relies on a donation stream.
Fortunately, I can access the article elsewhere. Is that like shoplifting? Maybe. But if one of New Zealand’s largest news outlets is accusing a startup business (that is essentially another in a long line of new competitors) of delivering inappropriate content, and if the accusations are as important to the state of New Zealand’s democracy as they claim, surely this should be available for all to read. Or is this just click bait, or perhaps just reassurance to their echo chamber they can still be trusted? Neither of which is news.
David begins the prosecution, criticising Operation People’s effort to distribute water to the Wairoa community after the devastation of Cyclone Gabrielle. Did David talk with any of those that received the water? According to Baker, they were more than appreciative and Operation People communicated with Mayor Craig Little to coordinate delivery. Not everyone wishes to abdicate their desire to “love thy neighbour” to the state.
A number of errors Chantelle made are highlighted, but then David acknowledges these mistakes were corrected. Media Council guidelines allow 24-hours’ notice to make corrections to reports during live streaming, which Chantelle had done. All media organisations make mistakes, especially when live streaming.
Chantelle’s claim that people shouldn’t believe fact-checkers because fact-checkers are terrible at their job is also brought into question. Journalist John Stossel sued Facebook in 2020 after Fact Checker Science Feedback put “False” and “Lacking Context” labels on two of his videos.
In their legal brief, Facebook argued that fact checks are protected under the First Amendment because they are OPINIONS, not assertions of facts! So Fact Checks aren’t facts, they are just another point of view. Blogger Anthony Watts writes “Such ‘fact checks’ are now shown to be simply an agenda to suppress free speech and the open discussion of science by disguising liberal media activism as something supposedly factual, noble, neutral, trustworthy and based on science. It is none of those.”
Quoting an interview with Pat Brittenden, David says Baker said people should be able to make threats. The law as it stands already makes it illegal to incite violence, or defame someone. There are protections in place to limit crime from speech. But that is the cost of free speech, people can say dumb stuff. Instead of getting upset that someone says they “wish to shoot someone”, why not instead ask, “why do they want to shoot someone?” Dealing with the whys might be more helpful in reducing hate than just telling people that they are not allowed to express themselves.
David demands of the unbeliever, “What do you have to say?” Chantelle doesn’t respond. David has published hostile articles in the past – one accusing her and her father of being a national security threat (also behind a paywall). It seems clear this wasn’t going to be a trial looking to find the truth. Remaining silent seems like the best course of action… for now.
David now seems agitated. “So here she now is in 2023 as one of two full-time staff employed by Operation People producing what looks like news and sounds like news.” But Chantelle has never claimed to be news. They are a media company focusing on political and cultural issues; she doesn’t even claim to be a journalist.
David stares down at Chantelle, then glances back to the jury. “Across the month more people watched her videos than two mainstream media outlets combined. On the final day of the protest Baker’s livestream views soared to one million.”
Ahh… At a time when trust in Legacy Media is at an all-time low, I think I’m beginning to see why the NZ Herald has a problem with Chantelle.
Act 2
“A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face… for them that quail to bring men out of ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this is fraud.”
Arthur Miller The Crucible
Chantelle’s rhetoric is largely anchored in conservative right-wing talking points from the United States. No, her views are her views – half the county is right of centre. Is this beginning to sound more like activism and political inference from mainstream media?
Igor Chudov, recently posted a Substack article highlighting several foundational criminology studies authored by Professor Eric Stewart of Florida State University that have been retracted. Professor Stewart has been accused of falsifying data to support his desired conclusions, though the university claim they were errors. Professor Stewart’s articles showed there was punitive racism to be inherent to white respondents. In fact, it turned out to be the opposite.
“woke ideology centers around a left-wing conspiracy theory about ‘pervasive inequities’ and evil lurking in the hearts of regular white or cisgender people”. Is David, the NZ Herald and the Disinformation Project just as concerned with alt-left disinformation, conspiracy theories and radicalization?
Chantelle’s dad, Leighton, expressed concern about a possible social credit system used in China which allows or disallows certain citizen rights based on metrics developed by the government. “The whole point of this is that they can give us all a social credit rating, and then change our life choices and dictate where we can live, were we can travel based on this credit system. It is terrifying.”
Is David implying this is a conspiracy theory?
Over the last three years, our government have forced us to isolate, wear masks, track our movements, essentially mandated a sub-optimal vaccine, restricted travel and changed our life choices. I don’t see the concerns of a possible social credit system as being in the same category as conspiracy theories. The West imported the concept of lockdowns from China – it’s not inconceivable to think there are some here who would like to import other CCP policies.
David paces back and forwards in front of the jury. He seems angry. “The Alt News Ecosystem is fringe!”
Lockdowns
Quarantine has been an effective use of disease control since the 14th century. Lockdowns, isolating healthy asymptomatic and uninfected people, has never been used. There wasn’t any risk/benefit analysis done to evaluate the possible collateral damage lockdowns might cause. Lockdowns redefine winners and losers, whether they work or not depends on who you are.
Vaccine Mandates (Yes, if you risk losing your job it’s a mandate)
Coerced medical intervention for an entire population, regardless of medical history or health profile, is not normal practice. There are many moral and philosophical issues at play here that are outside the expertise of public health officials, government and epidemiologists.
Masks
Up until 2020 it was not recommended that healthy members of the general population should wear masks.
Natural Immunity
Up until 2021 natural immunity after infection was never considered inferior to immunity after vaccination.
It wasn’t alt news that was fringe: it was governments around the world and legacy media that supported them (or was it the other way round) that were pushing untested policies with little evidence.
David quotes AUT Senior Journalism lecturer Dr Greg Treadwell, who sees Chantelle as an activist. “I don’t think she is a journalist.” Chantelle has already said she isn’t. Then explains the principles of journalism, which is a nine-step code. “An activist would be certain they’re right and this is what drives you… She doesn’t appear to me in any way to be interested in the other side of the story. The reason I could never be an activist is because I can see the other side of the story.”
Did Stuff’s Fire and Fury give a right of Reply to Chantelle and Voices for Freedom? Has the New Zealand Herald allowed NZDSOS to explain the questions they put to Medsafe and the scientific reasons behind them? Or given fair and unbiased investigation into the large number of local and international academics who have real concerns about the evidence (or lack of evidence) used to formulate Covid policies? Without labeling them fringe, conspiracy theorists, science deniers or anti-vaxxers?
Are legacy media certain they are right, and this is what drives them?
The ninth step is “reporting news in a proportional way”. Because of the ideology that now permeates most of mainstream media, for them this is no longer possible. One of the core tenants of their faith is they can not associate with dissenters. So they will only ever report one side of the story. David accuses Chantelle of interviewing those whose views align with the broader alt-right conspiracy movement, including Dutch Nationalist politician, Thierry Baudet. She also interviewed Wybren Van Haga who has been critical of Baudet, leaving the Forum for Democracy Party to start his own Belang van Nederland party. Chantelle was providing news in a proportional way. Giving voice to the dissenters that legacy media refuse to do.
It seems legacy media are the activists.
Act 3
“Don’t lie! She comes to me while I sleep, she is always making me dream corruptions.”
Arthur Miller, The Crucible
David claims Jacinda didn’t lie when she said that vaccination would not be mandatory. What exactly did Jacinda say when asked if the government were considering making the vaccine mandatory?
“No, no, it is not. It is a considerable step to REQUIRE someone to be vaccinated, and so we have long said that a blanket compulsion for people is not something we have considered. We believe we can talk about the vaccine on its merits. The difference it can make to peoples lives, their health, their livelihood, without taking that extraordinary step.”
For someone who is credited as being an exemplary communicator, this was shockingly poor communication, or it was a lie. I’m sure there are many with mortgages and families to feed, who were threatened with the loss of their job, that would agree this jab was required and a blanket compulsion.
Enter David’s final witness: Kate Hannah of the Disinformation Project. It’s worth noting that the Disinformation playbook was not originally formulated from a concerned effort to protect democracy, but was a set of unethical marketing tactics developed by tobacco companies. Techniques include:
- Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry
- Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies
- Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy
David approaches the jury, gesturing, as he paints a picture of Chantelle infiltrating Kate Hannah’s Disinformation Project speech, “Eroded information ecologies: Social cohesion, trust and the impact of misinformation.” She went with a soldier, Phil Shaw. This sounds ominous. Phil is also a microbiologist: his presence was relevant as they wanted to ask questions based in science. While the picture painted by David is not a lie, omitting relevant facts is still misleading – it is misinformation.
They also wanted to know, as do so many others, what are the conspiracy theories everyone at the Disinformation Project are so worried about and where do they get their funding. If their recommendations are influencing policy, it is extremely relevant who funds them. These are questions that we are all still waiting answers for. And why is it necessary to have to disguise themselves to enter a conference? If the Disinformation Project do have influence on policy, discussions should be held in the public domain. Honesty and transparency are the best antidotes to conspiracies.
The conference ended because Kate walked out. There was no security threat to Kate, other than challenging questions. Phil never got to ask his, after driving from Christchurch to Dunedin to do so. Those at the Disinformation Project will never debate. They don’t engage with heretics.
“A new censorial and identity obsessed brand of social justice activism has given rise to a climate in which blind ideological affiliations are the norm. Whereas democracy is founded on the negotiation of viewpoints, ideology is sustained through intolerance of dissent. You are, as the saying has it, either with us or against us. This is the essence of bigotry.” Andrew Doyle. The New Puritans: How the religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World
Kate proceeds to explain how Chantelle is a useful idiot.
“While she has good intentions she is unknowingly being used as a pawn by Far Right extremist groups in the US.”
David says: “It sounds like a conspiracy itself… authoritarian regimes using specially trained operatives to develop false online personas to carry out online espionage operations with the aim to destabilize Western States.”
All authoritarian regimes try to limit speech: countries of free peoples don’t. Could it be possible that those demanding limits on what we are allowed to say are the ones being influenced by these online operatives?
Yuri Bezmenov, a Russian KGB defector who fled to Canada, explained in a 1984 interview how the the KGB use psychological subversion. The point of this espionage technique is to change the perception of reality so citizens of a country can no longer come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families and their country – it’s a very slow process, taking several generations, but is a very effective brainwashing technique. The KGB did not target independent journalists, the target was universities and academia.
An unchallenged, left-leaning academia has been teaching 60 years of students how to re-imagine reality. They redefine language. They teach they can determine their own truth.
The best thing that can be done for someone who is fearful is make them braver. But empathy has now become a pathology. We must protect the weak at all costs. Don’t mistreat others – but societies should not be formulated based on the most fearful and fragile personalities.
I don’t think it is Chantelle who is the useful idiot.
“Unfortunately this conspiracy theory is true,” says David.
All conspiracy theorists believe their conspiracies are true.
David returns to his seat, watching the jury deliberate, he seems to think he has won. Operation People will be silenced. The Herald can continue as one of New Zealand’s leading and most trusted news organisations. The foreperson stands, and looks to the judge.
And the verdict is…