dailyindignation

[dailyindignation]

The soon-to-be deputy PM knew his party president was a sexual predator and the media doesn't care

I think one of the dumbest things you can do is complain that the media isn't covering some story, because nine times out of ten you’ll be immediately presented with a link to a media story covering the thing you just said wasn't being covered. There's lots of reasons why 'the media' (which isn't even some monolith hivemind thing, but, y’know, it’s quicker than saying ‘the owners and editors of corporate, ad-driven media outlets’) choose what to cover and how to cover it. But what that complaint is normally trying to say is “why am I not seeing THIS story everywhere, unlike [insert opposite political belief] which was EVERYWHERE”. It’s often a hard thing to pin down, because normally some outlet IS covering your story, but they’re smaller or the big guys have done one or two stories on it and it’s gone from their front page, and you missed it. I think what the complaint is actually trying to express is “why isn’t this being saturated everywhere?”. And that is because of the number one reason for the historical low levels of trust in the media (imo): opinion.

To recap: Tim Jago was the president of the ACT Party – a right-wing party that’s currently part of the coalition government of New Zealand – before resigning in January 2023. That story didn’t even hint that the reason for his resignation was because of any legal or criminal issue – his departure email was leaked to Stuff, who reported it straight.

In August 2024, the media reported a “prominent former political figure” was found guilty of indecent assault of two teenage boys in the 1990s. Because of ongoing name suppression, they couldn’t say who he was or what party he was associated with, but if you went on Twitter or Reddit, you could find out pretty easily. So if I knew, the media knew (that’s important). But, thanks to high-powered lawyers and deep pockets, Jago managed to keep his name out of the press through the 2023 election, which was likely the goal (which, again, the media knew).

Now, suppression has been lifted and his name can be revealed. Note the time that story was published: 5:49 pm on 31 January 2025. That was a Friday. As Mike Hosking once put it: “Fridays are for dumping bad news, and hoping everyone forgets about it over the weekend. But there is no chance something this big will have been forgotten over the weekend.” Sage words, Mike, and of course words that won't expose you as a hypocrite in a few paragraphs.

So here’s the bit where I say: why isn’t the media covering this?

Of course, the media is covering it – it’s how I know about it! But that umbrella term ‘the media’ isn’t doing us any favours here. RNZ, the state-funded broadcaster, has done quite a few stories on the Jago revelations, from the initial news of his name being allowed to be published, to smart follow-ups with survivors and legal experts. 1News, state-owned but commercially funded, has also done some original reporting on the case, including talking to a survivor.

But NZME? Owner of The NZ Herald and NewstalkZB and 50 other media brands? They have done zero original reporting on this case. They’ve carried the initial RNZ story and ACT’s defence and that’s it. As Mike would put, the story has been forgotten.

People are comparing the coverage (or lack of) of Jago to Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who was convicted of shoplifting a year ago and was recently splashed back all over the news for another shoplifting accusation, which proved to be false and a pretty obvious right-wing smear. Yes, the media fell for that, and their coverage was unfair and over-the-top. I get the compulsion to compare her far lesser crime of shoplifting (and not-even shoplifting!) with Jago’s far more serious crime of sexual assault. But there’s a better comparison.

In 2019, the Labour Party president, Nigel Haworth, resigned over his handling of allegations of sexual assault. This was covered extensively by the media at the time, as it should be – it’s a serious accusation and it was happening in real time. The ultimate outcome of that case was that no sexual assaults could be established but, to be honest, that’s incidental. What the media focused on was what did the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, know, and when did she know it? The classic journalist trope: it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.

But aside from the hard news reports, we also got a whole lot of opinion. This is what’s missing in the Tim Jago reporting. There’s been no opinion. Granted, did I expect NewstalkZB’s cabal of propagandists like Mike Hosking, Heather du Plessis-Allan, Barry Soper, Ryan Bridge, Kerre Woodham et al to actually engage with a story where their favourite political party was found to be hiding a paedo? No, I did not. But I thought they’d at least come out in defence of ACT and David Seymour. But not even that. Just… silence. I wonder if they talked about it at WIP on Monday morning or if it was just silently understood? After all, you do this for long enough, orders don't even need to be given.

NewstalkZB's entire Tim Jago coverage

And what about the supposedly-neutral political editors at other outlets who went hard on the Labour scandal like Jo Moir, Claire Trevett, and Audrey Young, not to mention those at Stuff or The Post? Nada. Not a word.

See, here’s what the journos and editors will be telling themselves: there’s no news here. The Jago offences were historical, he’s been found guilty, name suppression being lifted is all there is to report. But look at the angle of some of those Labour opinion pieces. One uses an opposition MP’s comments in Parliament as an angle to accuse Labour MPs of involvement in the cover-up (never proven). One uses the fact the party president resigned as an angle of saying that’s not good enough and the story will continue (How? By the media writing more opinion pieces about it! It really is a human centipede of shit.). A LOT of them try to pin the scandal on the leader of the party, Ardern, and how it’s indicative of a greater problem within the party. These are all self-generated “news” stories. Nothing has really happened, but the media has driven the story further because… ??? Well, I don’t wanna accuse them of bias, so I’ll just “ask questions”.

Now might be a good time to mention that ACT Party leader and soon-to-be deputy PM David Seymour was told Jago was a "sexual predator" nearly three months before Jago stood down from the role.

Also David Seymour referred the complainants to an employment lawyer.

Also David Seymour was once caught Snapchatting school children (yes, that is Barry Soper defending him).

Those are three angles you could take on this story, and those are just the facts we know about. Imagine what you might discover if you actually, y’know, investigated. But for some reason, our media just isn't interested in this particular scandal. Wonder why.

[dailyindignation]

When being weak is actually strong

In late November 2023, freshly-elected New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon set up his cabinet, giving Melissa Lee the Media and Communications portfolio and appointing Penny Simmonds as Minister for Disability Issues.

Five months later, Luxon demoted the two women for being bad at those jobs. Shortly after, I tweeted this:

What a strange prediction, you might say. Surely the leader of the country appointing and then demoting two ministers with only himself to blame in such record time is a sign of that classic media canard – a "weak" and "chaotic" administration? Like, why did he appoint them in the first place? Does this very-inexperienced Prime Minister know what he's doing?

Ah, but you see, I'm not two months old, so I've seen our media do their thing. And if there's one thing that really turns the press gallery on, really gets them rock hard, it's a Strong Leader. Preferably one who's From The Business World. Because, despite being political reporters who report on politics, every single one of them down to their bones Fucking Hate Politicians. So when Business Man comes into power, you bet they'll take his every move as the next coming of Elon Musk (y'know, before they realised he was fascist).

But just in case you, a mere member of the public, might be inclined to look at the demotions and think "Hell, that looks a bit weak", the cavalry rode to the rescue:

Those are all just from the NZME stable of sycophants, too. They didn't even need to break out Mike Hosking or Heather du Plessis-Allan! No, no, the savvy pundits were there to tell you how you should feel. I think they think that's their job? Weird job. But anyway, RNZ, Newshub and The Post soon followed up with the exact same take:

These are all separate people with separate paychecks.

Okay, but that's ONE perspective. Surely the media also looked at it from the other side. What about that woke outfit The Spinoff, did they at least air the idea that the PM firing two ministers within 6 months wasn't a sign of strength and virility but actually a bit weak and messy?

Oh. Bad timing, Hayden!

But look, maybe all these political pundits and experienced journos are all singing from the same hymn book because that's the only tune? Like, if a Labour leader like Jacinda Ardern or Chris Hipkins demoted ministers during their tenure, then the media would portray those actions in the exact same way, right? That's what we want, right? Consistency? No bias? Demoting ministers = strength! If only we had some evidence that that's what they'd do--

Oh.

So how does this happen? Is it because the media is at its core a business, and business quite like strong, right-wing leaders because they'll "dismantle red tape" (i.e. remove regulations so they can get away with shit) and "cut costs" (i.e. ruin public services so private companies can step in), and those businesses, y'know, advertise in the financially-precarious media? Maybe. Sounds a bit conspiratorial, though. No one's outright telling Thomas Coughlan to frame his perspective to be business-friendly. He just naturally does. It's that age-old philosophical conundrum: are political reporters all conservative because that's how you rise to the top in that role? Or are conservatives drawn to be political reporters because they realise that's how you shape public opinion? We may never know.

Or maybe it's because the press gallery holds annual Zoom meetings to discuss what the narrative of the week is gonna be (accidentally, of course)? I mean, it would explain the hivemind that seems to occur all the time. I'm not sure why else direct competitors feel the need to get together and accidentally share their screens but I'm sure it happens in other industries-- ohwait I'm being told it doesn't.

With the media in such financial straits, there's been a lot of suggestions for how they can survive. May I propose a money-saving idea? Fire every political pundit. Let go of the entire press gallery. Replace them all with AI. They all have the same opinion anyway. Why are media orgs paying multiple people – more than anyone else on their payroll! – to say the exact same thing? It makes no financial or logical sense. Unless... is the overwhelming narrative forming the point? Could it be... that the media doesn't actually want to "analyse" the politics and explain what it all means to you? They just want to be smarter than you and tell you what it means? God, I hope not. That would be way harder to fix, and I hear the media has trust issues at the moment.

[dailyindignation]

‘Both sides’ is broken: how conservative politicians lie, and the media let them

In March of this year, a United Nations expert on poverty and human rights said the UK’s conservative government’s policies had "led to the systematic immiseration of millions across Great Britain”:

“The imposition of austerity was an ideological project designed to radically reshape the relationship between the Government and the citizenry,” the expert said. “UK standards of well-being have descended precipitately in a remarkably short period of time, as a result of deliberate policy choices made when many other options were available.

But reports and big numbers such as “14 million people living in poverty” are hard to relate to on a personal level. Which is why an image such as a young boy lying on the floor in a hospital can cut through like no number can. It sums up what a vague term like “austerity” actually means – underfunded, fit-to-burst hospitals.

Photograph: Ben Lack/Mirrorpix

To make the political fallout of this image worse, during an ITV interview the Prime Minister Boris Johnson refused to look at the above picture, choosing instead to put the interviewer’s phone in his pocket.

So what’s an embarrassed government to do? Easy: distract the media by targeting their greatest weakness: their naive commitment to 'both sides' reporting.

So the conservatives lied. After their health secretary, Matt Hancock, was confronted by protestors at the hospital he’d been dispatched to for a photo op, the conservatives simply told trusting reporters that their man had been assaulted by opposition stooges. He’d been punched in the face!

He hadn’t been, of course. He’d lightly brushed someone’s outstretched hand (you can see the video here).

ASSAULT!

But that didn’t stop reporters from The BBC and Guardian, as well as the traditional right-wing publications such as the Telegraph and Sun, report that he’d been assaulted.

Robert Peston is the Political Editor of ITV News. Tom Newton Dunn is the political editor of The Sun. Laura Kuenssberg is the Political Editor of the BBC. Paul Brand is ITV’s Political Correspondent. Camilla Tominey is associate editor of the Telegraph.

The reason this lie worked so well, of course, is it perfectly aligns with journalists’ need to appear savvy and above it all, so a story about “Labour activists” assaulting a conservative politician allows them to resort to their natural fight commentator selves, rather than delve into exactly why and how a four-year-old boy was lying on the floor in a hospital (hint: it has something to do with that UN report up top).

When the lie is exposed by people on Twitter, these same journalists usually refuse to apologise, simply deleting the tweet or minimise their involvement in spreading a lie.

Pretty grim, alright.

How about you write stories about these “sources” of yours?

Even now they can’t help but frame it was “this side said this”. THE PUNCH NEVER HAPPENED.

‘Both sides’ is killing the media. They cling to a fanciful notion of neutral reporting, either too arrogant or naive to realise there’s no such thing, there is only what’s true. Unfortunately, the right has weaponised their flaw, and in this example, days before a general election, successfully used them to get an uncomfortable story out of the news.

[dailyindignation]

Jesus, how about waiting until Thursday and then you'll have actual facts to report on?? The worst week in NZ media is budget week.

[dailyindignation]

Now that’s good PR

Tues: Air NZ are going to choose Boeing.

Wed: Air NZ are going to choose Boeing.

Fri: Air NZ are going to choose Boeing.

Mon: Air NZ are going to choose Boeing.

Also Mon: Air NZ are going to choose Boeing.

All written by the same guy.

[dailyindignation]

The definition of privilege: having an argument with your partner in the country’s biggest newspaper rather than just talking to them.

[dailyindignation]

Let's make a deal: if you're wrong, you have to retire from political punditry forever. Put something on the line.

[dailyindignation]

The Christchurch mosque terror attacks and the media that chose to show it

The Christchurch shooter's video of the attack was horrific and designed to be shared. Experts and police advised against it. A recap of some major media organisations which chose to show parts of it (stills from start of video follow):

• News Corp-owned Sky News Australia showed the video, leading NZ's (unrelated) Sky cable to drop the channel. News Corp-owned Daily Mail also showed it, as well as allowing readers to download the shooter's manifesto. News Corp-owned news.com.au *autoplayed* it.

• Reminder: The New Zealand Herald, the country's biggest newspaper, runs Daily Mail and news.com.au material daily, not always tagged. The Herald also showed multiple frames from the video, including on their homepage, updating it throughout the day with more pics.

• Apparently Stuff showed the start of the video too, taking it down after police requested it. Multiple people were complaining about Newshub showing the video on Twitter, so no surprises there.

• Daily Mirror and The Sun both ran the shooter's video. As far as I know, neither are syndicated in New Zealand.

• I haven't been through American media because I hate to fucking think. They're probably doing a reenactment as we speak. As far as I know, the only major NZ media orgs that didn't use any images from the video were RNZ and Otago Daily Times, but I might be mistaken.

So when you hear these media orgs crying for Facebook and Twitter and YouTube to be regulated for allowing the video to be published there (which they should be accountable for), remember these gatekeepers also chose to run it in order to get clicks. And they don’t have the excuse of an algorithm.

[dailyindignation]

[dailyindignation]

[dailyindignation]

NZ Herald suddenly concerned about what National is concerned about

Despite no evidence, the NZ Herald has taken a strong interest in NZ-China relations deteriorating recently. Purely coincidentally, this has been a strong point of focus for the National Party.

In this story, the Herald admits there's no evidence for their own headline (but scatter the story with trade stats and a warning from a random businessman living in China anyway).

As an example of the Herald’s framing, check out this sequence: National leader Simon Bridges wonders if the Air NZ flight that got turned around was due to our relationship with China.

Air NZ say it had nothing to do with any political reasons, it was their error (sorry, “takes blame” in Herald framing speak):

And now look at how the Herald casually add it to a list of "tensions" between the two countries:

[dailyindignation]

YEAH!! WE FUCKIN’ DID IT!! *high fives the rest of the media* DESTROYED THAT ACTIVIST AND DEFENDED THAT GUY WITH THE HUGE PLATFORM!! WOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[dailyindignation]

‪This is textbook indignation: entitled rich person gets a story in the Herald. ‬

[dailyindignation]

A ‘news’ channel goes out of its way to reassure its meathead president that his dumbass statements on global warming are actually good.

[dailyindignation]

https://twitter.com/deltablues_king/status/1090731587711295488?s=21

[dailyindignation]