top of page
Search

What's gone wrong with NZ's Main Stream Media? How did our journalists become so bad; so bigoted? After Trump's election victory, even US outlets like the New York Times, which have not traditionally sided with him, are re-evaluating. Its journalists are now arguing that since such huge numbers of Americans supported him (the Republicans won the popular vote, Electoral College, Senate and will probably win Congress) his values and beliefs must be recognized as representing the values and beliefs of Americans, at least a significant, clear majority of them. The New York Times notes, "In her closing rally Kamala Harris scorned Trump as an outlier who did not represent America. “That is not who we are,” she declared, In fact, it turns out, that may be exactly who we are. At least most of us". Whether it is CNN or the New York Times, there's acceptance that President Elect Trump must now be recognized as representing ground-swell opinion in America & should not be subject to continued (character) assassinations by journalists with agendas.


The NZ Main Stream Media, however, is having none of it. It relentlessly attacks Trump, even after his comprehensive win. Consequently, its attacks must now be taken as attacks on the people of the United States. He's a reflection of them, of their hopes and aspirations, of their American Dreams, of who are they are, of their values and beliefs. As such, our Big Media's ongoing evisceration of Trump constitutes nothing less than racist & sexist attacks on Black Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, on American women - for he could not have won without them turning out for him in numbers sufficiently large so as to swing the election against Harris. Who does Newsroom wield out to do analysis? A chap from Otago University who says Trump "ran a campaign that was openly racist, sexist and xenophobic". Why doesn't Newsroom just come out with it, replacing the word "Trump" with "Americans", and label Americans "racist, sexist and xenophobic". Meanwhile, one of the Herald's writers, reacting to Sir John Key's prediction that Trump would probably win, wrote "Let’s not forget we’re talking about - an unabashed racist, a deeply misogynist, erratic, vengeful, narcissistic bully. A convicted criminal". Why doesn't the Herald also come out with it & stick those labels on Americans in general? Not to be outdone, Stuff reported a few years ago, "Donald Trump 'most racist US president' since Woodrow Wilson".


Sure, these outlets can write what they like in the name of free speech, but what about publishing articles with different views? Kiwis have had enough of our Main Stream Media labelling any of us who take a different view from its own journalists - who differ from their opinions - as garbage. Maybe its our Big Media Outlets that are the racists, since they seem to dislike entire races of people - not only the personalities of their leaders - as this US election has revealed.


Sources:






A few days ago we ran a column headed, "(One of) Kamala Harris' Big Mistakes: Taking Rubbish Advice from former NZ PM Jacinda Ardern". Since writing that Blog, Harris gave her Concession Speech at Howard University, telling Americans "kindness" was the answer to making the country a better place. This Blog observed that it is belief in the "American Dream" which is behind taxes being set quite low in that country, and inequality being high, since Americans want to be well rewarded in the market place for their efforts. Harris herself hit that button in her speech, saying "Hard work is good work". Americans have what may considered rather unkind beliefs about the poor - 60% believe the poor are lazy and don't deserve higher welfare funded by taxation. It was that group who voted for Trump. As such, Americans tend to look up to the wealthy, to the extent they're viewed as deserving of their wealth. On that note, we also said, "At a recent conference on capital taxes, I listened to Ardern's former colleague, David Parker, get stuck into Elon Musk - it seemed for being too rich." The Honourable David Parker disagrees He says:


"You are, with respect, a bit loose in your blog sometimes. You misrepresented me this week as follows:


1. I was not speaking about capital taxes. You said on the day that was what I meant, even if I didn't say it, when I countered your incorrect statement to that effect.


2. I did not (and don't) criticize him for being rich. I did criticize emissions from the super wealthy privatizing space and causing climate change emissions. It was one of a number of examples, including private jets and super yachts. You fairly rejoined that through Tesla he's done more to reduce emissions than me.


3. I did criticize the fact that he and / or Bezos and Bloomberg paid no federal taxes some years.


David


I do admire how David Parker reads a lot, thinks about issues and debates them - I know of no other MP who's willing to talk about economics for more than about a minute without getting bored. And he's putting National under pressure. Since health-care, education and infrastructure are in need of vast increases in funding, and so far Finance Minister Willis and PM Luxon's only plan, as far as I can see is, "Let's cross our fingers and hope that economic growth picks up next year". Higher long-term growth (and greater productivity) will only happen if incentive structures are changed in NZ & I struggle to see how the government has changed any of them so far. Parachuting in semi-retired Lester Levy to kick around some middle managers does not constitute a new design of the health-care system


 

Home: Blog2

SUBSCRIBE

Thanks for submitting!

CONTACT

Robert MacCulloch

bottom of page