That Interview

The interview of Winston Peters by Corin Dann on Morning Report on 23 April was a debacle on a number of levels. Not unsurprisingly, because Peters attacked Mr. Dann and RNZ, it has attracted a fair amount of media attention. The media loves to talk about itself. It’s a form of self-gratification

Dr Bryce Edwards of Victoria University compiles a daily news briefing which he posts online. This is an aggregation of news stories on various topics presented by category and with links. It is an invaluable resource and well worth the subscription fee.

The News Briefing for 24 April starts with the stories about the interview and lists the various articles about it and on associated media topics as follows:

WINSTON PETERS’ RNZ INTERVIEW, MEDIA
Soumya Bhamidipati (RNZ): PM will not step in over Peters' comments in RNZ interview
Thomas Coughlan (Herald): Politicians have a right to complain about media, but Winston Peters crossed a line (paywalled)
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk ZB): Winston's attacks on RNZ aren't that shocking
RNZ: Labour wants Christopher Luxon to step in over Winston Peters' comments on RNZ funding
Sam Smith (Stuff): Labour calls for PM to step in after Winston Peters’ RNZ threat
RNZ: NZ First leader Winston Peters defends gender bill during fiery RNZ interview
Poppy Clark and Bridie Witton (Stuff): Tracey Martin hits back at Winston Peters after fiery RNZ interview
Tom Pullar-Strecker (Post): Winston Peters issues RNZ funding warning
Shayne Currie (Herald): ‘Arrogant wokester loser’ - NZ First leader Winston Peters takes aim at RNZ Morning Report host Corin Dann; RNZ defends itself (paywalled)
Shayne Currie (Herald): Should reality TV shows such as The Block NZ and Married at First Sight NZ receive Government rebate support? Media executive shake-ups at Stuff, TVNZ, NZME and Sky TV (paywalled)
Spinoff: The Fold: Big job ahead for TVNZ’s news and content chief
David Harvey: The Harmful Digital Communications Act Understood

In this article I want to consider the interview and how it has been dealt with generally in the media and with a focus on two articles that appeared in the Herald.

But the starting point is not the interpretation placed on the interview by the media. The starting point is the primary evidence – the radio interview itself. This can be found at this link. I have embedded the file as part of this article. (My first attempt at embedding audio)

May I recommend, before you go any further, that you take 8 minutes and 34 seconds and listen to the interview. My remarks that follow are a precis and commentary on what took place. You may disagree with my assessment and that is fine. I have included time stamps for easy reference.

My first comment is that this is an example of an interview that went off the rails. Mr. Peters is a prickly customer and is not averse to engaging, often in a confrontational manner, with media. This is well-known and must be taken into account by any interviewer.

The second thing is that the focus of this interview is difficult to ascertain and as the interview progressed it became more and more blurry and seemed to be a discussion about the media and how it was doing its job rather than what might have been the focus of the approach – the change in policy by New Zealand First from the introduction of a Bill by former NZ First member Tracy Martin who sponsored what is referred to as a self-determination law (1:31) to proposals now by NZ First to see “women” defined in law as an “adult human biological female” and “man” defined as an “adult human biological male”.

The law referred to by Mr. Dann was in fact the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 2021 which introduced a new self-identification process on June 15, 2023, allowing individuals to amend the sex on their birth certificate without needing to apply to the Family Court or provide proof of medical treatment. This process replaces the previous Family Court application, streamlining the process for individuals seeking to change their registered sex.

Mr. Peters suggests that Ms Martin introduced the Bill “behind our backs” (1:55) rather than simply stating that “in light of recent events we have changed our policy” – something that Sir Keir Starmer stated when interviewed by the BBC about the effect of the UK Supreme Court decision in the Women of Scotland case. Mr. Peters said that the new Bill would replace the previous law which incidentally was passed unanimously by Parliament.

Mr. Dann’s concern was about enforcement of the new law. How would trans people be challenged. Mr. Peters observed that there would be no change in lifestyle until such a person wanted to use facilities that were sex-specific.(3:52) The issue then became one of how this would be proven. In the UK there are Gender Reassignment Certificates but it is not clear how this would work here.

The subtext behind Mr Dann’s questioning is that some form of proof by a Certificate would be required. This would clearly be discriminatory – a theme Mr. Dann continues. (5:40). Mr. Peters claims to speak for the mass majority of New Zealanders who see men as men and women as women.

At 6:47 the interview begins to go down-hill as Mr. Dann suggests to Mr. Peters that the Greens and Labour have claimed that the proposals by NZ First are importing culture wars into New Zealand.

It is here that Mr. Peters goes onto the offensive against RNZ. (6:59) Mr. Dann said that it was his job to put up arguments for Peters to answer.

“Sorry, you’re not going to accuse me of putting up their arguments and believing in them. I’m the devil’s advocate here and I put up the argument for you to answer.” (7:04)

Peters said:

“The fact is, you’re paid for by the taxpayer and sooner or later we’re going to cut that water off too, because you’re an abuse on the taxpayer. (7:26)

“You’re not hearing both sides of the story, you keep on putting the argument of the woke left. You’re a disgrace to the mainstream media.” (7:36)

Peters said:

“Your job is to be an interviewer... when you put me on, you hear what we’ve got to say, when the Greens are on, hear what they’ve got to say, when the National Party are on, hear what they’ve got to say.(7:45)

“But not you. When it’s our turn, you’re interjecting all the time. When they come on, it’s a very placid, lovely interview, isn’t it?” (8:00)

Dann:

“I would disagree with that and argue that that is not the case, and we are fair and fierce with all who come on this programme.”(8:05)

Shayne Currie in the Herald for 23 April included a social media post, just to pour petrol on the fire where Mr. Peters accused Mr. Dann of being “an arrogant wokester loser” although that adds little to the confrontation that took place at the end of the interview.

Thomas Coughlan, Political Editor for the Herald published a commentary on the interview. He suggested that there were two things to pick apart. First, was Mr. Peters in error when he suggested to Mr. Dann that he would “cut that water off” which inferentially means RNZ funding.

Secondly, was the interview fair – and there is more to that issue than has been discussed in the media.

Was Mr. Peters in error. Rather than turn to the legislation regarding RNZ, Coughlan goes to no less an authority on the matter than Labour leader Chris Hipkins. One is hardly going to expect a dispassionate commentary from that source.

But the legislation is clear. One of the first things that law students are told is to check the statute. That is the first stop when there is legislation. You don’t ask someone else what it means – especially not an Opposition politician

The Radio New Zealand Act 1995 provides at section 13 that Ministers – including those not directly responsible for RNZ cannot

“give a direction to the public radio company ... in respect of:

a) a particular programme or a particular allegation or a particular complaint; or

b) the gathering or presentation of news or the preparation or presentation of current affairs programmes; or

c) the responsibility of the company for programme standards."

Mr. Coughlan points out that by saying:

““Your job is to be an interviewer, your job is when you have me on, you hear what we’ve got to say, when the Greens are on, you hear what they’ve got to say, when the National Party’s on you hear what they’ve got to say, but not you - when it’s our turn you’re interjecting all the time when they come on it’s a very placid lovely interview, isn’t it?,”

Mr. Peters was making a statement about how Mr. Dann and RNZ should conduct their work.

Mr. Coughlan also opines that although

“comments about a funding cut were not a direct threat, but anyone at RNZ listening to the interview could easily infer that if Peters didn’t like what he was hearing, the broadcaster might have its funding reduced. That inference is a line Peters should not have crossed.”

In my view I think Mr. Coughlan is correct. Mr. Peters did cross the line. The problem for him, is that he is a Minister and there are constraints on him that are not present when he is not in Government. Mr. Peters’ remarks, were he in opposition or waiting in the wings, would be consistent with a view that he has had about mainstream media for many years and would be permissible. As a Minister of the Crown, he is constrained by legislation.

As to the second issue Mr. Coughlan considers that the interview was fair. When read in print in a transcript it would appear so, although Mr. Dann’s rather shrill assertion

“Sorry, you’re not going to accuse me of putting up their arguments and believing in them. I’m the devil’s advocate here and I put up the argument for you to answer.”

is certainly combative.

But I suggest you listen to the tone of the “interview” from 6:40. Up until then, the tone is reasonable. But the whole tone changes when Mr. Peters challenges RNZ and impliedly Mr. Dann’s professionalism. At 7:03 Mr. Dann protests “But is my job Mr. Peters…” and immediately goes on the defensive.

In addition Mr. Dann becomes argumentative and raises his voice to the point of shouting. At 7:04 he protests, his voice volume increasing “I’m sorry, you’re not going to accuse me…” and suddenly we realise that this is not about an interview with Mr. Peters, it is not about trying to get an explanation but it has become personal.

Mr. Dann is taking what Mr. Peters has said as a personal attack and now thinks it is necessary to justify himself. In fact, he arrogantly asserts that he puts up the arguments for Mr. Peters to answer.

When Peters suggests that it was Mr. Dann’s job to look at both side of the story (7:16) he loudly and shrilly protests

“It is and if anyone who looks at this interview will see that that is exactly what I have been doing…”

So now Mr. Dann is justifying his position and is doing it loudly and aggressively. At 7:41 he again states what his job is.

Taking Mr Dann’s advice and “looking at this interview” (if indeed that is something one can do with audio but it probably is indicative of Mr. Dann’s loss of self-control) the tone and deterioration of the encounter suggests that Mr. Dann was in the last quarter subjectively engaged with the interview and lost sight of the purpose of the process.

Mr. Coughlan states, when discussing fairness,

“It’s an important part of facilitating a lively and fair discussion between differing political viewpoints. In an interview show like Morning Report, there’s nothing wrong with interviewing someone from one party and putting their views and allegations to someone from another party. It’s not to everyone’s taste, Act Leader David Seymour doesn’t go on Morning Report, as is his right, but he speaks to RNZ’s reporters around the country.”

I have often been of the view that radio and TV interviewers would benefit from a course of cross-examination skills from experienced lawyers. Teasing the information out, piece by piece, in an unemotional and clinical manner, is a far better way of conducting an interview (because cross-examination is a form of interview) but it is critical that the questioner maintains focus, objectivity and emotional detachment. By all means let the interviewee become emotional but avoid engagement at a personal level.

Mr. Dann’s problem was that although the interview was a fair one, he lost control of it, lost focus, allowed himself to be derailed, lost objectivity, personally engaged, became emotional and unprofessionally shouted at Mr. Peters.

The interview overall may have been fair but as a demonstration of how to conduct an interview it was a masterclass in how not to.