The Righteous Face of Mainstream Media

David Fisher examines the "Anatomy of a Scandal"

The headline wasn’t even original. Anatomy of a Scandal was a TV drama series that screened on Netflix in 2022. It told the story of a British MP who was having an affair with an aide, and how his wife found out about it. To complicate matters the MP is accused of raping his aide and has to stand trial. The series was adapted from a novel the same name by Sarah Vaughn.

The article carrying the same headline is by David Fisher, a senior writer with the New Zealand Herald. Like an earlier article by Herald writer Audrey Young which I examined in my article The Peevish Face of Mainstream Media Fisher attempts to draw the heat out of the affair of the questionable social media posts of Green MP Benjamin Doyle.

One of the themes that emerges from Fisher’s article is that much of the information swirling about regarding Mr Doyle smacks of a conspiracy theory. Mr. Fisher is well familiar with this line of approach given his examination of such matters during COVID-19.

In support of his conspiracy theory argument Mr Fisher advances the following matters:-

First, the allegations against Doyle were amplified by social media posts, particularly from an X account that supports the NZ First party. ​ This account posted edited videos and images, suggesting inappropriate behavior and linking Doyle's tattoos to symbols associated with child sex offenders. ​

Secondly, figures such as Winston Peters, Brian Tamaki, and Ani O’Brien have publicly questioned Doyle's behavior and called for investigations, further fueling the conspiracy theory. ​ Peters has accused the media of selectively reporting and ignoring the allegations against Doyle. ​

Thirdly the deletion of 52 posts from Doyle's Instagram account is interpreted by some as evidence of guilt or consciousness of wrongdoing, suggesting that innocent content would not need to be hidden.

Fourthly, the blue spiral tattoos on Doyle's arms have been linked to an FBI report on symbols used by child sex offenders, despite Doyle's explanation that the tattoos are inspired by Māori motifs. ​

Bhenjamin Goodsir from Auckland Pride and cited by Mr. Fisher categorises the rhetoric used by Peters and Tamaki as stochastic terrorism, implying that their language could inspire supporters to carry out hate crimes or acts of violence against Doyle. ​(Stochastic is defined as a process or system connected with a random probability unless Mr. Goodsir has some other meaning for the word)

Finally, the article highlights the broader political and social tensions regarding queer and trans issues, with Peters historically opposing LGBTQ+ rights and using provocative language that could incite fear and suspicion.

To develop his “conspiracy theory” argument, Mr. Fisher discusses the presence of a particular tattoo on Mr. Doyle’s arm. Mr. Fisher writes as follows:

“Journalist Ian Wishart pointed to an online guide to emojis of concern published by ActiveFence, which offers AI-led internet safety tools, which it says are “used by pedophiles to describe ‘boylove’ or sexual attraction towards underaged boys”.

Wishart – in an article published on the Centrist on Monday – included a photograph of Doyle’s arms which feature tattoos of eyes containing blue spirals. Wishart posed the question in his piece: “Hidden in plain sight?”

Doyle explained the spirals in their Masters thesis, saying they drew “inspiration from Te Takarangi, the double spiral motif common in both Toi Māori (Māori arts and crafts) and Te Tai Ao (the natural world)”.

Eleanor Parkes of ECPAT NZ – the agency that works with government to end exploitation of children – says “one of the least helpful” recent practices “is how people in particular political movements have sought to paint their opponents as child predators”.

“This conspiracy movement often incorrectly assigns the openly-queer and openly-trans community as being inherently predatory, when we know that being queer does not make someone a threat to children, whether an MP, or a drag queen in a library.

It is disappointing that the messages of this conspiracy movement are being amplified locally in New Zealand, because we know better.

If an MP has a handle that is provocative, that’s a question for themself and their political party, and not a reflection of a threat to children.”

Inferentially Mr. Fisher doubts Mr Wishart’s credentials perhaps because they were published in the Centrist, an online news aggregator previously owned by Mr. Jim Grenon who is making a stockmarket and boardroom play for Mr. Fisher’s employer.

The generalized comments by Ms. Parkes are not helpful either. There is no suggestion that all “openly-queer and openly-trans community [are] being inherently predatory”.

Questions have been raised based on specific allegations arising from material displayed in a social media account, backed by other information which might allow inferences to be drawn about a person’s predilection.

These issues hardly support nor amount to a “conspiracy theory”. But such a suggestion underpins a broader issue evidenced by the article which is a minimisation of the seriousness of the allegations that have arisen, the wisdom of the selection process of MPs by the Green Party and whether one such as Doyle possesses the judgement that one might expect from a Member of Parliament. Would Mr Doyle fulfil the requirement of a MP articulated by Edmund Burke

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

It may well be that Mr. Doyle’s judgement in posting what he posted and in using the scatological language that he did may provide us with an insight as to his fulfilment of Burke’s requirement.

The terms that seem to have concerned many is that of “bussy” which Fisher states “is a conflation of “boy” and a slang term for female genitalia. It is commonly understood to mean a male’s anus.”

Mr. Fisher then dedicates a number of paragraphs in his article to minimizing the questionable use of this term in much the same way as Green MP Chloe Swarbrick tried to dance around the seriousness of the term.

Mr. Fisher relies on the opinion of Mr. Goodsir who advances several issues about this word and its use. In some respects the arguments advanced are a post-modern critical theory explanation justifying and explaining the use of language in sub-groups of the community. Given that these sub-groups may be marginalized and those criticizing them may be empowered, inevitably a neo-Marxist dialectic becomes apparent, suggesting that the critique of Mr. Doyle’s use of language is a further example of the suppression of disempowerment of a marginalised group.

Mr. Goodsir advances the following matters.

First, Mr. Goodsir explains that the term "bussy" has a more nuanced meaning within the queer community. ​ It is a conflation of "boy" and a slang term for female genitalia, commonly understood to mean a male’s anus. ​ He emphasizes that those outside the queer community might not realize its specific meaning.

Essentially Mr. Goodsir is not denying the scatological meaning associated with the word.

​Secondly Mr. Goodsir points out that marginalized communities use provocative language to challenge the status quo and signify their identities. ​ Terms like "twink," "bear," "femme," "otter," and "dyke" are examples of slang developed within queer sub-groups.

This is where the marginalized rationale shines through. The suggestion is that this is provocative language but another explanation could be that it is code for concepts or activities that would not be acceptable by those in the mainstream of society.​

Mr Goodsir then goes on to explain that queer communities have sought to reclaim words like "queer," "sissy," and "f****t," which might seem shocking to many people but are part of the community's effort to assert their identity. ​

This is another example of the curious rationale and justification for the use of language that might be offensive or unacceptable to many.

Mr. Goodsir continues this theme, highlighting that queer communities have developed their own language with specific meanings within their groups. ​ Some of this slang has entered mainstream use, such as "slay" and "yassification." ​

He explains that within some queer communities, "-ussy" is a meme added to various words, creating new slang terms in an effort to justify its use. ​ The American Dialect Society even named "-ussy" as the 2022 word of the year, recognizing its creative use in word formation. ​

Mr. Goodsir notes that meme-ified language is common in public health advocacy, particularly in AIDS advocacy, to communicate important health messages effectively within the community. ​In other words, the use of slang or words that perhaps lack precision in meaning may be justified in a public health context.

Finally Mr. Goodsir argues that the use of such language by Doyle is consistent with his role as a public health campaigner, a queer community member, and a parent, and should be understood within that context.

By using Mr Goodsir to explain and justify the use of language that might otherwise be viewed as of questionable meaning and taste, Mr. Fisher attempts to justify, in a pseudo-academic and nebulously sociological manner, its use.

Mr. Fisher uses a number of paragraphs to put Mr. Goodsir’s view across. A simpler way of explaining his use of language and what it means one only needs to turn to Chapter VI of Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through the Looking Glass. In a discussion about meaning Humpty Dumpty says

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Similarly with Mr. Goodsir and also indirectly with Ms. Swarbrick.

Another aspect of Mr. Fisher’s article is the expanded explanation that he gives for the fact that MSM was slow to publish reports of the issue.

In this respect it should be noted that political correspondent Audrey Young explained that the absence of a story in mainstream media does not mean it is not being worked on or that questions are not being asked. ​ Decisions not to cover stories may be made based on journalistic ethics rather than to protect the subject or a political party.

Mr. Fisher goes further to explain that MSM considerations include ensuring that haste in publication does not create collateral damage, especially involving identifiable children.

He further leavens the issue by embarking upon a discussion of defamation law. As an aside I should observe that MSM is terrified of defamation proceedings. They are complex, time consuming and expensive, not only if there is a payout but also in legal fees. It is perhaps for this reason that Mr. Fisher embarked upon the discussion observing that defamation lawyer, Robert Stewart KC notes that responsible communication of information requires seeking comment from the person facing the claim and subsequent reporting in a reasonable, measured way. ​ This is often where online communications fall short.

In Mr Stewart’s view to suggest or imply someone has an unhealthy interest in children is a defamatory imputation. In this day and age, to say someone - any adult – has a sexual interest in children is very defamatory.

Mr Fisher then went on to discuss the issue of the public interest defence to defamation and to a responsible communication of information.

“By “responsible”, the courts would consider the information replied on and require whoever made the claim to show they had sought comment from the person facing the claim with subsequent reporting happening in a reasonable, measured way.

“That’s where most of these online communications fall down because no approach for comment is sought. When you have a pile-on and someone makes an allegation with many, many comments echoing approval, unless the allegation is true, it would be very hard to see there is a defence.”

The message behind all this is to explain why it is that MSM must be so careful in publishing allegations sourced on social media. Yet the contradiction comes when one considers how the media, like sharks scenting blood in the water, followed up on social media posts by Leo Molloy surrounding allegation of an incident at Pak N’Save involving Golriz Ghahramani. For my commentary on that see Blood in the Water.

On the face of it the following observations about Mr. Fisher’s article can be made:

First, superficially the general tone of the article appears to be investigative and informative. It aims to provide a detailed and balanced account of the allegations against Green MP Benjamin Doyle, the reactions from various parties, and the broader implications of the scandal. ​

Mr Fisher explains the allegations and outlines the accusations and the context in which they arose. ​

He presents viewpoints from different stakeholders, including political figures, members of the queer community, and legal experts.

He discusses the amplification of the claims through social media and the responses from mainstream media and provides explanations of specific terms and their meanings within the queer community and touches on the ethical considerations involved in reporting such sensitive issues. ​

Overall, superficially the tone appears to be neutral, aiming to inform readers without taking a definitive stance on the allegations, while emphasizing the complexity and sensitivity of the situation.

But at the same time it is clear that this is an article further justifying MSM’s tardiness in following up on the story by explaining the legal and ethical thickets to be navigated – thickets I might add that MSM has not felt necessary to navigate on earlier occasions.

In addition there is a suggestion that some of the critics of Mr. Doyle are using the matter to gain political advantage. One such is Deputy PM Winston Peters who posed the question (possibly rhetorically because that is what he does).

“Let me ask you this question, why would you pull 52 posts if they were respectable?”

Rhetorical or not, that is a reasonable question about an action from which an inference may be drawn. But Mr. Fisher turns to Dr Sanjana Hattotuwa for an explanation which seems to devolve the question into an accusation.

By way of background Dr Hattotuwa was formerly with the Disinformation Project and was given to extravagant and often generalised assertions rather than revealing the sources of evidence for his conclusions. In my view his assertions need to be treated with caution, but this is not the first time that Mr. Fisher has called Dr Hattotuwa in aid.

Dr Hattotuwa suggested that among those online following the developing issue, the deleted posts were “a major point of suspicion”.

That would be a fair conclusion and no doubt the question which was posed by Mr Peters was similarly posed by those following the developing story online.

Dr Hattotuwa goes on to assert

“This is widely interpreted as evidence of guilt or consciousness of wrongdoing, with the logic that innocent content would not need to be hidden. The mass deletion is seen as an admission through action that the content was inappropriate, undermining the Green Party’s defence of Doyle.”

So what Mr Hattotuwa is saying is that the deletion of material was evidence of guilt or an awareness of wrongdoing, or an admission by virtue of that action that the content was inappropriate.

That actually does not necessarily follow and this is yet another example of Dr Hattotuwa’s propensity for sweeping generalisations. What the removal of the material amounts to is an action which, when considered alongside other evidence available may form the basis for an inference to be drawn.

Sadly, Dr. Hattotuwa conflates the evidence as the conclusion without undertaking the intermediate reasoning steps necessary to support the conclusion if it is available.

What appears at the outset to be an analysis of the current concerns surrounding Mr. Benjamin Doyle becomes a justification for media inaction and a dilution of the seriousness of the allegations and the apparent lack of judgement on the part of a person whose judgement is relied upon by his constituency (albeit that he is a list MP).

There are a number of things that need to be explained in this matter and questions which need to be answered. Sadly, this article does not shed further light on the matter save for the unusual use of language that seems to have characterised the whole issue.

Some straight (forgive the term) talking would help rather than the verbal mish-mash embarked upon by Ms Swarbrick, the neo-Marxist justification of the soi-disant Mr. Goodsir and the dilution of the seriousness of the matter by Mr. Fisher.