The Vicious Face of Mainstream Media

More on the Reporting of "La'Affaire Doyle"

I have written two pieces on what I call L’Affaire Doyle. The first was entitled “The Peevish Face of Mainstream Media” and examined commentary that had come from Audrey Young and the work that had been done by citizen journalists in bringing the matter to the attention of the public.

The second piece was entitled “The Righteous Face of Mainstream Media” and analysed David Fisher’s so-called “Anatomy of a Scandal. I was critical of Mr. Fisher’s approach, his referencing and the fact that the article did not shed further light on the matter save for the unusual use of language that seems to have characterised the whole issue.

Since then L’Affaire has gained momentum and Mr Doyle has stepped up to explain his position. He did little better than his leader Chloe Swarbrick in explaining himself using mish-mash language that has characterised the matter.

In some respects Mr Doyle seems to continue propensity that the Greens have to approach language from the perspective of Humpty Dumpty in “Alice Through the Looking Glass” where the following exchange takes place:

“'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.'”

This would describe succinctly the approach of the Greens when confronted with an unpleasant truth – because some of the expressions that Mr Doyle used were unwise and unpleasant. He explains them by redefining and realigning them, attributing them to himself.

Lest it be thought I am being insensitive in failing to use Mr Doyle’s pronouns, an examination of his quotes in the media reveals that he moves fluidly from the first person personal pronoun (I) to the first person plural pronoun (we) with deceptive ease. It would seems that Mr Doyle, rather like the Cheshire Cat, is what and when he chooses to be.

Indeed, one wonders whether or not the Greens inhabit the alternative universe of Looking Glass Land but that may be a philosophical question that this writer might find too complex to answer.

But the real matter of concern is the way that mainstream media has reported the matter. Apart from the media stand-up which was a highly scripted affair and was reported by RNZ under the headline “'I refuse to be disappeared by hate' - Green MP Benjamin Doyle responds to social media scrutiny”. There have been a couple of articles which deserve comment.

Video of Mr. Doyle’s stand-up – and you have to give him full marks for staunch courage – is available as part of the RNZ report. But the hard questions were not asked of him.

The Post had an interesting approach. Andrea Vance and Charlie Mitchell wrote a story under the headline “Businessman behind toxic online Benjamin Doyle campaign”. The use of the word “toxic” makes it clear that this was not going to be a balanced or impartial article.

Paragraph two of the article states:

“Rhys Williams, from New Plymouth, is behind the inflammatory X (formerly Twitter) account @2ETEKA, which last month unearthed posts from Doyle’s pre-Parliament Instagram page, “BibleBeltBussy”.

The article then proceeds to do a hit job on Mr Williams who started his X account to encourage people to vote for NZ First. So clearly, as far as Vance and Mitchell were concerned, he was a “bad guy”.

The article then goes on to report some of Mr Williams’ posts and messages and records that the "account lavishes praise on NZ First while heaping vitriol on the party’s perceived enemies — including journalists, academics, and rival politicians.”

After recording the content of some of these posts, and lest readers are incapable of making up their own minds about them, the authors move into mode judgemental noting that

“Despite these highly personal and vulgar attacks, @2ETEKA is followed by various senior NZ First figures, including party president Julian Paul, party secretary Holly Howard, board member Helma Vermeulen, and MPs Shane Jones, Jenny Marcroft, and Tanya Unkovich.”

But memories are short. Mr Doyle’s Instagram account was followed by a number of members of the Green Party such as the voluble Ms Swarbrick.

The article then moved into what is noted as a legal grey zone. One commentator suggested that there may be potential defamation liability.

Then there is a remarkable paragraph which reads:

“Unlike defamation law, where the person making the claims has to prove them to be true, in the harmful digital communications regime, the person seeking an order must prove them false.”

It is correct that if a person brings an action in defamation, the defendant has a defence if he or she can prove that the statements made are true. Truth is a defence to an allegation of defamation.

But it is the second part of the paragraph that is confusing. The suggestion is that a person who is claiming relief under the HDCA and who seeks a takedown order must prove the allegations are false.

That is patently wrong. A person seeking a take down order (for example) must prove that the digital communication breached a communications principle and must also prove that the digital communication caused harm (which is defined as serious emotional distress).

There are 10 communications principles. One of them is that a digital communication should not make a false allegation. But that is one of a number of other principles such as the disclosure of sensitive personal facts or that a digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual or should not be indecent or obscene. There are others.

But the truth or otherwise of the allegation is not determinative. Section 19(5) HDCA sets out eleven matters that the Court musty take into account. One of these matters is the truth or falsity of the allegation.

And the fact that seems to have eluded the authors of the article is that even if the allegation is true, it can still qualify for consideration for an order under the HDCA. Other issues such as the intention of the communicator, the content of the communication, the level of likely harm, the age and vulnerability of the affected individual are some of the matters that can be taken into account.

Why isn’t truth a defence? Because the truth can hurt. Remember that one of the communications principles relates to the disclosure of sensitive personal information. That information may be true. But its disclosure is still a breach of a communications principles.

This is a level of nuance that the writers have not taken into account. And furthermore, when they sought advice from barrister Graeme Edgeler their enquiries seem to have been directed towards establishing an offence under section 22 rather than what is required for a takedown order.

The matter was not clarified by law lecturer Cassandra Mudgway who was concerned about the volume of abuse suffered by Mr Doyle.

So what do we have from the Post. A hit job on Mr. Williams and misinformation about the law. I use the word “misinformation” because I don’t believe that the authors of the article intended to mislead their audience. But it is clear that they asked the wrong questions.

Furthermore, the article is a text-book case of deflection. Rather than examining the allegations about Mr Doyle and asking the hard questions arising from the inferences that were available, Ms Vance and Mr Mitchell went after another target.

That approach does little to enhance confidence in mainstream media – confidence in one of the authors which is further eroded when a piece of text message trivia revealed from an OIA request was elevated to “news”. I have discussed that in “When Trivia Becomes News”.

The Herald had a different take on the tactics of deflection. The Herald chose to run an op-ed piece under the headline “Green MP Benjamin Doyle has been the victim of a moral panic – Opinion” by one Paul Thistoll.

It would have been a good idea if Mr Thistoll’s article had been subjected to the watchful eye of a sub-editor but I understand they no longer play a role in the Herald, more is the pity.

Mr. Thistoll uses his pen like a shotgun – a shotgun on a wide choke – and the targets are many. Clearly Mr Thistoll has relished the opportunity to not only explain how badly Mr Doyle been victimised but also takes the opportunity to settle a few scores that he may have with those with whom he disagrees or with whom he has had longstanding disputes.

Sadly Mr Thistoll had not caught up with Ms Vance’s revelations. Mr Thistoll states:

“The identity of the chief inquisitor, an X user called “Holyhekatuiteka,” remains anonymous in true Kafka-esque fashion.”

There is an irony in this statement. The background image to Mr Thistoll’s X account is of Goya’s “Auto de fe de la Inquisición” – The Inquisition Tribunal. A Freudian slip perchance.

Mr Thistoll gives a number of reasons which have led to what he describes as the latest witch-hunt – although I always thought that the Inquisition was more concerned with heretics.

But this gives Mr Thistoll the opportunity to spray the landscape with his pen as a shotgun. First he refers to the tour of New Zealand by James Lindsay. This gives him a chance to fire a shot at the Free Speech Union (FSU) as well as Ani O’Brien who has written on L’Affaire Doyle.

Mr Thistoll then – for a completely unrelated reason – casts himself as a censor and says:

“As CEO of Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa, I personally contacted venues, including Parliament’s Speaker, urging them not to platform him.”

Mr Thistoll has done this to other speakers supported by the FSU.

He then moves to point two of his critique where once again the target is the FSU, before moving on to a discussion about the Government’s puberty blocker review, a letter by FSU council member and former ACT MP Stephen Franks to providers of gender affirming care and winds up with Winston Peters’ “outing” of Mr. Doyle.

Then Mr Thistoll goes into a combination of deflection or explanation for matters which have cause the public concern – the use of the word “bussy” which seems to have fluid meanings, a photo that was probably ill-advised to be present on a world wide social network and the bookshelf, some of the titles of which are interesting.

Mr Thistoll then concludes with the following call:

“If you capitulate to this moral panic, they will simply advance to the next target. This follows the Kafka playbook precisely — anonymous accusers, an unidentified tribunal, and no right to defence.”

But he is wrong. The playbook was not that of Kafka. It was of the Spanish Inquisition – anonymous accusers, presumptions of guilt, guilt by “infama” and of course no opportunity for a defence.

Sadly, Mr Thistoll’s rant seemed to have attracted the Herald editorial suite and they have given him a platform to fire off a number of shots in a number of directions that bore little relevance to L’Affaire Doyle.

Mr Thistoll is entitled to express his opinion, although from what I gather of his background he would not accord me the same right. The Internet provides plenty of opportunities for him to do so, and he is well familiar with them.

But once again mainstream media has let down the public by supporting this clearly biased view and has given Mr Thistoll the opportunity to wage his pet hates against those he sees as enemies. But he sheds little light on L’Affair Doyle.