Trotter on Wilson

More on that "unfortunate article" by Simon Wilson

There are occasions when one feels - even with an actively participating audience - that one’s voice is the only one in the room - a rather large room and a very small voice. It is gratifying when other voices - more authoritative and eloquent voices - join the discussion. What follows is another point of view on Simon Wilson’s article which I discussed in another article. I agree with it and I realise that I risk being accused of creating an echo chamber. But what is important is that citizens must be able to engage in a critical analysis of the messaging that is coming out of mainstream media. The observations by Mr. Trotter - developed below - on the journalist’s “duty” to “improve society” add another analytical tool that eraders may use.

Chris Trotter is a writer whom I admire although over the years he and I have occupied different (some might say opposite) poles on the political spectrum. But Mr. Trotter writes well, eloquently, thoughtfully and often persuasively. Once upon a time he was aligned with the Traditional Left, writing alongside such Leftwing luminaries as the late Bruce Jesson.

Mr. Trotter is the author of No Left Turn, a political history of New Zealand. Novelist, poet and critic C.K Stead described the book as "a dashingly written and persuasive elegy for the Scandinavian-style socialist democracy New Zealand might have been, and at the same time a realistic (though at times appropriately angry) acknowledgement that, given the forces, internal and external, ranged against it, the chances of it happening, and lasting, were never very good."

In July 2018, Mr. Trotter joined the Free Speech Coalition, a group of former politicians, lawyers, journalists, and academics that pursued legal action against the Mayor of Auckland and former Labour leader Phil Goff for denying Auckland Council facilities to two Canadian alt-right activists Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.

Mr. Trotter justified his defense of the two alt-right activists' free speech by arguing that left-wing opponents of the tour lacked the courage to debate the alt-right.

By 2021, Mr. Trotter was involved with the Coalition, which had relaunched itself as the New Zealand Free Speech Union. The organisation is led by former National Party adviser Jonathan Ayling and claims to be a bipartisan organisation with both right and left-wing members. I should disclose, in the interests of transparency, that I am a member of the Free Speech Union

In late March 2023, Mr. Trotter criticised the conduct of counter-demonstrators protesting against controversial feminist and anti-transgender activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who attempted to speak in Auckland's Albert Park, describing their aggressive behaviour as a thug's veto against free speech. He also criticised the Labour and Green parties and elements of the media including TVNZ's Jack Tame for allegedly inflaming opposition against Keen-Minshull, and criticised the Police for their perceived inaction in maintaining peace between Keen-Minshull's supporters and the counter-demonstrators.

Mr. Trotter has written a piece for the Law Association’s weekly publication LawNews. His article is entitled “Does Anybody Still Care About the Media”. It was published on Friday 19 April and is the first “read” of my Friday morning.

In his article Mr. Trotter analyses and describes what he sees as the role of a journalist and the suggestion that was made by Michael Morrah that it was to try and improve society. Mr. Trotter argues

“Good journalism, as opposed to skilful propaganda, does not seek to improve but to inform: to tell the world what is happening in a specific place, at a specific time, to a specific group of people – and why. The journalist is not a missionary or – God forbid! – a politician. The journalist, like Rudyard Kipling’s creation, the Elephant’s Child, should simply be afflicted with “’satiable curiosity”.”

Mr. Trotter develops the “improvement of society” theme by commenting:

“Perhaps the thrill of imparting information crucial to the health of their readers, listeners and viewers, and to the “improvement” of society as a whole, was just too satisfying. So, why stop? After all, if it is the duty of a journalist to promote the vaccination of the population in the midst of a pandemic, then it is surely also the duty of the journalist to do all he or she can to combat the socio-political viruses of white supremacy, Islamophobia, transphobia and misogyny? And if it is okay to deny a platform to conspiratorial anti-vaxxers, then why not do the same to all those racist reactionaries out there declaiming against indigenisation and decolonization?”

Then Mr Trotter turns his sights on Simon Wilson as an exemplar of the “improvement of society “ type of journalism.

I have already commented upon this piece in my piece “Journalists Write: A Discussion in Print with Simon Wilson on Media Woes”. Mr. Trotter’s approach is to consider the problems that arise when journalists “try and improve society in some form”. I reproduce his argument on Mr. Wilson’s piece in full rather than attempt to precis it. The piece is a helpful contribution to the debate on media woes. Mr. Wilson’s full article can be found here. Mr. Trotter’s commentary is as follows:

“That this is more than a mere thought experiment is confirmed in Trust down, jobs gone, what’s the media going to do now?, a think-piece by The New Zealand Herald’s senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues (whew!), Simon Wilson.

Digging down into JMAD’s statistics, Wilson emerges triumphantly with the news that the New Zealanders expressing the least trust and confidence in the news media are “middleaged Pakeha”. 

“Where have we heard that before?” Wilson asks rhetorically. “Only everywhere.” Then he really goes to town.

“Turns out the people who complain the most about media are the people who complain the most about everything. Taxes and rates. Having to drive more slowly in suburbs and on dangerous open roads. Climate change. Housing density. Breaking the cycles of violence and illness associated with poverty. And especially the rise of te reo Māori and all the other ways Māori get ‘special treatment’.”

This is what a journalist sounds like when he decides to “try and improve society in some form”. Suddenly, a whole host of controversial and complex issues, all of them likely to inspire heated debate, are strapped onto “advocacy” journalism’s Procrustean bed and made to fit. At least, that was the plan, but at some point during 2023 (could it have been around the time of the general election?) something went wrong. Somehow, the “shouty arguments of the fringe moved into the mainstream”. 

Wilson’s solution? “First, we need to stake a bigger claim to the hearts and minds of people who believe in a decent, inclusive, cohesive society. Let’s be biased towards them.”

It’s difficult to translate these words into anything other than: “Let’s be biased in favour of the people who think like Simon.”

Undaunted, Wilson pushes on: “I believe we should do this because it’s the right thing to do, and also because it might even work. And yes, this is a constructive way of saying we should stop paying so much attention to all the angry people shouting at us.” 

In other words, having weighed up all the factors involved in the public’s loss of trust and confidence in the news media; having discovered how many people believe themselves to be the victims of consistent media bias; having learned how many thousands of readers, listeners and viewers have already voted Commercial Lease Rent Reviews with their feet; the conclusion of those journalists intent upon improving the world is to go on doing what they’re doing – and to hell with their “shouty” critics.

Wilson’s think-piece is one of the most eloquent explanations for why fewer and fewer people trust the news media. Albeit unintentionally, he has revealed the critical challenge facing media owners – the seemingly ineradicable didacticism of their employees. These are no longer people afflicted with an insatiable curiosity to know what’s going on, but with a fixed determination to tell the world what it should think, and what it should do.

And it’s everywhere. In a widely-read post on The Free Press website, former senior executive at the USA’s National Public Radio, Uri Berliner, laments the American public’s loss of trust in the radio station that once boasted a huge and loyal audience encompassing listeners from across the political spectrum. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Berliner’s prescription for recovery is rather different from Wilson’s.

“With declining ratings, sorry levels of trust and an audience that has become less diverse over time, the trajectory for NPR is not promising. Two paths seem clear. We can keep doing what we’re doing, hoping it will all work out. Or we could start over, with the basic building blocks of journalism. We could face up to where we’ve gone wrong. News organizations don’t go in for that kind of reckoning. But there’s a good reason for NPR to be the first: we’re the ones with the word ‘public’ in our name.”

One of the constant refrains of those lamenting the loss of Newshub and the paring back of TVNZ’s news and current affairs is that it will be “bad for democracy”. Well, maybe. Is the single party-line communicated by the Chinese media considered “good” for democracy?

Public communication which tells only one story about any given issue and proposes only one solution has very little to do with democracy. What does sound like an invaluable adjunct to a democratic society, however, are journalists eager to publicise “angry people shouting” at the Powers That Be. And even more eager to discover why.”

I have selected portions of Mr. Trotter’s article. I recommend, in the interests of fairness and a full assessment of the argument, a reading of the piece in full which can be found here The piece starts at page 8.