Posted
17th July 2001
Press'd Into Ill-fitting Armour
by
Chris Trotter
There is always something vaguely unsettling in the spectacle
of a large newspaper striding into the political arena. It calls
to mind the fate of those Renaissance princes unfortunate enough
to encounter Pope Julius II in full armour, riding at the head
of a Papal army and hurling threats of excommunication towards
his astonished foes.
The juxtaposition is all wrong. God and Caesar are not supposed
to mix; nor is the Fourth Estate at liberty to mingle with the
other three. One of the more obvious reasons a newspaper should
remain aloof from the political fray is the enormous risk that
"advocacy journalism" will get the news media into trouble.
Think of the damage done to Television New Zealand's reputation
by the ill-fated "For the Public Good". The programme, which
purported to examine the fourth Labour government's links with
big business, set back critical television journalism by nearly
a decade through its failure to sheet home accusations of corruption
with hard and irrefutable evidence. Politicians on both sides
of the political divide seized upon this lapse as proof of the
medium's ingrained irresponsibility.
The
SOE's management was quick to take the hint. "For the Public
Good" was an example of left-wing advocacy journalism. Much
more common; and much less criticised; is advocacy journalism
from the right. This usually takes the form of a "crusade" against
some widely acknowledged social evil: drugs, prostitution, pornography
or child abuse. The results can often be spectacular. The heft
of a mass circulation daily, or a television network, is usually
sufficient to move even the most obdurate of politicians.
Less frequent, and much more dangerous, is a newspaper crusade
designed to promote a set of highly contentious economic and/or
foreign policy objectives. Remarkably, this is precisely what
New Zealand's largest daily newspaper, the New Zealand Herald,
has launched. From a week-long series of articles entitled Our
Turn, written by veteran political journalist, Simon Collins,
the Herald's leader-writers extracted a set of extremely controversial
conclusions. Not least of these is the contention that New Zealand's
best hope for economic progress lies in joining the United States,
Canada and Mexico in an expanded North American Free Trade Agreement.
A key element in promoting the NAFTA "solution" was a breakfast
seminar organised by Herald associate editor, Fran O'Sullivan.
Keynote speaker at the seminar was former Canadian Prime Minister
Brian Mulroney, a member of the international advisory board
of Independent News & Media, owners of the Herald's publishers,
Wilson & Horton.
It was at the instigation of the CEO of Independent News & Media,
Tony O'Reilly, that Mulroney consented to spread the free-trade
gospel down under. O'Sullivan parlayed the Herald's so-called
"partner" status in the forthcoming "Catching the Knowledge
Wave" Conference to link, at least conceptually, Mulroney's
message on NAFTA and free trade, with the University of Auckland/NZ
government-organised conference's somewhat more prosaic objective
of upskilling the New Zealand workforce. The joining of these
two issues certainly made for an interesting guest list, with
the Business Roundtable's Roger Kerr rubbing shoulders with
Infrastructure Auckland's Hugh Fletcher, and Carter Holt Harvey's
Chris Liddell hobnobbing with the Auckland City Mission's Diane
Robertson.
O'Sullivan was fulsome in her praise of Mulroney's achievements.
Writing in the Weekend Herald of 7 July, she observed that:
"The extraordinary economic dividend Canada has achieved from
joining NAFTA is compelling to all those who have this week
heard the Mulroney message: Exports up from $C100 billion ($163
billion) a year to $C360 billion. Imports increased from $C86
billion to $C268 billion. "The relationship between Canada and
the United States is now worth $C700 billion and is still growing.
Most importantly, the Canadian mindset has changed and, notwithstanding
vocal home grown critics, such as anti-globalist poster girl
Naomi Klein, Mulroney's countrymen now rejoice in the transformation
of their resource-based economy to a high-technology platform."
The reference to Naomi Klein is significant. On the same day
that Mulroney spoke to O'Sullivan's carefully selected audiences,
Klein herself was in Auckland. A group of anti-free-trade admirers
in the Alliance, taking advantage of the No Logo promotional
tour, had booked her into the Mt Eden RSA Memorial Hall for
a public meeting.
The
Memorial Hall on Dominion Road is a large venue, but by 8.15pm
it was full to overflowing with between 800 and 1,000 mostly
young people who had forsaken Friends and Ally McBeal to hear
"the poster girl of the anti-globalist movement" speak on the
topic of global resistance. Youth Affairs Minister Laila Harre's
speech welcoming Klein contained a stinging critique of the
confused objectives of Prime Minister Helen Clark's Labour Party.
Harre noted afterwards: "It's a long time since we've filled
a hall this big." The fact that the Herald declined to cover
what was easily the largest political gathering in Auckland
since the 1999 general election exposes the ethical and journalistic
problems involved in taking a one-sided approach to issues over
which the public is genuinely divided.
Committed to the world-view of its very own "poster boy for
the pro-globalist movement," New Zealand's nearest thing to
a journal of record was more or less required to pretend that
the other side of the argument didn't exist. Klein's Wellington
meeting of 5 July, which attracted more than 500 people, was
similarly ignored by the news media. A media coverage search
by staff of the Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs & Trade;
out of whose office the Klein visit was organised; failed to
find any reference whatsoever to Klein's public meetings. The
visiting author was feted as a celebrity in the Review and Lifestyle
sections of the print media, and was interviewed by John Campbell
on National Radio. But in her role as newsmaker Klein was treated
as a "non-person," touting what was apparently a non-argument.
The
Herald took more than a week to acknowledge that Brian Mulroney's
enthusiasm for NAFTA might not be universal. And when it did,
it was not Klein's views it published but those of Murray Dobbin,
a Vancouver freelance writer and board member of the Canadian
Centre of Policy Alternatives. www.policyalternatives.org Dobbin's
description of Mulroney as "the most unpopular Prime Minister
in Canadian history" blew through the Herald's pages like a
breath of fresh air. In O'Sullivan's Weekend Herald article
there had been nothing resembling criticism of the way in which
Mulroney crashed on through the loud objections of his own people.
Also missing was any reference to the fact that his party had
been willing to ratify a free trade agreement rejected by 53%
of Canadian voters.
The electoral oblivion to which Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives
were eventually consigned; their parliamentary numbers fell
from 155 to two; occasioned only the tiniest pause in O'Sullivan's
encomium: "Distilling and protecting their political legacies
is a common preoccupation with former Prime Ministers. In Mulroney's
case, despite the political wipeout, he can draw rare pleasure
from a McGill University Study which ranks him as Canada's best
post-war leader on his management of the economy." No doubt
Mulroney also draws rare pleasure from the fact that, after
a job well done, he is able to enjoy his senior partnership
in the Montreal-based law firm Ogilvy Renault, his directorships
in Quebecor, Barrick Gold and Archer Daniels Midland and his
chairmanship of Sun Media and Forbes Global. It would be interesting
to learn McGill University's criteria for successful economic
management, because the Canadian statistics are hardly encouraging.
As Naomi Klein told her Mt Eden audience: "Mr Mulroney obviously
believes that the numbers are his friends, but he is wrong."
Between 1989 and 1996, after Canada first entered into the free
trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, the country's
manufacturing sector experienced a 13% decline. The income gap
between the top 10% of families and the bottom 10% rose from
50-1 to 314-1. Because of competitive pressures under the FTA
and NAFTA, Canada has been forced to sharply reduce its social
programmes. For example, in 1989, the year the FTA took effect,
87% of unemployed Canadians were covered by unemployment insurance.
By 1997, just 37% qualified (allowing for provincial variations).
The ownership of a significant daily newspaper, in the context
of a society which still subscribes to the precepts of democracy,
entails a number of crucial responsibilities. Foremost among
these is the responsibility to provide its readers; citizens
all; with the information they require to arrive at sound judgments
about political and economic affairs. The New Zealand Herald's
campaigning stance on the issue of free trade, its advocacy
journalism in favour of joining NAFTA, and its close association
with the knowledge conference; a government propaganda exercise;
call into question both its willingness and its ability to accept
that responsibility. Indeed, the Herald's leader-writers demonstrate
an impatience with the democratic process that is truly worrying.
It's almost as if they believe that the voting public and politicians
who "pander" to its "prejudices" are not to be trusted with
economic decision-making. An explanation, perhaps, for the Herald's
failure to invite the Associate Minister of Foreign Relations
& Trade, Matt Robson; a critic of free trade; to any of the
Mulroney gatherings?
New
Zealanders do not need more propaganda on the issue of free
trade. What they need is factual information, dispassionate
analysis and balanced commentary. By all means cover the comments
of Brian Mulroney. But report those of Naomi Klein as well.
Chris
Trotter is editor of NZ Political Review.......
..
|