Trust in academics is on a downslide, as is trust in general. This is exacerbated by academics hiding a personal-political agenda when they dabble in the public domain.
Dr Bryce Edwards recently wrote a piece (https://democracyproject.nz/2023/05/10/bryce-edwards-the-civil-war-in-the-greens/) that paints a negative and distorted picture of the Green Party and its policies. He claims that the Greens are divided into two factions, struggling in the polls, and distracted by cultural issues. He also questions whether the Greens have achieved much while in government, and criticises their ministers for not doing enough on Climate Change, housing, or homelessness.
However, the piece by Edwards is not politically neutral or objective, but rather biased against the Greens and their social justice agenda. The article contains speculative content, anti-Green Party bias, and lacks political neutrality and objectivity.
The article uses emotive and derogatory language, sometimes contained in selective quotes from other sources, to describe the Green Party and its members, such as “infighting”, “plot”, “rebel”, “dirty politics”, “whispering campaign”, “kangaroo court”, “shenanigans”, “culture wars”, “self-absorbed student activism”, and “pettiness”. And “woke”, of course.
Edwards also portrays the Green Party as divided into two factions: the environmental faction led by James Shaw and the social justice faction led by Elizabeth Kerekere and others. He implies that the environmental faction is more legitimate, reasonable, and popular than the social justice faction, which is depicted as radical, disruptive, and marginal.
Of course, the Green Party is not perfect, and they have faced some difficulties and disagreements within their caucus and membership. However, these are not signs of a Civil War, but rather of a vibrant and diverse democracy within the Party that allows for different opinions and perspectives and tries reaching decisions by consensus. The Green Party has always had a mix of ideological threads, including environmentalism and social justice, which are interrelated and complementary issues. Dr Edwards cannot be oblivious to this and feign ignorance, which makes it even more puzzling when he makes those categorical claims without providing evidence for them.
The article relies on unnamed sources, such as “a number of party staffers”, “some activists”, and “members he [Thomas Coughlan] spoke to”, to make claims about the internal conflict and dissatisfaction in the Green Party. It does not provide any evidence or verification for these claims, nor does it present any alternative or opposing perspectives from other sources within or outside the party. Thus, it is unfair and lacks balance.
In the article, Edwards speculates that the Green Party is struggling in the polls and may lose support or seats in the next election due to its internal conflict and focus on social justice issues. He does not provide any data or analysis to support this speculation, nor does he acknowledge any other factors that may affect the Green Party’s performance or popularity. His claims are easily debunked by looking at the opinion polls that have been conducted since the last election on 17 October 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_New_Zealand_general_election) and they show that support for the Greens has been quite steady. It seems to be wishful thinking on Edwards’ behalf.
The article questions whether the Green Party has achieved much while in government, and criticises its Ministers for not doing enough on Climate Change, housing, or homelessness. This is not a new problem and highlights the problem of a minor government partner not always receiving the acknowledgment it deserves and not always credit where credit is due – the reasons for this are diverse, yet continued by this one-sided article by Edwards. The article does not acknowledge any of the achievements or challenges that the Green Party has faced while in government, nor does it recognise any of the constraints or compromises that the Green Party has had to make as a minor partner in a coalition government with Labour.
In fact, the Green Party has achieved quite a lot while in government, such as leading climate action with the Zero Carbon Act and the Climate Change Commission, ending or at least limiting new offshore oil and gas exploration to protect our planet, creating many new nature-based jobs with the Jobs for Nature programme, et cetera.
I think Edwards’ article could be considered manipulative or misleading, as it presents a distorted and negative picture of the Green Party and its policies, without providing any balance or context. The article could influence political opinion by discouraging potential voters or supporters from choosing the Green Party, or by creating a perception that the Green Party is weak, divided, and irrelevant. I believe it could also suggest a political agenda by the author, who may have a preference for another party or ideology, or who may have a personal or professional animosity towards the Green Party or its members. However, this is a pure speculation on my behalf, of course.
Bryce Edwards does feature a lot in NZ media and has a high profile. Therefore, his opinions, which are wrong and unfair, in my view, have a relatively wide reach that could sway a relatively large number of voters. This is relevant, in my opinion, because the upcoming General Election is an important opportunity for the people of New Zealand to choose their representatives and their future direction. I think it is vital that voters have access to accurate and balanced information and analysis, and that they are aware of any potential manipulation or misleading information in the media.
Dr Bryce Edwards is not only a political pundit and Lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington, but also the Director of The Democracy Project, a research company that claims to enhance New Zealand democracy and public life by promoting critical thinking, analysis, debate, and engagement on politics and society (https://democracyproject.nz/about/). The Democracy Project is hosted by the University, but independently run by Edwards, with help from independent researchers. They say they are resolutely non-partisan and ‘for the public good’.
However, this may create a false impression of academic objectivity, impartiality, and neutrality. On the one hand, Edwards may use his academic credentials and institutional affiliation to lend credibility and authority to his opinions. On the other hand, he may use his independent status and editorial freedom to express his personal preferences or agendas without being accountable to any academic standards or ethical principles other than the much weaker ones that apply to NZ media & broadcasting. This could be misleading or manipulative for the readers who may not be aware of Edwards’ political views or interests – I am not aware of them because he has never openly and explicitly disclosed them, as far as I know. He cannot have it both ways.
For example, in his piece, Edwards criticises the Green Party for being captured by the middle class and the social justice agenda, which he regards as superficial and self-interested. He also praises the environmental faction of the party, which he sees as more legitimate and popular. However, these views are not based on any rigorous or balanced research or analysis, but rather seem to be based on his own ideological bias and speculation. In fact, Edwards has written several other articles for The Democracy Project that reveal his disdain for what he calls the ‘woke’ politics of the Green Party and other progressive movements (e.g., his recent criticism of The Disinformation Project, which I would like to tackle in another Post, as this one is already getting way too long). He has also expressed his admiration for some conservative politicians and parties that oppose the Green Party’s policies and values, or at least portrayed them in a positive or favourable light, compared to his portrayal of the Greens.
Therefore, I think it is important to expose Edwards’ potential bias and agenda, and to challenge his claim to be non-partisan and ‘for the public good’. I think we, the voters, at least deserve this.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress