Mediawatch is one of the best shows in NZ. The weekend episode on Hit and Run was excellent:
Hit and Run: claims and counterclaims
The PM says there is no basis for an inquiry into the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan, yet editorial opinion in the media overwhelmingly backs one. Has the meaning of book Hit and Run been obscured by all the claims and counter-claims in the media?
Yes of course it has, and that is a deliberate strategy on the part of people who are desperate to avoid an inquiry.
Indeed, some in the media dismiss what Nicky Hager says just because it is him saying it.
After the book’s release, Newstalk ZB weekend host Andrew Dickens wrote that fellow hosts Mike Hosking and Leighton Smith had said they don’t like Nicky Hager and therefore don’t believe him. Talkback callers followed suit, he noted.
“Despite having never read the 120 -age book, the majority of callers were prepared to dismiss it just because Hager had written it,” said Andrew Dickens.
Dickens is right of course, and the “journalists” behaving in this way are a disgrace to their profession. Read on for a description of other spin tactics (exploiting the book’s acknowledged but minor error, making up nonsense about what it did or didn’t say). Despite all this the majority of editorial opinion was (bravo) solidly in support of an inquiry:
Here’s another couple of opinion pieces that are well worth adding to the list:
Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a dead child? Because bread and circuses.
English has treated us like morons over SAS allegations, yes he has. All a Nat government ever has to do is wait, and they get away with anything. Unless we the people care enough come the next election, of course.