IS RNZ PROVIDING DISTORTED COVERAGE OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE?

A RNZ journalist has been suspended for allegedly altering stories to provide what RNZ says is a pro- Moscow interpretation of events in Ukraine. But why does RNZ assume that only the Washington-driven narrative on the prolonged war is factual and correct? Why are differing views being branded pro-Putin?

WE CAN only speculate why a RNZ journalist allegedly edited several Reuters stories in order to provide what RNZ says is a pro-Moscow slant on the war in Ukraine. At the time of writing, RNZ says that it had, so far, 'corrected' fifteen stories on Ukraine that had been 'inappropriately edited'. Perhaps the journalist concerned was frustrated by what his employer has been providing as balanced coverage of the Ukraine crisis. If this is indeed the case, then that is understandable.

The distortions and the half-truths that are being peddled by the United States and its western allies have largely been accepted without scrutiny by mainstream media outlets like RNZ. Truth is the first casualty of war, or as Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu observed, 'all warfare is based on deception'. Nevertheless RNZ, like the mainstream media generally, have decided that not only that the United States-driven narrative on Ukraine is mostly true and factual, but any competing views must be kept out of the public domain. Apparently, if media organisations like RNZ get their way, we are not going to be allowed to consider differing views and form our own judgements. This is also how RNZ operates on other thorny issues such as 'decolonisation' and gender ideology.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unjustified, and we have to condemn it. But that does not mean we have to march to the war drums of Washington and accept a narrative that provides a distorted portrayal of the conflict. RNZ is not working to encourage a well-informed populace on Ukraine and facilitate important conversations but is operating as a war propaganda outlet.

An exaggerated claim? Well, consider this. Since the activities of the suspended journalist became publicly known, commentator Bryce Edwards has noted that RNZ has removed from its website a 26 May 2022 story that highlights the comments of Mike Smith, a former general secretary of the Labour party. Smith is reported as saying that 'New Zealand has effectively gone to war without consulting the public by joining Nato's efforts to defeat Russia's military objectives in Ukraine.

The story goes on to say: 

'Smith fears New Zealand could now find itself "on the wrong side of history" by helping prolong a conflict in the interests of waning US hegemony while risking its own interests in the Asia-Pacific region and increasing the risks of a nuclear war.

New Zealand is also inadvertently helping to arm neo-Nazi militias and far-right groups in Ukraine with modern weapons, which could be used elsewhere, he said.'

Elsewhere in the article former associate foreign affairs minister, Matt Robson, comments that 'I don't believe that there has been balanced discussion in our Parliament, or the government and Cabinet, on what's happening with the complex situation of Ukraine.'

Robson also comments: '...the Minsk Agreements of 2015 were very important. These set out a policy of autonomy for the Donbas regions, the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine ... a peace process, a ceasefire, and that was undermined before President [Volodymyr] Zelensky, by the various Kyiv governments, who refused to follow through on their commitment under this, and by the United States. The neo-Nazis threatened Zelensky, who then accommodated them.'

This is the view that the suspended journalist slipped into the Reuters story, but which RNZ has judged to be pro-Kremlin. RNZ's Colin Peacock on Mediawatch has even claimed that it has no basis in fact.

Both Smith and Robson have expressed legitimate opinions that are critical of New Zealand's role in what has turned into a proxy war against Russia that suits American interests but which threatens to escalate. But does that make those opinions pro-Russian?  If that is the case then RNZ decided, at some point, that any criticism of the establishment Russian narrative will not be permitted. It seems that this is a policy that the suspended RNZ journalist may not have been comfortable with and has rebelled against.