FREE SPEECH UNION AND NEWSTALK ZB: A SANITISED VERSION OF STEVEN PINKER

 

The Epstein files contains numerous references to US intellectual Steven Pinker. He was in New Zealand last week for a speaking engagement, sponsored by the Free Speech Union and promoted by Newstalk ZB. No-one asked him about the Epstein connection. 

THE APPEARANCE of Steven Pinker in Auckland last week, promoted by Newstalk ZB and hosted by its conservative afternoon presenter Matt Heath, raises questions that go far beyond a single speaking event. Pinker is a globally recognised public intellectual, but he is also a figure whose name appears repeatedly in the publicly released Epstein documents. According to US journalist Sarah Fields he is mentioned in the Epstein files 416 times. That alone should have prompted at least some scrutiny from the broadcaster that platformed him. Instead, listeners were treated to a friendly on-air interview and an event framed as a celebration of 'free speech,' with no mention of the controversies that have followed Pinker for years. The silence was conspicuous.

The event’s sponsorship by the New Zealand Free Speech Union adds another layer. The organisation positions itself as a defender of civil liberties, but its political orientation is unmistakably right-leaning, and its alliances and advocacy priorities reflect that. For many New Zealanders, the group’s involvement signalled not a neutral commitment to open debate but a deliberate attempt to launder a particular ideological project through the language of free expression. When such an organisation becomes the local vehicle for hosting a figure like Pinker, the optics matter. They shape how audiences interpret the event, and they shape which questions are asked—or avoided.

The most striking avoidance was the refusal to acknowledge Pinker’s proximity to Jeffrey Epstein. Pinker has denied wrongdoing, and nothing in the public record suggests he was involved in Epstein’s crimes. But his name appears in the documents often enough to warrant journalistic curiosity. He provided linguistic advice to Epstein’s legal team during an earlier investigation. He attended at least one gathering where Epstein was present. These facts are not trivial, and they are not obscure. They are part of the public conversation internationally. Yet neither Newstalk ZB nor Matt Heath chose to raise the subject.

This silence is not neutral. It reflects editorial choices that protect certain figures from scrutiny while amplifying their preferred narratives. When a broadcaster with a strong ideological bent hosts a controversial intellectual of a similar ideological bent, the absence of hard questions becomes a form of political propaganda. It shapes public perception by omission. It signals to audiences that some connections are too awkward to mention, even when they are widely discussed elsewhere.

The political context makes this even more troubling. Pinker has been vocal in denying that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide, a position that aligns closely with the talking points of pro-Israel advocacy groups worldwide. His framing of the conflict relies on a narrow legalistic interpretation that most international jurists reject. Its worth noting that the Free Speech Union is widely considered to be a Zionist front and its defence of 'free speech' has not extended to protesting Israel's deliberate targeting and murder of journalists in Gaza.

When a figure like Pinker is hosted by a broadcaster known for its conservative leanings, and sponsored by an organisation whose political commitments are clear, the event becomes more than a lecture. It becomes a node in a network of ideological reinforcement. The absence of critical questioning about Pinker’s associations—whether with Epstein or with particular geopolitical narratives—serves to normalise those associations. It creates a curated version of Pinker: the genial rationalist, the defender of Enlightenment values, the champion of free speech. The more complicated parts of his public record are quietly set aside. Matt Heath certainly tried to brush them under the carpet.

This is not unique to Pinker. It is part of a broader pattern in which certain media outlets act as gatekeepers, deciding which controversies matter and which do not. When the subject aligns with their ideological preferences, scrutiny softens. When the subject challenges those preferences, scrutiny intensifies. The result is a distorted public sphere in which accountability becomes selective.

New Zealanders deserve better than that. They deserve media willing to ask difficult questions, even of well-known intellectuals. They deserve transparency about the political agendas of organisations that sponsor public events. And they deserve a public conversation that does not shy away from uncomfortable facts simply because they complicate a convenient narrative.

The issue is not whether Pinker is guilty of anything—there is no clear evidence that he is. The issue is whether New Zealand’s media landscape is willing to treat powerful figures consistently. When a broadcaster chooses silence on matters that are plainly relevant to public understanding, it abdicates its responsibility. It becomes a participant in shaping a sanitised version of reality.