 |
Chris Hipkins with Newstalk ZB's John MacDonald. |
THE NEW ZEALAND Herald’s story last week about Chris Hipkins and the handling of early Covid-19 vaccine advice for under-18s should have sparked a measured discussion about decision-making under crisis conditions. Instead, it triggered something far more familiar: a coordinated pile-on from NZME’s talkradio shock-jocks, each scrambling to outdo the others in declaring Hipkins unfit for public life. It was less journalism than theatre, and not especially convincing theatre at that.
The Herald reported that Hipkins, then Covid-19 Response Minister, did not share advice about the risks associated with two vaccine doses for under-18s. The implication—never quite stated outright—was that this omission was deliberate, politically motivated, or negligent. Hipkins rejected that framing immediately, saying there was 'absolutely not' any active decision to withhold information and noting that the Cabinet paper in question was already scheduled for proactive release. RNZ’s more dispassionate reporting reinforced that point, making clear that the document was not buried, hidden, or suppressed.
But none of that mattered to Newstalk ZB. Within hours, Mike Hosking was on air declaring that Hipkins could not be trusted and could not be Prime Minister—on the basis of this single incident. In Wellington, Nick Mills chimed in with the same conclusion. Christchurch host John MacDonald followed suit. And Kerre Woodham also joined the rush to condemn Hipkins, demanding he resign as Labour leader because he was 'either incompetent or a liar.'
The pattern is unmistakable and familiar: a story emerges that can be framed—however tenuously—as damaging to Labour; the Herald gives it oxygen; Newstalk ZB amplifies it with maximal outrage; and the National Party benefits from the resulting noise. The political alignment is not subtle. NZME’s talk-radio ecosystem has long served as an auxiliary communications arm for the right, and this episode was no exception.
What makes the whole spectacle even more hollow is that the attack simply didn’t land. Outside the anti-vaccine fringe—many of whom already populate Newstalk ZB’s caller base and are regular callers to the station—the story gained little traction. It did not reshape public opinion. It did not redefine Hipkins’ leadership. And it failed to dominate the news cycle. The public, it seems, has a longer memory than NZME gives them credit for. And maybe, just maybe, it has other more immediate things to be worried about — like the rocketing cost of living, for instance.
Context matters. And the context is that New Zealand’s pandemic response—despite imperfections—was internationally recognised as one of the most effective in the world. The Lancet, hardly a partisan publication, praised New Zealand's response as 'highly strategic and effective,' noting that New Zealand achieved some of the lowest Covid-19 mortality rates globally. That did not happen by accident. It happened because the government, including Hipkins, made decisions quickly, transparently, and with a clear public-health mandate.
To pretend that a single Cabinet paper, already queued for release, somehow negates that record is absurd. To claim it proves Hipkins is unfit for leadership is even more so. But absurdity has never stopped Newstalk ZB’s opinion machinery. Outrage is the product; consistency is optional.
What is striking is how little effort was made to interrogate the substance of the issue. There was no discussion of how risk assessments evolved as data changed. There was no examination of how many countries were grappling with the same uncertainties. There was also no acknowledgment that the advice in question did not recommend halting vaccinations for under-18s. Furthermore, no attempt was made to understand the operational pressures of a once-in-a-century public-health emergency.
Instead, the commentary leapt straight to character assassination. Hipkins was not mistaken, or cautious, or operating under time pressure—he was untrustworthy. He was not a minister making decisions in a crisis—he was a man who must resign. The leap from fact to accusation was not just disproportionate; it was pre-written. And its not a coincidence that this orchestrated attack occurred not long after Hipkins private life became the focus of media attention.
And that is the real story here. The Herald’s reporting may have been earnest, but the reaction from its talk-radio sibling revealed the deeper agenda: to damage Hipkins, to weaken Labour, and to reinforce the narrative that only National can be trusted to govern. It is a narrative that has been repeated so often it now functions as the default setting within NZME’s commentary class.
But this time, the public didn’t buy it. The hit job misfired. And in the process, it exposed something important: that the country is increasingly capable of distinguishing between genuine accountability journalism and partisan theatre dressed up as concern.
If anything, the episode says far more about Newstalk ZB’s credibility than it does about Chris Hipkins’
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.