By TeKāhu.
Mainstream media outlets in New Zealand have written multiple articles over the span of the pandemic, almost entirely from a pro-government stance. And those opposing ‘no jab, no job’ government policies have been accused of misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and other epithets that have become usual in today’s society.
The latest offering is from Senior Writer David Fisher of the NZ Herald, who has written to various independent media.
In the interests of transparency, The Daily Examiner has decided to release the questions and answers between the two parties. (Format amended for reading purposes; no change to wording)
Original email from David Fisher, NZ Herald:
NZH: I’m writing a piece for the NZ Herald about disinformation and misinformation relating to Covid-19 and public health mitigation efforts around Covid-19.
I’m approaching The Daily Examiner is a website that could be considered as carrying information that is misleading or untrue in relation to the pandemic or efforts to manage the health impacts.
That includes carrying content with references to the Pfizer vaccine being an “experimental jab” or statements about adverse effects that are in contrast to actual data recorded.
TDE Response: Your quote: “experimental jab” appears to be from one article, which is a public statement that was published with direct permission. Allowing voices that disagree with government-selected sources appears entirely consistent with one of the purported principles of the New Zealand Media Council:
“In articles of controversy or disagreement, a fair voice must be given to the opposition view.”
The interesting union between government-selected sources, parliamentarians and most establishment media seems, from an outside perspective, to allow for the refusal to engage in those who disagree.
NZH: Other signifiers include carrying commentary from Guy Hatchard, which commonly misrepresents facts around Covid-19, and content from Project Veritas.
TDE: It has been observed that Dr Guy Hatchard has footnotes and attached empirical data, generally peer-reviewed and with other sources clearly annotated. He has also responded to another journalist as to this allegation. We are respectfully reluctant to align with your allegation that he “commonly misrepresents facts around Covid-19” based off your word alone.
Regarding the Project Veritas videos, they are of or from the Pfizer scientists themselves, with even a whistleblower adding in her concerns. It seems odd to intimate some kind of conspiracy around videos showing Pfizer employees talking about Pfizer.
NZH: There are other aspects of the content on your site that also fit with the definition of disinformation or misinformation.
TDE: David, this is a very interesting assertion as we have received multiple concerns that aspects of the content on the NZ Herald site also fit with the definition of disinformation or misinformation. We are hoping that you might clarify your allegations.
Please note, we have received a response by Dr Hatchard regarding your allegations and which we will be publishing.
David, we are also putting together an article on media misinformation and disinformation. We would appreciate your own responses which we will send out tomorrow.
In terms of “fact-checking”, we find it interesting that your own media outlet contains opeds which often contain opinions that are not factual. The Daily Examiner also welcomes opeds, especially those whose voices are not give fair and balanced reporting.
In what has become common for mainstream media, social media posts will often have comment ability removed, generally for posts which appear to be negative towards the perceived perception of the media outlet.
NZH: I’m keen for your take on whether you feel the content on The Daily Examiner is properly fact-checked, accurate and responsible, given it is often contrary to fact-checked public health advice. And if not, whether it causes you any concern misinformation has been linked by security services and academics to social disharmony.
NB – The above question was not responded to, so The Daily Examiner responds here:
TDE: The Daily Examiner seeks to fact-check where appropriate, and as such has corrected when issues are raised with accurate concerns.
It is unfortunate that mainstream media are often found guilty of the same issues raised, yet are only occasionally held accountable by the NZ Press Council. Interestingly, NZPC is funded by the media with many journalists sitting at the decision-making table. Including, no less, the Chief Reporter of NZME Wellington Bureau. The same NZME that owns NZ Herald.
There are concerns around your “fact-checked public health advice”; what does that mean, exactly? Investigative Journalist John Stossel had his article suppressed due to “fact-checkers” yet proved in court that they were more ideological than factual (link here). And there are very real concerns around mainstream media disinformation. Indeed, your own outlet is signed up to the Covering Climate Now initiative, which means you do not allow reports and articles other than those obedient to the anthropogenic climate-change position. And the latest Freedom Protest at Wellington had your articles following a very particular narrative with even Barry Soper calling out the media mis/disinformation.
In regards to your assertion that “misinformation has been linked by security services and academics to social disharmony”, we might ask: What is “social disharmony”? How is it measured? And we might further note, that the last several years have seen a freefall in public trust in mainstream media coupled with the most radical laws by a Moderate to Far Left government that has historically caused great unrest throughout history.
An addendum question was then received by Mr Fisher:
NZH: Thanks for your email. On the question of the “experimental jab”, do you then contend that it is not experimental? By that, I mean it has – as public health authorities and medical reviewers say – been through the same checks as other vaccines have.
Please let me know where the Examiner stands on this.
TDE: The position we take on your “experimental jab” is that a robust discussion has always been required, if sadly absent, from media reporting. There should always be a balanced discussion on contentious issues, yet the New Zealand public were denied such from the earliest days of the pandemic.
Have you seen the report from the AUT on trust in media? And Reuters institute saying that the media and government is engaging “with exaggeration and division to gain clicks and votes.”
There is mistrust on both sides of the media spectrum, whether mainstream or independent.
However, to have a near 10% drop in 2 years while other countries appear to have improved their integrity suggests mainstream media disinformation is becoming increasingly acknowledged, consistently unpopular.
https://www.jmadresearch.com/_files/ugd/a95e86_0a9149d3627840b79baf05899be1585f.pdf
Thank you for your response and interest in our work and website.
To close this article, this is what is printed on the Donation Page of The Daily Examiner:
The Daily Examiner was established to be a bastion of free speech and conservative news in our great nation, New Zealand. We don’t (and probably never will or want to) receive state funding.
Our site is run and funded by volunteers. Our articles are written by citizen journalists, providing real, raw, authentic news, right from ground zero.
We exist to speak the truth, counter mainstream misinformation, and provide anonymity for our citizen journalists from vicious character assassinations and cancelling that happens to most people who chose to speak the truth publicly, as opposed to the accepted narrative.
If you would like to be a part of the free speech movement and bring back honest journalism to New Zealand, please consider supporting The Daily Examiner, enabling us to fund this site, and continue to publish the truth for a long time to come.
