The only acceptable position regarding Ukraine, is to pull the wool over New Zealanders' eyes. Russian aggression, blah blah, precision missile strikes on playgrounds and children's hospitals, brutal, unprovoked war. Blah blah. Now Rubio says that the US will pull out of Ukraine within a matter of days.
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
9 points (100.0% liked)
NZ Politics
643 readers
3 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!
This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi
This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick
Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Setting aside all the other stuff.
Are claiming that Russia was not the aggressor in this current war? If so, what's your argument, that it was a response to provocation? If so, what was such a provocation that justified invading another sovereign nation (again)?
It's clear Putin has immense sway over the US government. I will predict our government will soon fall in line with Trump in this regard because Luxon and Seymour are both MAGA turds.
Wait, is this the guy that got caught making minor wording edits to articles about Russia's war on Ukraine to make them more Russia friendly?
And the article is presenting it like it's a report that clears the guy of wrongdoing, when from my reading it seems the result of the investigation was that he was absolutely doing it but he wasn't being paid by Russia so it wasn't state sponsored foreign interference, the thing they were investigating. Right?
So basically the guy was editing stories to make them more Russia-positive but thinks he's been cleared of wrongdoing due to not being paid for his acts?
Wait, is this the guy that got caught making minor wording edits to articles about Russia’s war on Ukraine to make them more Russia friendly?
All the articles in New Zealand media are already too pro-Ukraine. Last month The Press had two pro-Ukraine articles, one by the Ukrainian ambassador, and another by Kate Turska (Mahi For Ukraine). According to RNZ, talking about colour-revolutions is pro-Russian. I call it pro-reality. The CIA and USAID are always up to no good in former soviet states.
All the articles in New Zealand media are already too pro-Ukraine. Last month The Press had two pro-Ukraine articles, one by the Ukrainian ambassador, and another by Kate Turska (Mahi For Ukraine).
Those sound like opinion pieces. They are allowed to be biased. You don't see opinion pieces supporting Russia for invading a neighbour because bothsidesism is not a good journalistic approach. Sometimes actions are not explained by anything other than megalomania.
According to RNZ, talking about colour-revolutions is pro-Russian.
Russia uses this term as a way of saying and protestors demanding democracy are part of a US operation to destabilise a country. I am not sure what RNZ actions you are referring to but I suspect they are right. I would like to know more, if you have a link?
The CIA and USAID are always up to no good in former soviet states.
At this point I feel like this is an undisputed fact of the world. Russia likes to play things as if being against the Russian invasion of Ukraine means you're pro-US, but it's possible to denounce all horrible actions by the superpowers.
You are missing the point. The press is allowed to be biased. They are allowed to say false things. They are allowed to report stories that go against what the current politically correct ideology is.
The government should never intimidate the press when they report politically incorrect ideas and thoughts.
Isn't the chain of events:
- Editor makes pro-russia edits over a period of time
- RNZ catches editor doing this, starts reverting edits with notice to readers
- Editor in question resigns
- GCSB investigates whether this was a Russian spy
- outcome was that it wasn't
I don't see how anyone went outside their remit. RNZ wasn't forced to do anything. The editor had already resigned, there's no intimidation. GCSB seems to be doing what they are there for I'm regards to foreign interference.
I do not believe as you're implying that freedom of the press involves not investigating foreign states manipulating that press to change the public opinion. Rather I think the press in question would welcome the outcome of this investigation (whatever the outcome). There is no implication here that anyone is forcing RNZ to do anything, only RNZ controlling one of their editors. Surely freedom of the press involves freedom of RNZ to control their editor?
Two things.
- Do you think there are any editors are RNZ or other press outlets who make pro US, pro Israel, pro EU or pro UK edits
- Do you think the GCSB investigated anybody for being pro any of those countries?
I do not believe as you’re implying that freedom of the press involves not investigating foreign states manipulating that press to change the public opinion.
I disagree. Freedom of the press involves exactly that. In fact the most of the press in our country is owned by foreigners and you can bet your ass those countries are manipulating the press in order to change public opinion. The only difference is that you align with the politically correct ideology those countries push. This only worries you if the foreign nation is Russia or China or Iran or whoever the current government has convinced you are you enemies.
Do you think there are any editors are RNZ or other press outlets who make pro US, pro Israel, pro EU or pro UK edits
For sure.
Do you think the GCSB investigated anybody for being pro any of those countries?
I would not be surprised at all. The GCSB is presumably investigating various people all day every day as the core part of their job.
I disagree. Freedom of the press involves exactly that. In fact the most of the press in our country is owned by foreigners and you can bet your ass those countries are manipulating the press in order to change public opinion.
I'm really struggling with your argument. You are saying that the foreign owned press is manipulating the public through media and that in your opinion we should not do anything about that?
Also of note is the fact that this is RNZ. By design, the least foreign owned news outlet in this country.
Sure but not that relevant.
The point is that the secret police is intimidating journalists in order to prevent them from publishing politically incorrect articles and headlines.
I would not be surprised at all. The GCSB is presumably investigating various people all day every day as the core part of their job.
This is so dishonest. You know this isn't happening. If you actually believe that GCSB is investigating reporters and editors for publishing pro US or pro Israel content I have lost all respect for you.
I’m really struggling with your argument.
I thought I was very clear. The press should remain free. It should not be pressured by the government whatsoever. Reporters should not live in fear that they are going to be investigated by the secret police for publishing articles.
You are saying that the foreign owned press is manipulating the public through media and that in your opinion we should not do anything about that?
Yes exactly. The government should not be messing with the press.
This is different from your position which is that the we should only do something about this when it involves publishing articles which are politically incorrect and against government policies and positions.
One more thing.
This investigation is a signal sent to the press to induce a chilling effect on reporting which goes against the current government narrative.
No reporter wants to be invested by the secret police (which GCSB is by any definition)
@BalpeenHammer @Dave , not intimidate but without checks and balances it sounds like a recipe for disaster.
We generally do want a press we can trust and not one that spreads falsehoods/lies.
We want a press that's free. Every press outlet has published falsehoods and lies. That's their right.
@BalpeenHammer , and we want people to be free, that doesn't mean we want them to murder each other, or commit genocide for that matter !
The difference is that murder is and should be illegal. Biased reporting is not and should not be illegal.
Think about it this way.
Trump is Putin's butt boy so eventually both Luxon and Seymour are going to make a U turn on Russia. When that happens do you want reporters that write sympathetic headlines towards Ukraine investigated by the secret police?
As for genocide well in the last few weeks Israel has bombed a christian hospital killing doctors, nurses, patients etc, bombed tents at a refugee camp killing dozens of children shut off all food and medical supplies into gaza, bombed Lebanon and Syria, killed and kidnapped palestinians in the west bank, targeted journalists, bombed a UN facility and generally continued their genodical campaign.
How many headlines have you read in the press? How many times has any of this been mentioned on TV or radio?
The press here is pro genocide and that's because the owners of the press are oligarchs who are also pro genocide.
Alas the secret police isn't investigating any reporters or editors over this issue.
@BalpeenHammer , as for genocide headlines... so many it's heart breaking - I generally get news from sources that are balanced and factual - in part because disinformation, lies and falsehoods can be precursors to a lot of inhumane behaviour, including murder and imho have no place in good reporting.
Probably can be investigated if it is the state sponsored news channel.
Definitely should be investigated if the edits are deliberately trying to be as under handed as these were.
The press should have the freedom to edit any way it pleases and to push any ideology it wants. That's what the free press is all about. Why should Murdoch and the other oligarchs be the only ones pushing their agenda?
Yes, but in this case it wasn't the media editing it, just one mad lad.
The collective that is the media organization RNZ re-edited the articles back to what they were originally published as. If old mate was so commited to his ideals then he is more than free to make his own blog site or join Reality Check Radio to post his articles.
Just because he is a journalist doesn't give him the right to surreptitiously edit other journalists articles to change their alignment. This wasn't a beat down, or a shake up, or a browbeating.
Dude did things that most people would align with a foreign state actor and was investigated for it. Was found not guilty and sent on his way. Im not saying it wasnt scary or intimidating, If i was him id be kacking my dacks. BUT i belive it was the correct course of action.
Part of the investigation, im speculating here, was probably checking that this was his view point and that he wasnt doing this under duress. While it may not feel like it, the invistigation was possibly for his benefit and to help him if he was being forced to do this. Now in this instance it wasn't the case.
Just because he is a journalist doesn’t give him the right to surreptitiously edit other journalists articles to change their alignment. This wasn’t a beat down, or a shake up, or a browbeating.
He was the editor. It was literally his job to do that.
Dude did things that most people would align with a foreign state actor and was investigated for it.
This is what we should be screaming against. Being investigated for expressing politically incorrect ideas goes against every value we have as a democracy.
Im not saying it wasnt scary or intimidating, If i was him id be kacking my dacks. BUT i belive it was the correct course of action.
It doesn't surprise me that you believe it was the correct course of action but it does scare and alarm me. It's insane how easily a country can be persuaded to ditch press freedom.
Part of the investigation, im speculating here, was probably checking that this was his view point and that he wasnt doing this under duress. While it may not feel like it, the invistigation was possibly for his benefit and to help him if he was being forced to do this. Now in this instance it wasn’t the case.
No that was not a part of the investigation. The investigation was to put the scare of god into him any other member of the press who wants to express support for ideas or countries the government deems unacceptable.
Is the herald even remotely reliable for this sort of information?
They're such a hyperbole-fest I gave up on them years ago (rather hypocritical of me, admittedly!)
Paywalled?