#baldmenareviril

[dailyindignation]

When being weak is actually strong

In late November 2023, freshly-elected New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon set up his cabinet, giving Melissa Lee the Media and Communications portfolio and appointing Penny Simmonds as Minister for Disability Issues.

Five months later, Luxon demoted the two women for being bad at those jobs. Shortly after, I tweeted this:

What a strange prediction, you might say. Surely the leader of the country appointing and then demoting two ministers with only himself to blame in such record time is a sign of that classic media canard – a "weak" and "chaotic" administration? Like, why did he appoint them in the first place? Does this very-inexperienced Prime Minister know what he's doing?

Ah, but you see, I'm not two months old, so I've seen our media do their thing. And if there's one thing that really turns the press gallery on, really gets them rock hard, it's a Strong Leader. Preferably one who's From The Business World. Because, despite being political reporters who report on politics, every single one of them down to their bones Fucking Hate Politicians. So when Business Man comes into power, you bet they'll take his every move as the next coming of Elon Musk (y'know, before they realised he was fascist).

But just in case you, a mere member of the public, might be inclined to look at the demotions and think "Hell, that looks a bit weak", the cavalry rode to the rescue:

Those are all just from the NZME stable of sycophants, too. They didn't even need to break out Mike Hosking or Heather du Plessis-Allan! No, no, the savvy pundits were there to tell you how you should feel. I think they think that's their job? Weird job. But anyway, RNZ, Newshub and The Post soon followed up with the exact same take:

These are all separate people with separate paychecks.

Okay, but that's ONE perspective. Surely the media also looked at it from the other side. What about that woke outfit The Spinoff, did they at least air the idea that the PM firing two ministers within 6 months wasn't a sign of strength and virility but actually a bit weak and messy?

Oh. Bad timing, Hayden!

But look, maybe all these political pundits and experienced journos are all singing from the same hymn book because that's the only tune? Like, if a Labour leader like Jacinda Ardern or Chris Hipkins demoted ministers during their tenure, then the media would portray those actions in the exact same way, right? That's what we want, right? Consistency? No bias? Demoting ministers = strength! If only we had some evidence that that's what they'd do--

Oh.

So how does this happen? Is it because the media is at its core a business, and business quite like strong, right-wing leaders because they'll "dismantle red tape" (i.e. remove regulations so they can get away with shit) and "cut costs" (i.e. ruin public services so private companies can step in), and those businesses, y'know, advertise in the financially-precarious media? Maybe. Sounds a bit conspiratorial, though. No one's outright telling Thomas Coughlan to frame his perspective to be business-friendly. He just naturally does. It's that age-old philosophical conundrum: are political reporters all conservative because that's how you rise to the top in that role? Or are conservatives drawn to be political reporters because they realise that's how you shape public opinion? We may never know.

Or maybe it's because the press gallery holds annual Zoom meetings to discuss what the narrative of the week is gonna be (accidentally, of course)? I mean, it would explain the hivemind that seems to occur all the time. I'm not sure why else direct competitors feel the need to get together and accidentally share their screens but I'm sure it happens in other industries-- ohwait I'm being told it doesn't.

With the media in such financial straits, there's been a lot of suggestions for how they can survive. May I propose a money-saving idea? Fire every political pundit. Let go of the entire press gallery. Replace them all with AI. They all have the same opinion anyway. Why are media orgs paying multiple people – more than anyone else on their payroll! – to say the exact same thing? It makes no financial or logical sense. Unless... is the overwhelming narrative forming the point? Could it be... that the media doesn't actually want to "analyse" the politics and explain what it all means to you? They just want to be smarter than you and tell you what it means? God, I hope not. That would be way harder to fix, and I hear the media has trust issues at the moment.