Commentators should not be attack dogs for political parties

Commentators should not be attack dogs for political parties, writes Bryan Gould. Photo / Getty Images

COMMENT:

In a Westminster-style, parliamentary democracy such as ours - and one that, despite MMP, remains essentially a two-party contest - it is inevitable that many voters will choose a side and then see nothing but good in the preferred party and nothing but bad in their opponents - rather as though we were supporters of a football team.

Such allegiances are often more tribal than individual. My own family, for example, saw themselves as naturally National supporters - it was in their DNA - and they were shocked when I chose not to follow suit.

Political commentators are no different - there are not many who have not taken sides and are genuinely free from preconception and prejudice. But, for those who want to be taken seriously, it is important that they are seen to be balanced in their comments and ready to acknowledge merit, when they see it, in the views and policies of the party they don't support, as well as errors and deficiencies in those of the party they favour.

A political commentator who recognises no such duty and prefers to take on the role of an "attack dog" for a preferred party is in danger of not only losing credibility - on the ground that every statement and opinion is likely to be invalidated by bias - but also runs the risk of doing a disservice to the party whose cause he is trying to serve by linking it to his own unappealing exhibition of inaccuracy, prejudice, bile and aggression.

Why do I make this point? Because I think we currently have instances of precisely this phenomenon.

I have in mind one or two commentators whose keenness to promote the cause of a particular party and to denigrate others leads them to demonstrate scant regard for differing views, or understanding of the constraints under which politicians have to operate, and to exhibit over-the-top and unpleasant attitudes - derision for those who disagree, a lack of compassion for those who look to government or society for help, a readiness to bad-mouth those of our fellow-citizens who are doing it tough.

Not only is the quality of our democracy damaged by the display of such attitudes, (since we should be able to handle our differences without impugning the competence or good faith of those with whom we disagree); but we all suffer if we can no longer trust what we are told and conclude accordingly that no one in public life can be trusted.

The Americans, saddled as they are with a Trump presidency, are in course of discovering just how damaging to a functioning democracy a constant diet of lies and loss of trust in the media can be.

In the New Zealand context, the irony is that it is not just our public life in general that will suffer; the fortunes of the party favoured by the commentator can also be adversely affected. Many readers and listeners will conclude that the distasteful views and opinions expressed do not just spring unbidden from the mind of the commentator, but faithfully reflect those of the party being supported; and, accordingly, an unfavourable reaction will inevitably rub off on the party which is the intended beneficiary of the "attack dog's" supposed help.

It may be that the party supposedly "favoured" in this way may have very little to do with what is essentially just a piece of "free enterprise" and self-promotion on the part of a self-appointed champion. The lesson is that political parties should take even more care in selecting their supposed friends than they do in identifying their enemies.

The media themselves are also in obvious danger of being tarred with the same brush as the commentators to whom they give a platform - a decision that they alone take and for which they must take responsibility. They, too, like the social media, need to recognise their duty to maintain the health of the public debate. If that debate is damaged, they - as well as their readers, viewers and listeners - will be the losers. And we are surely at a point when we should recognise how important it is to be kind to each other.

• Bryan Gould is a former British MP and Waikato University vice-chancellor.