Paul Thomas: Focus on media personalities not healthy

Mike Hosking and Winston Peters: Whose side do you take? Photos / Jason Oxenham, Peter de Graaf

I suspect many people found themselves on the horns of a dilemma when the Winston Peters-Mike Hosking stoush erupted: whose side should I take or, for that matter, do I have a dog in this fight?

Both will be offended since they obviously spend a lot of time in front of the mirror ensuring their hair is just so, but the spat reminds me of Argentine writer Jose Luis Borges' verdict on the Falklands War: two bald men fighting over a comb.

In the end, and while it may go against the grain, we should line up with Hosking.

First, we should never forget an iron law of New Zealand politics: Winston is wrong about almost everything. Off the top of my head the only time I can recall him being right was in 2012 when he pointed out that jacking up the price of cigarettes to $20 and beyond would "thump the pockets of poor Maori". (Maori are twice as likely to smoke as Pakeha.)

Second, he's no champion of journalistic freedom. In 2005, when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs - a decade on that still reads like an April Fools joke rather than a historical fact - he accused the Herald of treason for running an article revealing he'd lobbied the United States for closer bilateral relations. That is to treason what calling Hosking "pleased with himself" is to defamation.

Peters has also demanded journalists should simply report what goes on in Parliament rather than engage in satire at MPs' expense, as they've been doing for centuries. A cornerstone of freedom of the press is that politicians don't tell journalists how to do their jobs.

While Hosking's persona and the mutual admiration society he's got going with John Key can be irritating and worse, the fact is it's not compulsory for journalists and broadcasters to be anti-establishment gadflies.

Like Sherlock Holmes' dog that didn't bark in the night-time, the lack of support for Hosking sheds light on a mystery: in this case how would enlightened metropolitan opinion have reacted if he, rather than John Campbell, had been cut off at the knees by his employer?

To those who'd respond by calling Hosking a lackey and Campbell a speaker of truth to power, I'd put this question: isn't it conceivable that, if we had a Labour Government, it would be Hosking making a nuisance of himself?

At the end of the day, Peters is tilting at windmills here, so we should just sit back and enjoy the spectacle of these two dandies cuffing each other with kid gloves.

A more substantial media controversy was triggered by Rachel Smalley's condemnation of Radio New Zealand's eagerness to shoehorn Campbell into a gig at a woman's expense, a development she used as a launch pad to deplore the lack of diversity in our media or, to put it another way, the undue influence exercised by a handful of white male broadcasters.

"Who shapes our day, who directs our news agenda, who influences our opinions and perspectives?" she asked. "To be a well-rounded society we need a well-rounded media. Right now prime-time is dominated by straight, wealthy white men. That's not the New Zealand we live in today."

You have to admire Smalley for poking a stick at Campbell so soon after he'd been declared a national treasure, if not indeed a saint.

However, another way of approaching this issue is to question the influence of a handful of highly paid media personalities of both sexes who live and work in a city many New Zealanders regard as a foreign country.

As news organisations react to technological change by diversifying into multi-media conglomerates and look to integrate their print and electronic components, the influence of this select group is expanding. We're in danger of being force-fed the "unique perspectives" of the likes of Hosking, Duncan Garner, Heather du Plessis-Allan and Smalley herself since they now have their say in print as well as on radio and TV.

For instance, in the past fortnight the Herald has published Smalley's thoughts on white male broadcasters, prostitution, student loans, whistleblowers, a child sex offender register, Richie McCaw, refugees, Murray McCully and the Saudi sheep deal, and education.

Is the ubiquitousness of this tiny and incestuous metropolitan media elite a healthy thing? Probably not, especially if they can't or won't bear in mind that, for two-thirds of the population, Auckland is not the New Zealand in which they live.