MEDIA WATCH: Dear NZ Media – barely 2 weeks ago you were accusing the PM of covering up a sex crime

8
1256

It’s funny how the same media who only a fortnight ago were alleging Jacinda knowingly hid and covered up a sexual assault are now fawning all over her UN trip – you either believed the PM wilfully covered up a crime or you are clickbait trolls.

I’m suggesting the latter.

I mean, if you believed that the Prime Minister of NZ knowingly hid a sex crime, then how dare you simply move on to other issues?

Hosking, Garner, Hooton, the Spinoff, Heather Duplicitous, Andrea Vance, editorials, Barry Soper, RNZ, NZ Herald, Hawkesby, Fairfax etc etc etc, how could you insinuate and allege something as serious as covering up a sexual assault and then just be talking about something else?

I do not believe Jacinda knew or covered up anything and to make the claim was a foul character assassination. I was one of the few who stated that publicly at the time while the lynch mob screamed.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

No wonder the term ‘fake news’ resonates with the public so easily.

8 COMMENTS

  1. Martyn
    The media has a short attention span like a young child.
    The media is less able to even comprehend good from bad as even young children can.
    This says a lot about the ‘hollow mafia media’scam bubble today.

  2. Innnnteresting, no matter how much i search, can find very little after the original article in the spinnup and repeating by the msm re. the whole labour party are sexual deviants enabler’s etc. Wonder if that could have anything to do with somebody threatening legal action?

    • G.A.P Somebody possibly told them, in small words, that major complainant Sarah, never talked to Paula Bennett about what Paula Bennett, who has an interest in the country’s sexual mores, talked to them about. Good old Paula. Where would we be without Paula ? Or rather, where would the MSM be without her ? Of course her hair would stand on end with all the dirty stuff the poor doll carries in her head.

      If I were she, I would have been on the phone to PM Ardern, telling her that the Nat’s tedious sex stuff was now spreading into Labour’s ranks, and only then would I be in the position to say that PM Ardern knew.

      I assume that Paula did this, otherwise how could Paula possibly say that Jacinda Ardern knew ?

      Not threats of legal action, but possibly at least two legal actions.

  3. Martyn: “It’s funny how the same media who only a fortnight ago were alleging Jacinda knowingly hid and covered up a sexual assault are now fawning all over her UN trip…”

    Strange indeed. But I guess that we shouldn’t be particularly surprised at it. The msm is perpetually chasing the Next Big Thing, chucking yesterday’s story in the metaphorical wastepaper bin, once local interest in it wanes. It was ever thus, wasn’t it? The nine days’ wonder. Many of us think that they’re idiots, but they don’t care; our views count for nothing, when compared with what their colleagues in the media are doing.

    “I do not believe Jacinda knew or covered up anything and to make the claim was a foul character assassination.”

    I’m with you there. I’d go a bit further, perhaps: in my view the entire story was a piece of fiction, from beginning to end.

    Question: Why did they report it as if it were true?

    Answer: Because the msm hunts in a pack; every reporter will report it the way their colleagues do, for fear of being the sole dissenting voice. And the default position is to take seriously claims by women of sexual assault. None of our reporters has the cajones to question such claims, even if to accept them as having substance requires a White Queenish ability to believe impossible things.

    We also saw this pusillanimity at the time of the dirty politics revelations during the 2014 election. After the election, one or two reporters questioned the rubbish that they’d uncritically reported beforehand. A fine time to be doing so: it’d have been courageous of them to have done that before the election, when it might just have changed voting patterns.

  4. Breathless speculation masquerading as fact is the new ‘news’. And anyone who believes anything vomited forth from Paula Bennett’s diseased maw probably needs counselling for their obvious tentative grasp on reality. National is at that stage in their inexorable devolution where they will say pretty much anything to get a few column inches, or Bridges’ gormless, gurning, vacant-eyed visage on the telly of an evening, and the MSM, obedient lapdogs that most of them are, are only too eager to play the game. If you’re expecting to be informed by our national broadcasters, or enlightened by leafing through Granny Herald on a Sunday afternoon, more fool you. You’re better off wiping your arse with it, although it’s so full of shit already you’d probably just make a mess of yourself.

  5. The media determines the message. The Government has failed on it’s non commercial tv channel promise too, sadly.

Comments are closed.