Bruce Bisset: Media invents new bogeymen

Bruce Bisset.

Though it wouldn't surprise to have a few more shocks and scandals before election day, so far this year's race has turned into a tale of three disgraced leaders - and the fascinating bit is the contrasting ways their mishaps are being told.

In the green corner, the struggling solo mother who came clean about dipping into the public purse to feed her child while studying toward a better life (which she achieved) - vilified for daring to be an uppity beneficiary who made no apology.

In the black corner, the urbane kingmaker who upholds the rights of superannuitants (of which he's one) caught out for not knowing or following the rules - by stating he was single when he was not - of the very game he has long championed.

In the blue corner, the deep south farmer turned prime minister who, as the rich are wont to do, previously had arranged for his affairs to be arranged so as to circumvent the intent if not the letter of the law and claim a generous housing allowance - showing questionable moral standards and poor judgment, at least.

And now, in another shade of blue, that same PM caught up in a perplexing fracas a trois involving his replacement electorate MP, their shared electoral secretary, an employment dispute, some illegal recordings, and 450-odd, post-reveal texts which SuperGoldCardMan (see above) exposed but which no one has yet been able to explain.

If Winston Peters genuinely made a mistake, which he corrected as soon as he knew about it two days before Metiria Turei's mea culpa, it's doubtless why he was very restrained at the time.

And the puzzle is how seven years' worth of annual status update letters from the department failed to alert him that he'd claimed wrongly.

But of more intrigue is who tipped off the media. At time of writing, National looks most likely; a revenge hit for Peters bringing up those pesky unexplained texts.

And yes, the whole strangeness of the Todd Barclay case remains hanging over Bill English, especially now it's been shown he tried to prevent police from releasing his statement to them about it (which he first couldn't remember making, then couldn't recall what he said) - even heavily redacted.

There's a distinct feeling there's more to know about English's relationships with Barclay and staff member Glenys Dickson, else why would a PM continually fudge and leave himself open to accusations of cover-ups?

The media has naturally given both these stories a good run, but with no great bite to it.

Bite they should. Apparently we have the country's leader trying to cover up the fact he knew one of his MPs had acted illegally, yet did nothing.

That's an exit sign in politics.

Contrast this twice-over-lightly approach with that accorded Turei when she confessed - of her own volition - to minor benefit fraud back when she was a young solo parent.

Elements of the media were viciously unrelenting in trumpeting her dishonesty and helping force her resignation.

Newshub's Patrick Gower went further, delighting in telling the nation the Greens were "goneburger". (They're not.)

Turei was foolish not to clear the debt first, naïve to think herself bullet-proof, and admittedly her unapologetic stance did a great deal of harm to her and her party's reputation.

But she did it to illustrate the dire state of the crumbling welfare system; to make a political point, not purely for personal gain.

So is this an inherent double-standard? Is her harsher treatment not because she's a woman, or Maori - but just because she's Green?