Fisher also agrees that there's a big difference between strongly opposing, for example, the country's political direction and holding extreme views.
That said, there's a small but growing cohort of New Zealanders who do present a real threat, Fisher says.
"There's no doubt there were far-right extremists [at the Parliament protest]. They were among the people telling my colleagues they were going to kill them. And how many white supremacists is it okay to hang out with?"
Here's a wrap of yesterday's discussion:
Mig B: What role do you think politicians and talkback radio hosts play in the way New Zealanders communicate with each other? I ask this because every day I hear a politician of either stripe (but mostly opposition MPs) or an outraged DJ speak with vehement negativity and use inflammatory language.
David F: I think everyone who has a prominent role in the public conversation has a responsibility to communicate in a way that promotes a better society. That might sound a bit idealistic but people that do have positions that occupy more "talk space" than others should be conducting themselves in a way that is grounded in facts, with views given in context and guided by an idea of having a positive influence on our community. Largely, I think this does happen. When it doesn't, we also need to reasonably consider that these people are human too. That should allow some leeway but there does come a point where people cross a line. When you hear that, speak up! Email media companies and tell them off, complain to regulatory bodies, ring politicians and let them know!
Colin R: While anger and mistrust is fuelled by misinformation through some channels it is also caused by a lack of access to accurate information and democratic consultation and accreditation reporting of that. When a Govt, or any organisation, withholds, hides, acts deceptively, engages in "clatons" consultation and more people who care for the future of themselves, their families, their community and their country naturally become mistrustful and angry. I try to read widely about topics such as co-governance (as but one example) to gain an understanding and still have huge concerns despite a reasonable understanding, mainly brought about because of the Govt seems to restrict their explanation, discussion with a predetermined agenda so should I not be concerned!? ... that is not misinformation.
David F: I share a frustration it seems unreasonably difficult to get information out of government departments and ministers. I reckon every administration has made it more difficult than the one before to access certain information. The law says it should be otherwise - the Official Information Act says information should be made progressively more available. I applaud your efforts to read widely. I do too, and that's the other side of the coin - consuming and understanding all the information that is out there is hard and requires a degree of expertise which not everyone is able to make time for. I think if more people did, and there was greater civic engagement, it would be harder for government to frustrate access to information. While this administration has opened up a lot of pathways that were previously closed, as did the previous, and the one before, governments remain unresponsive when asked for information on sensitive areas.
Guy S: Boring tax-paying soccer dad here who's completely disenfranchised by how a hidden agenda of things just came out of the woodwork in the last 12 months that weren't campaigned on. My pointed question is why co-governance is not being challenged for what it is? We're being told it isn't a naked power grab, that nobody is losing their democratic rights and it doesn't weaken democracy and anybody who wants to ask questions is racist. None of which is true, but neither is it being challenged by anybody in the media apart from Mike Hosking. So Mr Fisher, mate ... where on earth have the rest of you guys gone? At the risk of sounding like a tin-foil hat wearer, dismantling democracy happens in small steps like this, but has massive ramifications over time. Why is this not the biggest story in the media? No other issue matters if our democracy fails.
David F: We've written a lot on this. My colleague Audrey Young in particular has written pieces I think have elevated awareness of the issue to the point it is at now. Most recently Audrey has called on government to fill the void. She's previously written up extensive interviews with Cabinet minister Willie Jackson and Act leader David Seymour on the subject. Audrey isn't the only person to have covered it and as the debate goes on, we will continue to cover it. I sense a frustration (and could be wrong) that you feel the concept should just be chucked out and it hasn't been. Democracies don't tend to chew through things that quickly. In many ways, we've been having this debate for 182 years.
Chris S: The more the (far) Left push the envelope, the more the (far) Right will react. If we had a (far) Right government, the opposite would apply.
Guy S: Agreed, we hear about far-right groups distributing pamphlets (as we should). But the reality is, we've got a government who's just sprung a pretty far-left agenda on the country and emboldened a bunch of far-left groups. For some reason though, far-left ideology seems to be deemed acceptable and it's only far-right ideology that gets criticised, when they're both as bad as each other.
David F: There's been some good research on this. A UK think-tank hired by the Department of Internal Affairs studied New Zealand's online extremist ecosystem. I've copied what it said here: "The far-right are by far the most numerous and active group online. Over half (356,170) of our 608,335 posts and just under half of the accounts (170) identified came from them. Conspiracy theorists accounted for another 226,870 posts (from 134 accounts), and had significant overlap in audience and followers with the far-right, at least on the platforms where this was able to be analysed." It's not apples and apples. The whole report is here [https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Countering-violent-extremism-online/$file/NZ-Online-Extremism-Findings-Report.pdf]
Werner S: In my opinion, the rise in anger and mistrust, and the growth of groups that profit from that mistrust by 'peddling' misinformation, is due to people in the community that are marginalised, whether by government fiat to tackle the pandemic, 'collateral damage' due to economic policies that impacted them or simply the inability to handle the societal changes to control a pandemic. They in effect see no opportunities for themselves in such scenarios; hate with extreme views pander to their frustration, anger and disillusionment. What in your opinion are solutions to tackle this marginalisation and offer these people an infrastructure of opportunity that they may avail themselves if they so choose to combat this 'fury' we see in or society.
David F: I think we need to give consideration - as some countries have done - to heavily investing into social infrastructure. That means spending to develop places where we share in each other's lives and build understandings that cross cultural and ideological boundaries. This has been done by government support to developing shared interest association events at which communities can mingle and mix. There also needs to be spending on better communication from government, and outreach by government. You're not going to trust something you don't see are you? So visibility to government needs to be heightened and contact with government needs to be tangible and real. And it's important to teach this stuff in school, too. It's all long-term stuff and like anything long-term, it would have been better if we started last year. But better now than next year.
Mark B: Co governance is being forced on the people of New Zealand by a relatively small group of people who think they know what is best for everyone. Is it any wonder that even people who are usually happy to go with the flow suddenly sit up and say "hang on a minute, how about asking us ( the people ) what we think"? In my discussions with others on this issue it is not a race issue as much as an issue of fairness. Will co governance not lead to two distinct classes of New Zealanders with two different sets of rights bases solely on who your great grandparents were? What is democratic or fair about that?
David F: It's not a race issue. It's a Treaty issue. I think there's value in taking a reality check too - it's not happening today, tomorrow or this parliamentary term. Also, I have a mental check on myself when these "not fair" issues crop up - I ask myself, are those who are crying unfair part of a group that is said to have enjoyed benefit at the cost of another party? And if so, what is the other party saying? And should those fairness issues be balanced, has the "not fair" group actually lost anything that didn't belong to them in the first place? I think these questions, among others, will be asked and answered as we go. If we get to a point where co-governance is a reality, it will be one in which a lot of uncomfortable questions have been asked, answered and properly explained to the public. And there will be voting between now and then too.
Rowan K: It doesn't help when organisations conduct sham consultations, clearly with predetermined agendas, and then ignore the majority responses (e.g. speed limit reduction on SH5 as just one example). How else are people to respond?
David F: By making contact with elected representatives, holding public meetings, engaging in lawful protest, organising petitions, running campaigns to raise money for legal challenges, opposing re-election of those who brought in the "predetermined agenda". This is a democracy - the power still sits with the people.
Moderator N: Hi David - thanks for your time today. I'd like to know what you think the best response is when someone you care about seems to be getting angry and fixated on a particular issue.
David F: This is not medical advice! From what I have learned, it's really important to not reject that person and also to not directly confront the thing on which they have become fixated. People develop fixations to the point there is nothing else in their field of view. People relate to people and naturally want connections so companionship and human warmth is a way to stay in the field of view of someone who is developing a fixation. That in itself creates a form of de-escalation by watering down the intensity. It can also lead to the fixation becoming relegated in terms of importance. For those who are fixated, the issue on which they are focused can become self-defining and impossible to separate from their feeling of self-worth or their self-image. With empathetic human contact, you provide a different mirror through which people can see themselves.
Shane M: Thank you David. So many difficult influences to consider. Some but definitely not all that I've noticed most ordinary NZers talking about and maybe you can comment to are:
- The worrying consequences of popularity politics, Government social engineering and tinkering with our democracy & economy for very unclear outcomes.
- The worrying influence of social media and it's myopic audience on social cohesion & democracy, especially when considered against the general abandonment of mainstream media.
- The worrying and sudden increase of frequent, flaunting and serious crime in the suburbs. Police have been replaced by a low tech but active and aggressive criminals.
- The worrying outcomes (hence your article) of a Government that has and is proving to be the most divisive NZ has known. Where will all this conflict lead New Zealand!
David F: I don't agree the premise of all that you've posed. On crime, NZ is seeing growth in a particular type of high-profile offending, largely linked to organised crime. Media coverage and public alarm can give an impression communities are less safe than they actually are whereas most crime figures have trended down for years. As for "the most divisive (government) NZ has known", I think that's more about the difficult and stressful time New Zealand. Also, Springbok Tour and 1951 waterfront strike. On popularity politics and social media, I share your concern. Political pursuit of "tough on crime" policies from 1996 to 2014 led to high prison numbers and, according to John Key's chief science advisor, made New Zealand less safe. And social media - what a mess. Where do I start? Better global governmental unity to demand enforcement of minimum standards, better multinational law-making and enforcement to compel a sense of civic responsibility that seems absent or haphazard?
Fiona M: As one reader, I cannot speak for all readers, I weed through all the opinion pieces to try and find actual news based on unbiased factual events from which I can formulate my own opinion. Everything is now agenda driven, biased and preys on the reader's emotions. And then MSM have the audacity to ask why people are so mistrusting and angry? My question is, why has MSM become obsessed with opinion pieces? Who is driving this? When are we going to see more researched and fact checked news void of bias and opinion?
David F: Almost everything I write is fact-based or based on reportage of people who are experienced or informed about whatever they're commenting on. I do get people attacking me over those pieces for what is considered to be my "opinion", which also has me wondering whether we do enough to help people understand how we do our jobs. Here at the NZ Herald, things like this Q&A and The Front Page podcast hosted by my colleague Damien Venuto are really good innovations in that area.
Guy S: Misinformation has been rightly called out as one of the biggest challenges to democracy in modern times. We've seen evidence of Russia meddling in the US and French elections in the past and we've seen the protest on our parliamentary lawn believing a whole host of interesting views. My question though, is where do you draw the line between a social media platform with some far-right ideology spreading lies about Trump winning an election he clearly lost and what appears to be a pro-government view in parts of NZ media in the past 18 months? One example I'm thinking of is how tax changes to landlords were reported. The country's Finance Minister inaccurately called tax deductibility on interest a "loophole" despite every other business in every other industry it's considered a legitimate expense. Either our Finance Minister does not understand how a business works or this was a deliberate attempt to misinform. Why is this behaviour considered any better?
David F: Guy! You've asked so many question it's almost easier if I rang for a chat. I've been doing this job 33 years and I love it. One thing that has been a constant is correspondence from people telling me I'm left-wing or right-wing, very often about the same piece. I've also found that when I write pieces challenging whatever government is in, I get correspondence telling me I'm the opposite political persuasion. So I don't buy the idea of "pro-government" media. I've never been told to take a particular line, or not take one. I don't think I'd stay in the job if I was. And I don't really have a political homeland. My role is holding power to account, whoever happens to be in power. On the "loophole" issue, I didn't cover it myself but do recall Robertson wasn't the only one using the phrase - and that we also ran content from those objecting to the term. That's what we do - all sides, fair and balanced. Also, no worries about that chat if you'd like.
Viv W: Anyone who watched the coverage of the end of the protest at Parliament would have to agree that those offenders did not look like white supremacists, nor the kind of people who would be listening to far-right "dis-information". People I encounter who have no confidence in this Govt are not idiots who sit on the web reading nonsense. The idea that extremists ranting online have any significant influence (numerically) needs to be treated with caution, for it is clearly aimed at restricting freedom of information and speech. This Govt has itself to blame for distrust in it from things like not having been transparent about He Puapua pre-election and then carrying out policies consistent with it, stymied Official Info Act requests, the PM's notorious evasiveness re answering questions, and the leaked April 2020 memo from her office following one of their Friday afternoon document dumps - "don't put any Ministers up for questions on this, we have public support so we can dismiss".
David F: There's no doubt there were far-right extremists in the crowd. They were among the people telling my colleagues they were going to kill them. And how many white supremacists is it okay to hang out with? I agree with you as to the majority of those opposing the current government. They definitely do include moderate, mainstream New Zealanders.
I wrote about this here (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/analysis-why-ignoring-parliament-protesters-is-dangerous-and-will-only-make-it-worse/SMGYQKBFZY5QMXOIOQ2NZBMN3U/). On restricting information and speech, the OIA works and people can say what they will. I don't buy the idea free speech is going or gone. I do think people will be heard better if they approach issues with less anger. On the OIA, I would like to see all governments improve access to difficult information. I've googled that phrase you refer as having been leaked and can't see any reference to it - are you sure it's genuine? If it is, please email me a copy.
Craig W: It is amazing how a microscopic virus has fuelled extremism throughout the world, not just in NZ. After all, NZ has been a key supporter of globalisation for the past 30 years. Fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of cultural values other than ones own have really surfaced since the pandemic began. The chaos created over the past few years and social media influence has played into the hands of extremists and has influenced those ordinary folk who fear for their future.
David F: I agree. And it's not like things didn't work out for some belligerents. Russian botfarms seeded vaccine angst from 2014 onwards with the idea of creating social division. It primed an area for the happy coincidence of Covid at the end of 2019. And that's not the only example of the type.
Riz B: David, do you think white folks in power misunderstand the call for them to share their power as somehow attacking white-ness? How can society become more equal and fair for all if sharing power can't even be rationally considered without defending white supremacy? Latest example: the comments on Monday's story about white supremacists distributing flyers in Tauranga instantly became a white-whinge session, and minimised the harm of relentless supremacist ideology thriving in NZ. The denial seemed to be all in the name of feeling white people feeling under siege. Comments were closed within a few hours otherwise I dare to think it could have looked even worse than it does now - hundreds of likes for lame excuses defending what happened.
David F: I think people often feel attacked or defensive when issues of race arise. There's an understanding gap there which needs to be bridged. Part of that is generational through a history curriculum that includes stories of Aotearoa/New Zealand. Part of it needs to happen now. Necessary efforts to decrease extremism should also have a byproduct effect of promoting knowledge and understanding among those who aren't "extreme" but experience frustrations at a much lower end of the continuum.
Michael C: NZ is a democracy. Unlike, say Russia or China or many other countries around the world that are totalitarian states or as close as might as well be. If we don't like a particular administration we can toss the buggers out. The problem is wading through the propaganda and deciding what's authentic. Do you start with your mind made up and work backwards or keep an open mind and do your own thinking?
David F: I find it best to do my own thinking. Thanks for checking.
Steve N: Hi David, we all thought that MMP would save us from political extremism from all sides. The last election proved it couldn't and we now have extremist policies being enacted by a one party government. A one party National government would probably act (no pun intended!) the same way. Do you reckon its time we had an upper house to keep the lower house under control?
David F: I don't believe we have political extremism. Rather, the need to capture the middle seems have created a long period of a centrist political line. I'm not in favour of an upper House. We're not that big a nation.
