Dr Hazeltine averred that TPP was not good for New Zealand. Further, the claim of an additional $2.7 billion was spurious, the figures simply made up. And the ISDS was a threat to sovereignty as foreign companies could sue New Zealand in the event our regulations interfered or diminished projected profits.
This was not a debate but a back and forth of sound-bites with no opportunity for either party to offer proof of their assertions.
There was little a viewer could glean from this to help them decide which position had any merit - especially if that viewer had had no other opportunity to learn about the merits and flaws of the TPP.
Nor was there any more helpful information from the moderator of this American-style food fight. Simon Shepherd offered more misinformation, claiming the new Canadian government was not committed, nor was Hillary Clinton, and that United States Republicans were against it.
In fact, Canada under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will debate the TPP in its parliament, and Hillary Clinton was for it before she was against it. As to the Republicans - it is literally the only item where they've agreed with President Barack Obama during his entire seven years in office.
The format of "he-said, she-said" used by TV3 is unpleasantly familiar. I've seen too much of it on American television where it often gets rowdy, with mutual interruptions and shouting doing little to illuminate issues, but providing the infotainment of a verbal sparring match.
It may be entertaining on some level, but informative activity it is not.
Having seen enough of these in the US, it is fair to ask: What purpose is served? Or whose interests?
The viewer is left with a sense of confusion or often enough a resigned "pox on both your houses" feeling.
The back and forth shadow play has analogy to the good-cop bad-cop with the viewer as the target. The viewer is thus discouraged from critical thinking and given the false impression that no conclusion is possible because all opinions are of equal value.
This is what the linguist Noam Chomsky refers to when he calls the process "manufactured consent".
On this specific issue, the TPP, readers will have noted that Ms Beard's comments represent the official government view.
They are strikingly disingenuous but it clearly is the position supported by TV3, aka NewsHub.
If you go to their website you'll find a full page articulating the government's unsupported assertions about the TPP attributed to the Ministry of Trade.
There is no contrary commentary nor any critical questioning of the party line. NewsHub fails the fundamental test of journalism: To be more than a stenographer for official government pronouncements, and not simply a cheerleader.
There are alternatives to television for information about important controversial issues like the TPP.
Find a New Zealand opposition view of the TPP here: http://itsourfuture.org.nz/what-is-the-tppa
Without other sources of information about the TPP, NewsHub's contribution may best be summed up this way: "All the news that's sure to confuse."
Another reason to shut off the telly and, in the words of Nancy Reagan, "Just say no!"
-Jay Kuten is an American-trained forensic psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand for the fly fishing. He spent 40 years comforting the afflicted and intends to spend the rest afflicting the comfortable.
