Counter-speech? Sure. Cancellation? No. RNZ reporter faces backlash.

Kiwi journalists were too afraid to report a story about a 17-year-old who died of starvation while in the care of the state. Not long ago, this story would have been front page news with reporters clamouring over each other to be first to break the story. Not anymore.

What has changed? Well, we can quite fairly point to a degree of cowardice in the news media in general, but ultimately what has changed is that activists have been empowered to use stand over tactics and cancel culture to bully the media into reporting their narratives.

It took more than a year for a journalist to be brave enough to tell the harrowing story of Vanessa’s* death and, predictably, that journalist, Radio New Zealand’s Ruth Hill, received immediately backlash.

Ruth dared to write about one of our culture's ‘Sacred Cows’: gender identity. You see, Vanessa not only had anorexia, autism, and had experienced childhood sexual abuse, she also identified as a boy.

Ruth wrote sensitively about the many intersecting complex matters at play and, in particular, showed respect to the parents who had lost their only child in truly awful circumstances. This was where she apparently went wrong…

I took this story to journalists on behalf of the family all those months ago and I was disgusted and frustrated by the lack of intestinal fortitude I was met with. I was pulling my hair out, wondering what happened to the brave investigative journalists of the past.

Now, I feel bad for all the judgment I passed. Look at how their principled colleague Ruth Hill has been treated! No wonder they were afraid. They have kids to feed and mortgages to pay after all. 

This week, an activist targeted Ruth in a concerted campaign to have her sacked. His demands included that RNZ retract her article, issue an apology (presumably to the trans community), review their editorial processes, and discipline or sack Ruth Hill (see screenshot below). 

He also sent a very dramatic letter to the Minister of Media and Communications, Paul Goldsmith, demanding an urgent investigation into RNZ. He claimed Ruth’s article constitutes “systemic deception” and “criminal negligence,” and accused her of “fraudulent misrepresentation in service of an ideological agenda.”

This activist was joined in his crusade by a New Zealand blogger who has dedicated much of his writing in the past week to eviscerating Ruth, encouraging others to do the same, and doing his best to trash Vanessa’s* parents.

But, Ani, free speech! Yes, I hear you. Bloggers and activists are entitled to write what they want even if it is nasty, insensitive, and shameful. But, they aren’t entitled to intimidate journalists and to try to strong arm public broadcasters into firing their reporters.

Let’s be clear, this isn’t about correcting perceived inaccuracies or debating pronouns (counter-speech!) – it’s an effort to intimidate a public broadcaster into submission.

It is about scaring journalists and editors away from reporting on this topic again. It’s a glaring example of how some activists will even appeal to state power to enforce ideological conformity.

While the social media pile-on and officious letters should be received with little more than eye-rolls, this situation highlights an alarming threat to media freedom. Protecting journalists from intimidation and attempts to control their reporting is crucial.

The much-reported-on erosion of trust in our media is an urgent concern, and while much of this decline is self-inflicted, the increasing pressure from activist groups working to control the narrative is also having a negative effect.

These groups use intimidation and cancel culture to silence any voices that don’t align with their views. It is driven by efforts to halt dissenting voices. It is about making sure those with access to our big media platforms are under the thumb of the bullies.

Counter-speech? Sure. Cancellation? No. 

For New Zealand’s media sector to regain the public’s trust, journalists must be able to do their jobs without fear of intimidation. We need to stand against activists who seek to control the narrative and support media organisations that uphold the principles of independent journalism.

This issue goes far beyond the subject of gender identity. This is just one ‘Sacred Cow’ of our time. I am sure you can think of others. These tend to be the topics that most need to be reported on because there is contention and disagreement.

When activists use stand-over tactics or demands for sackings, they undermine the very foundation of a free press. Media outlets must be able to report on uncomfortable or controversial matters without fear of retribution.

I am outspoken in my criticism of our media and journalists. I think they have a lot of work to do to win back our trust. However, we must defend their right to report without intimidation.

Only by stripping back the ideological restraints that have been hampering good informative reporting, can we support journalists to get brave and return to those good ol’ journalistic principles.

Ani O'Brien | Free Speech Union Council Member