Peters’ ridicule a badge of courage for the fourth estate

There’s never much sympathy when the media starts crying ‘‘poor me’’. But Winston Peters’ crowing about the possible demise of MediaWorks, and the hundreds of jobs that might go down with it, is as unseemly as it is telling about the Deputy Prime Minister.

Of course Peters doesn’t give two hoots about the state of the fourth estate. Peters still holds a grudge against the media for NZ First being booted out of Parliament in 2008 and he may be right.

It probably was the media’s fault – if by that you mean it was the work of investigative journalist Phil Kitchin, whose series detailing questionable NZ First donations earned him a rebuke from Peters as a ‘‘lying w...r’’. Or NZME’s Audrey Young, who exposed the lie behind the infamous ‘‘no’’ sign repeatedly held up by Peters when he was asked about a $100,000 donation from expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn.

So when Peters answers questions about the state of MediaWorks with the words ‘‘good riddance’’ he no doubt means it. Peters has no love for the media; his delight in MediaWorks’ plight suggests that, as far as he’s concerned, politics would be a much better place without any pesky scrutiny of him or the Government in which he is such a key player.

We can at least expect better from Labour’s Broadcasting Minister, Kris Faafoi, who is respected across the board as being willing and able to take a more thoughtful and constructive approach. Whether he can come up with a solution to the current broken media model is another matter. As RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson argues in our business pages today, the media’s big global competitors, the FANGS – Facebook, Apple, Netflix and Google – have ripped the throats out of the traditional media industry.

Is there an alternative? Yes – a world in which fake news flourishes, power is unchecked, and authoritative, credible, trustworthy news sources no longer exist. A world in which those who wish to abuse their power and position can do so with impunity.

A world in which politicians can glibly answer ‘‘no’’ when the truth is ‘‘yes’’.