ANDREA VANCE

“The Press Gallery may have to ask some hard questions of itself. Peters is merely exacerbating distrust of the media – he didn’t create it. That’s part of a global weakening of democratic institutions, super-charged by Covid-19. During the pandemic, the public got to peek behind the curtain and see how news was made. They did not like what they saw.”

At the risk of being dis-invited from the annual Christmas party … is the influence of the parliamentary Press Gallery on the wane? The first week of Christopher Luxon’s new administration was dominated by Winston Peters’ combative attitude to its journalists.

Peters is running a media campaign against the media, luxuriating in the copious attention afforded to a deputy prime minister while denigrating reporters at every opportunity.

Politicians past have grumbled about the press. Sir John complained journalists “don’t want to talk about the issues that really matter”. By the end, a reluctant Dame Jacinda Ardern had to be dragged to interviews.

Peters has always had a fractious relationship with the Fourth Estate. At times during the campaign, he had more to say about it than his actual political rivals. It was dismissed casually as his usual roguish behaviour. But, he has now taken this baiting to a higher level.

It is a battle fought on two fronts. Personal: almost his first utterance on accepting the second highest office in the land was ridiculing broadcasters Jessica Mutch-McKay and Tova O’Brien. And institutional: repeatedly accusing state-funded media organisations of a lack of independence.

The Press Gallery need to be on-guard. With his attack-the-messenger strategy, Peters is framing the media as his enemies.

As a consequence, his supporters and to some extent the wider public, will discount any stories and genuine scrutiny of him as expressions of bias.

Already, this behaviour has generated a storm of coverage, far beyond the interest of the non-journalist. The controversy follows him now to every podium, which the press pack feels obligated to report on, obliterating all other issues.

Reporters can expect no assistance from Peters’ coalition partners. There is little sign they care. While extremely accessible, David Seymour is disdainful of the Gallery, who he sees as mostly young, wet-behindthe ears, Wellington elites, who are outof-touch with heartland New Zealand and hostile to the right.

During a campaign rally, the travelling press corps were assaulted and intimidated. Seymour responded by attacking the media in a call for donations.

Luxon has declined to denounce Peters for his false claims about the public interest journalism fund, nor comments appearing to give direction to RNZ and TVNZ on the use of te reo Māori.

Luxon’s own relationship with the media is uneasy. It’s plain he finds the abrasive, chaotic nature of Press Gallery stand-ups non-constructive.

There is speculation that he wants to reduce the amount of interactions he has with the media. (To be fair, New Zealand journalists get unrivalled access to their prime minister, who is often expected to have an answer for every issue of the day, no matter how trivial.)

That was fuelled when he bucked convention and refused to update reporters on the state of post-election coalition negotiations. Tension over their campaign coverage also saw Luxon’s team deny Newshub the traditional election-night coin toss, giving the first interview to TVNZ.

There are other signs that the Press Gallery might be in danger of losing its preferential status. Recently, Parliament’s officials tried to move media offices to the attic above the library, a precinct No Man’s Land that puts reporters far from the action and MPs.

The Gallery had a brief spell there almost a decade ago, when their annexe building was judged earthquake prone. It was an unworkable location, and they moved into Parliament’s Old Building where they remain after winning the most recent fight.

However, another looms. An old proposal to rope off the famous black-and-white tiles resurfaced recently. Journalists would have to call out to MPs passing on their way to Question Time, asking permission, rather than just being able to ask questions.

Still, once it wins this fight, the Gallery may have to ask some hard questions of itself. Peters is merely exacerbating distrust of the media – he didn’t create it. That’s part of a global weakening of democratic institutions, super-charged by Covid-19.

During the pandemic, the public got to peek behind the curtain and see how news was made, with regularly live-streamed press conferences. They did not like what they saw.

And yet, there has been no effort to reverse the perception that journalists are distant, elitist and too cosy with politicians. Peters is merely exploiting an opportunity, just as the press pack exploit him for infotainment.

It’s a test we need to take seriously. News leaders and editors need to decide whether they give unfiltered coverage and soundbites to someone who demonstrably spreads disinformation, and refuses to answer questions or respect the democratic norms of ministerial accountability.

It’s adapt or die – and we already know how this plays out. Donald Trump took over the media by battling it, becoming a news story that dominated all others. It almost neutered the industry.