STUFF's 'Fact Checking' Is Stuffed

Katie Kenny from Stuff published an article today with a lazy attempt at so-called ‘fact checking’ my recent comments on the World Health Organisation’s concerning new regulations being developed.

What is most surprising is that throughout this entire ‘fact checking’ process, Kenny never once rang me asking for my side of the issues, what my facts were, and what references I used to form the statement in the first place. 

In fact, she even stated “It’s unclear whether Peters’ tweets are referring only to the International Health Regulations (IHR) being revised or also to the new accord.”  So how can she possibly ‘fact check’ anything if she starts her article admitting she doesn’t know what she is fact checking in the first place?

How on earth can any serious journalist, let alone media organisation, write and publish with any sense of sincerity a ‘fact check’ without once asking the person who is the subject of the facts being checked?

It is also baffling that Kenny never mentioned once that the British Members of Parliament and Ministers have raised the very same concerns that I did about the W.H.O. and their new regulations.  It will be an interesting foray for her into ‘fact checking’ the British Parliament MPs too – although that might give balance to her article and destroy her predetermined narrative.

It is clear that Kenny has neither read my statement properly nor has she the ability to read the new regulations being developed by the W.H.O. – she clearly needs a lawyer to go through it with her.

She firstly states that critics’ views are “not the case” and “are not true” - as a statement of proven fact.  Quickly followed by her own personal interpretation using vague words such as “It’s more likely” and “seemingly”.  Worse still, she rounds up her ‘fact check’ with “But there is still a long way to go before anything is finalised.”

How can she state that critics’ views emphatically not be true, then admit there is nothing finalised yet, and that it is a matter of the purpose of the changes being ‘likely’ and ‘seemingly’ – in her opinion.  Where are the ‘facts’ in her checking’?

If the media were doing their jobs they would be widely reporting on the W.H.O. regulations being developed so that the people of New Zealand understand what conversations our government are having on these matters.

Instead we get this typical attempt at a hit job.

It is sad to see how far New Zealand journalism has fallen.  It is now preferable for journalists to achieve click-bait numbers on gutter articles rather than substantive, balanced, factual reports.  It is this sort of biased gutter trash all wrapped around woke leftist narratives that now permeate our mainstream media.

Perhaps this is why sixty percent of New Zealanders now don’t trust the media and seventy percent actively avoid watching or listening to them altogether.

In New Zealand we once had quality investigative journalists who did research to find the facts first and then publish a balanced report – there are still some, but far too many now publish an opinion piece first and to hell with the facts.

Katie Kenny might want to ‘fact check’ this statement with a phone call – I’m not holding my breath.