Benjamin Doyle: The Media’s Latest Darling of Deflection

In yet another display of journalistic cowardice, Newsroom’s latest piece on Green Party MP Benjamin Doyle, titled “Benjamin Doyle: ‘No matter how hard people try and disappear us, we exist’” (May 2, 2025), serves up a steaming plate of agitprop rather than anything resembling hard-hitting reporting. Instead of probing the serious questions surrounding Doyle’s questionable lifestyle and past behaviour, the article – penned by Newsroom’s political editor Laura Walters – opts for a one-sided puff piece that paints Doyle as a victim of a cruel, transphobic world. This isn’t journalism: it’s advocacy dressed up as news, and it’s exactly the kind of media failure that leaves New Zealanders shaking their heads and switching off.

Let’s be clear: no one is trying to “disappear” Benjamin Doyle, as the article dramatically claims. The public isn’t out to erase him from existence. What many New Zealanders want is for Doyle to stop parading his controversial lifestyle as a badge of honour in parliament while dodging accountability for actions that raise legitimate concerns. The Newsroom piece conveniently sidesteps the hard questions about Doyle’s past, particularly the Instagram controversy that erupted last month, where they captioned a photo including his child with the sexually charged slang “bussy galore”. Instead of interrogating this, Walters lets Doyle frame it as a “pop culture pun” and moves on, as if that explanation washes away the public’s unease.

The article leans heavily into Doyle’s narrative of being a persecuted non-binary trailblazer, quoting him lamenting a “colossal step back” in rainbow rights due to coalition policies and NZ First’s proposed legislation to define woman and man in law. But where’s the scrutiny? Walters doesn’t challenge Doyle on how his personal conduct might undermine his credibility as an MP, especially one holding portfolios in Early Childhood and Māori Education. Nor does she ask why Doyle ignored the Green Party’s advice to delete his provocative Instagram account before entering parliament, a decision he admitted was “politically naïve” but which led to death threats and public outrage. Instead, the piece amplifies Doyle’s claim that he’s being targeted by “poisonous transphobic hate”, effectively shutting down any discussion of whether his actions might have contributed to the backlash.

This is where Newsroom fails its readers. Journalism demands asking uncomfortable questions, not spoon-feeding readers a pre-packaged narrative. Why didn’t Walters press Doyle on the appropriateness of using sexualised language in posts involving his child? Why no mention of the security report from GRC Group, reported by the NZ Herald on April 15, 2025, which warned of a 15–25 per cent chance of physical attack on Doyle due to a “hostility network” fuelled by their online activity? These are the kinds of details that deserve exploration, not a free pass. Instead, the article reads like a Green Party press release, complete with a sympathetic photo and a laundry list of Doyle’s grievances against NZ First leader Winston Peters and coalition policies.

The piece also glosses over the broader context of public concern. Doyle’s Instagram scandal wasn’t just a one-off: it’s part of a pattern of behavior that many find incompatible with the responsibilities of an MP. A post by @bobmccoskrienz on 3 May, 2025, called out Newsroom’s article as a “paid infomercial”, accusing it of failing to investigate Doyle’s ties to groups like the Burnett Foundation or other questionable activities.

These are the voices of real New Zealanders, and they’re not asking to “disappear” Doyle – they’re asking for accountability.

Walters’ article also conveniently ignores the political motivations behind Doyle’s victimhood narrative. By framing every criticism as transphobia, Doyle and his defenders deflect from the core issue: whether his behaviour is appropriate for a public servant. NZ First’s proposed bills, like the one defining sex-based rights, aren’t about erasing anyone’s identity – they’re about clarity in law. As Peters himself stated: “This is about ensuring we focus on the facts of biology.” Yet Newsroom doesn’t engage with this perspective, opting instead to let Doyle’s emotional appeals dominate the story.

The reality is, most Kiwis don’t care about Doyle’s gender identity – they care about trust and competence in their elected officials. When an MP’s past includes posting sexually suggestive content alongside images of their child, people have a right to ask questions. When that MP then cries ‘hate’ instead of owning their mistakes, it erodes public faith. And when the media, like Newsroom, refuses to hold them to account, it’s no wonder people turn to platforms like X for unfiltered truth.

Doyle isn’t a victim of a grand conspiracy to erase him. He’s an MP who made poor choices and now faces scrutiny – scrutiny he’s earned. If he wants to ‘exist’ in parliament, he should focus on doing the job, not promoting a lifestyle that invites controversy. And if Newsroom wants to be taken seriously, it should start asking the hard questions instead of churning out propaganda. New Zealand deserves better.