As with ethics, so with principles, of which Groucho famously quipped: “If you don’t like them, I have others.” Whereas our betters at ‘Red Radio’ have none, it seems, their moral compass all awry as they happily engorge themselves, salivating over stolen information last week, mountains of it.
Personal, confidential, illegally obtained documents available only on the dark-web were trawled on the pretext of [cough] ‘verification’ but, in reality, were a search for dirt on ideological targets. Imagine their glee on discovering a reference to an Oranga Tamariki placement, the very agency our great White Saviours have campaigned against in favour of a separate Maori stand-alone version. Would a tiny thing like ethics prevent the comrades from delving further? Ha! You all know the answer to that.
They dived into the stolen goodies and rushed into print, opening with an obfuscation, call it what you will, a lie perhaps?
Or two lies? Since the documents were not ‘leaked’ and were not ‘online’ in the sense of being publicly available.
Mustering resources, within a short time three separate articles appeared, each increasingly skewering Oranga Tamariki until some idiot talking-head armed with only the unethical reporters’ version of truth spoke the words they longed to hear:
“The Minister for Children Kelvin Davis is calling for an investigation into the case and advocates say it is disturbing and outrageous – and validates calls to scrap the ministry as a whole.”
How about: “it is disturbing and outrageous – and validates calls to scrap Radio New Zealand as a whole”, that gargantuan, taxpayer-indulged, lefty-infested sewer?
Clad in White Saviour trademark overcoats to deflect their excremental behaviour, RNZ pretended the story was of the sorry treatment of the youngster, the poor bugger’s plight. However, after approaching the Waikato DHB and being asked to hold off publication since the youth was “easily identifiable in the Radio NZ stories by those who know of the child or their circumstances”, ‘Red Radio’ simply refused, preferring to strike hard at the political target before the enemy had a chance to mount any defences or to forewarn those involved.
The young ‘victim’ was therefore not afforded the minor dignity of knowing that a set of skin-crawlingly wretched articles featuring their own words and actions was about to be exposed to all-and-sundry strangers and kicked around like a political football, ‘cos they cared so much about said “child”.
Should it have taken a judge in court yesterday to point out to RNZ the paradox of their so-called principles? Of course not, not if one dwells in a house where some semblance of ethics reigns. Only one sentence from the tripartite hit-jobs masquerading as articles bears repeating:
“I really think that heads need to roll with this one.”
Please share so others can discover The BFD.
