Table of Contents
Two headlines on Newshub on the same day, a few days after the first leaders’ debate (a debate the media is strangely claiming Ardern lost but Collins didn’t “win”). The first headline says “NZ Election 2020: Judith Collins’ claim 100 percent renewable electricity would increase power prices fact-checked as ‘mostly false’.” The second says “NZ Election 2020: Jacinda Ardern’s claims on public housing ‘mostly true’, factcheck finds.” The articles are placed next to each other.
If you look at the first article the conclusion it reaches is based on pumped hydro being viable:
However, this model was based on achieving 100 percent renewable electricity by “overbuilding” renewable generation and adding batteries to make up for years when hydro dams were low. Under the model, the extra renewable generation would mainly come from an increase in geothermal, wind and large scale solar generation.
But the report found pumped hydro storage “shows promise” and recommended the government investigate this further as an alternative.
In July, the Government announced it would spend $30 million to develop a business case for a pumped hydro scheme at Lake Onslow as the primary way to meet its renewable energy target. In September the Labour Party said it would spend a further $70 million to accelerate the option if elected.
I don’t know about you but that sounds pretty dodgy.
For the second article, the “mostly true” one, we have an explanation of why Ardern’s claim regarding housing is “mostly true” plus as a bonus we get an apology for the “minor” error:
The key factual claims in the Prime Minister’s statement are backed up by Government reports showing the levels of state housing over the terms of the previous National and current Labour Governments.
Ardern’s comment about the rate of new builds wrongly implies her Government’s present build rate would have covered the state housing waiting list.
However, an explanation from her office, supported by previous statements from two Labour ministers, revealed she had meant the waiting list would have been met if the current build rate was applied to the term of the previous government.
Mostly true – the claim is mostly accurate but there is a minor error or problem.
Now here’s the thing. Collins’s claim about electricity may be “mostly false” and Ardern’s claim regarding housing may be “mostly true” but in a debate where many claims were thrown why select just two? What about all the claims made by Collins that were “mostly true” or even “true”, and all the claims made by Ardern that were “mostly false” or God forbid, even “false”? And why put the headlines side by side? Is the media trying to send a subconscious message perhaps?
The AAP Factcheck website says it’s run by “journalists”. That to me is enough to ring alarm bells.
Anyway the whole thing mostly reminds me of “The Princess Bride” and the “mostly dead” scene. Which let’s face it the legacy media mostly is.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please share it.
