Skip to content

Media played doctor during COVID, now the bill is due

"... independent journalism was cast quite literally as criminally dangerous.”

Table of Contents

Summarised by Centrist

Between April 2020 and August 2022, the government spent over $116 million on COVID messaging, plus another $55 million via the Public Interest Journalism Fund. 

“This substantial government funding stifled open debate,” Anna McLoughlin of NZ Doctors Speaking out on Science (NZDSOS) writes, creating an atmosphere where sceptics were “disappeared or ridiculed and independent journalism was cast quite literally as criminally dangerous.”

She calls out the “stark double standard: journalists and ‘infotainment’ pundits, untrained in medicine, dispensed health advice without consequence, while TV personalities like Hilary Barry offered chocolate fish for vaccines. 

Yet, “experts in medicine were heavily punished for exercising their professional judgment, even whilst the Medical Council of New Zealand spouted the vaccines were 100% safe,” she writes.

“No pharmaceutical treatment in any circumstance, at any time is ever 100% safe, particularly brand new genetic therapy products which were presented in warp speed timing without full studies completed. We are now seeing thorough peer-reviewed science showing significant safety concerns years after vaccination,”  she argues. 

Calling it “state-sponsored manipulation,” she points to the Behavioural Insights Team slogans like “Team of 5 million,” colour-coded alert levels, and coordinated messaging driven by the Behavioural Insights Team, WHO partnerships, and USAID-linked media funding. 

“This is not public health communication,” she argues. “It’s information dictatorship, and we’re still paying the price.”

She urges the Royal Commission to investigate funding, ethics, and media accountability.

Read more over at Anne McLoughlin substack

Subscribe to our free newsletter here

Latest

Are We Captured by the Bureaucracy?

Are We Captured by the Bureaucracy?

The public does not want a lesson in governance theory. They want democratic control and competent delivery. What do you think, are elected leaders still truly in charge, or has the balance tipped too far toward the bureaucracy?

Members Public
A Pyrrhic Victory, Perhaps

A Pyrrhic Victory, Perhaps

Watts said on Tuesday that once the law is passed councils will have six months to review their appointments before the law change takes effect. It will be unlikely that the necessary law change will be implemented before the election. Only being seen to be doing something to chase votes.

Members Public