Jacinda Ardern will largely be remembered in Aotearoa New Zealand as the prime minister whose pandemic-era policies saved thousands of Kiwi lives, according to former prime minister Helen Clark.

And she will also be considered an example of how to govern in the age of social media and endless crises, political experts say, while also achieving more than her critics might give her credit for.

Ardern was set to deliver her valedictory speech later today, having stepped down as prime minister earlier this year after just over five years in the job.

“I think that while I’m happy for Jacinda that she’s going to get a life and design what she wants to do and when she wants to do it, you can’t help feeling sad about her going,” Clark, herself a former Labour prime minister, told RNZ Morning Report ahead of Ardern’s speech.

“Leaders like Jacinda don’t come along too often and we’ve lost one.”

Ardern has played down suggestions online vitriol played a part in her decision to stand aside — but acknowledged on Tuesday she hoped her departure would “take a bit of heat out” of the conversation.

Clark said she “fundamentally” believed the hatred got to Ardern, powered by “populism and division” generated by former US President Donald Trump and his supporters.

‘Conspiracies took hold’
“Conspiracies took hold and suddenly you know, as the pandemic wore on here, I think the sort of relentless barrage from America — not, not just through Trump himself and the reporting of him, but through the social media networks — we have the anti-science people, the people who completely distrusted public authority, the QAnon conspiracies and hey, it played out on our Parliament’s front lawn and it still plays out and it’s very, very vitriolic and divisive.

“So I think that that spillover impact was really quite, well, not just unpleasant — it was horrible.”

Researchers have found Ardern was a lightning rod for online hate.

The perpetrator of the 2019 mosque shootings used the internet to connect with and learn from other extremists, which led to Ardern setting up the Christchurch Call movement to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online.

Her post-parliamentary career will include continuing that work, as New Zealand’s Special Envoy for the Christchurch Call, reporting to her replacement, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins.

“The mosque murders was just the most horrible thing to have happen on anyone’s watch, and she rose to the occasion, and I think the international reputation was very much associated with initially the empathy that she showed at that time,” said Clark.

But “one of New Zealand’s darkest days”, as Ardern put it at the time, was not the only near-unparalleled crisis she had to deal with in her time as prime minister.

“The White Island tragedy was another that needed, you know, very empathetic and careful handling. But then comes covid, and there’s no doubt that thousands of people are alive today because of the steps taken, particularly in 2020.

‘Would we have survived?’
“You know, I mean, I’m obviously in the older age group now which is more vulnerable. My father is 101 now and has survived the pandemic. But would we have survived it if it had been allowed to rip through our community, like it was allowed to rip through others?

“I think that there’d be so many New Zealanders not alive today had those steps not been taken.”

Data shows New Zealand has actually experienced negative excess mortality over the past few years — the elimination strategy so successful, fewer Kiwis have died than would have if there was no pandemic.

Former Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield said that was “unique, virtually unique around the world”.

Despite that, it was New Zealand’s aggressive approach towards covid-19 in 2020 and 2021 that arguably drove much of the polarisation and online vitriol.

“There’s no doubt that those measures did save lives. They also drove people into frenzied levels of opposition and fear and isolation,” said Clark. “They felt polarised, they felt locked out.”

But she said Ardern bore “very little” responsibility for that.

Political scientist Dr Bronwyn Hayward of the University of Canterbury said Ardern’s Christchurch Call to eliminate extremist content will have a long-lasting impact on not just New Zealand, but the world.

“There’s been a lot made about the fact that she resigned under pressure from the trolls, which is completely missing the point that what she’s saying is that in this era where we’ve got particularly Russian, but also other countries’ bots that are attacking liberal leaders,” Dr Hayward told Morning Report, saying Ardern was the first global leader to “really understand” how what happens online can spill over into the real world.

“She understands that democracies are now under attack, and the front line is your social media, where we’ve got a propaganda war coming internationally.

“So she’s taken a very systemic approach to thinking about how to tackle that, so that in local communities it feels like you’re reeling from Islamophobia, to racism to transphobia, but actually, when we look internationally at what’s happening, naive and quite disaffected groups have been constantly fed this material and she’s taken a systemic approach to it.”

Clark said one of the biggest differences in the world between Ardern’s time as prime minister and her own, was that she did not have to deal with social media.

“I didn’t have a Twitter account, didn’t know what it was really. We had texts, that was about it. We used to have pagers, for heaven’s sake.”

Ardern’s domestic legacy
One of the first things Hipkins did when he took over as prime minister was the “policy bonfire” — but critics have long said the Ardern-led government has had trouble delivering on its promises.

Interviewer Guyon Espiner reminded Clark that her government had brought in long-lasting changes like Working for Families, the NZ Super Fund and Kiwibank — asking her what Ardern could point to.

Clark defended Ardern, saying the coalition arrangement with NZ First in Ardern’s first term slowed any reform agenda she might have had, and then there was covid-19.

“Looking back, there needs to be more recognition that the pandemic blindsided governments, communities, publics around the world. It wasn’t easy.”

Dr Hayward pointed to the ban on new oil and gas exploration and child poverty monitoring, “which before that was ruled as impossible or too difficult”.

Dr Lara Greaves, a political scientist at the University of Auckland, said it was “incredibly hard to really evaluate” Ardern’s legacy outside of covid-19.

“Ultimately … she is the covid-19 prime minister.”

The future
Clark said Ardern would be emotional during her valedictory speech.

“You have very close relationships with colleagues, you have relationships with others of a different kind — with the opposition, with the media, with the public — and you’re walking away, you’re closing the door on it.

“But you know that a new chapter will open, and that life post-politics can be very rewarding. I’ve certainly found it so. I have no doubt that Jacinda will get back into her stride with doing things that she feels are worthwhile for the the general public and worthwhile for her.”

After losing the 2008 election, Clark rose the ranks at the United Nations. She said while that was an option for Ardern, there is plenty of time for the 42-year-old to do other things first.

“I was, you know, 58 when I left being prime minister. And Jacinda’s leaving in her early 40s and she has a young child, so who knows? She may want Neve to grow up with a good old Kiwi upbringing.

“And she may want her, you know, involvement internationally to be more, you know, forays out from New Zealand. That’s for her to decide. I mean, the world’s her oyster, if she chooses to follow that.”

Dr Greaves also pointed to Ardern’s relative youth.

“It seems like she’s going for a period of sort of recovery and reflection and figuring out what to do next. But of course, she’s got another 20 years in her career, at least — the world’s her oyster.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

As Jacinda Ardern gets ready to deliver her valedictory speech in the Parliament today, former prime minister Helen Clark says she will largely be remembered as the prime minister whose pandemic-era policies saved thousands of Kiwis’ lives. https://t.co/LhKPSZulpW

— RNZ (@radionz) April 5, 2023

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Murder charges have been reinstated against the man suspected of killing French Polynesian journalist Jean-Pascal Couraud, known as “JPK” — his byline, who vanished in 1997.

Francis Stein, a former head of the territory’s archive service, was first charged in 2019 but France’s highest court accepted his appeal last year that investigative magistrates had breached rules during his questioning.

The investigative magistrates have now revived their probe against Stein and Miri Tatarata, who was JPK’s partner.

The pair are both accused of killing JPK, an investigative journalist who was editor-in-chief of the French-language newspaper Les Nouvelles de Tahiti, whose body has never been found.

An investigation was first opened in 2004 after a former spy claimed that JPK had been abducted and killed by the government’s GIP militia, which allegedly dumped him at sea between Moorea and Tahiti.

Murder charges against two members of the now disbanded GIP were dismissed eight years ago, but kidnapping charges have been upheld.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Journalists may face decades in prison for “foreign interference” offences unless urgent changes are made to Australia’s national security laws, according to a University of Queensland researcher.

PhD candidate Sarah Kendall from UQ’s School of Law warned that reporting on issues relating to Australian politics, national security or international relations while working with overseas media organisations could place journalists at risk of criminal prosecution under the Espionage and Foreign Interference Act 2018.

“The law could apply to any journalist, staff member or source who works for or collaborates with foreign-controlled media organisations,” Kendall said.

“There could also be repercussions for journalists working overseas, as any news published in Australia is subject to these laws.”

The Espionage and Foreign Interference Act 2018 covers nine foreign interference offences, with penalties ranging from 10 to 20 years imprisonment.

“While these offences require some part of the person’s conduct to be covert or involve deception, this does not exclude legitimate journalistic activities,” Kendall said.

“Journalists could be acting covertly whenever they liaise with a confidential source using encrypted technologies or engage in undercover work using hidden cameras.”

Public interest protection
In a Foreign Interference Law and Press Freedom briefing paper, Kendall recommended that the government introduce an occupation-specific exemption to protect journalists working in the public interest.

The paper argues that the scope of offences be narrowed to remove “recklessness” and “prejudice to Australia’s national security” as punishable elements.

“For example, a journalist could be accused of recklessly harming national security when they publish a story that reveals war crimes by members of the Australian Defence Force,” Kendall said.

“Journalists and their sources could face up to 20 years in prison if any part of their conduct was covert, even if they are engaged in legitimate, good faith reporting.”

Kendall said the law’s Preparatory Offence, which carries a potential jail term of 10 years, risked creating a dangerous precedent when combined with the offence of conspiracy.

“This offence can capture the earliest stages of investigative reporting so a discussion between a journalist and source about a potential story on Australian politics could see them charged with conspiring to prepare for foreign interference,” Kendall said.

Foreign Interference Law and Press Freedom is the latest report in UQ Law School’s Press Freedom Policy Papers series, a project aimed at laying the groundwork for widespread reform in laws spanning espionage, whistleblowing and free speech as they affect the media.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Every journalist that “outs” a conspiracy theorist or extremist paints a target on their own back.

The anti-truth brigade thrives in dark places and shining a light on it and its associates is doing a public service. Yet it comes at a cost.

The tone of abuse that it generates is even darker than the places from which it emanates. New Zealand journalists — particularly female journalists — are being subjected to taunts and threats on an unprecedented scale and in forms that are deeply disturbing.

Paula Penfold of the Stuff Circuit team that produced the documentary Fire and Fury, which unmasked many of those behind the February-March protest in Parliament grounds, revealed in the Sunday Star Times last weekend that since its appearance she has been targeted with death threats, abuse “and, unsurprisingly, conspiracy theories”.

She told the newspaper: “I’ve had lots before but never as many or as ugly or as threatening than after this documentary.”

Penfold’s situation was outlined in an article about the abuse three female Stuff journalists had endured for doing their jobs. Alongside Penfold were Kirsty Johnston, who revealed MP Sam Uffindell’s record at King’s College, and Andrea Vance, currently revealing the anti- brigade’s associations with local body candidates.

“You can’t fight crazy,” Vance told the SST. “It’s exhausting. Half their tactics are to tie you up in pointless circular arguments but if people honestly think we’re being paid by the government they’re not well.”

Attitude about media
Her latter point was a reference to an all-too-popular suggestion that the media en masse had been suborned by the Public Interest Journalism Fund. Anyone who thinks New Zealand’s media can be instantly brought to heel by $55 million spread among all of them over a period of four years is, indeed, not well.

Then again, the attitude toward journalists is “not well” either.

I felt immensely saddened to see this quote from Kirsty Johnston about the spread of trolling and abuse: “All reporters know it. They go to parties and don’t say what they do.”

When I was young, the only people who had that attitude were undertakers and the people who worked in the local VD clinic. We were proud to say we were journalists, reporters, photographers, sub-editors and so on.

Our broadcasting colleagues were equally open about their profession.

What went wrong, and when?

Fire and Fury – the documentary                      Video: Stuff Circuit

It has been a long time since the public put journalists on a pedestal. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the last statue to a journalist in Auckland was erected in 1901 (remembering George M Reed and still standing in Albert Park).

Slow decline
There was a slow decline over the years but in the 40 years I spent in daily journalism I never felt despised. Yes, I received two death threats in that time but the first was written in crayon and the second wasn’t aimed only at me, or even only at journalists (which was why it was reported to the police). What journalists are now experiencing is either something new or something old harnessed to something new.

I think it may well be the latter. The old component is anarchy and the new is digital communication. Together they are dynamite (excuse the pun).

Anarchy is basically the repudiation of existing systems of government and ordered society, represented by institutions such as Parliament and the media (the latter is seen as the mouthpiece of politicians). In the past it had a capital A and was an intellectual breeding grounds for socialism, communism, and other then-radical politics.

However, even then, it had its hangers-on who were drawn to its sometimes-violent rhetoric with little understanding or interest in its philosophy. The crazy bombers and assassins were seldom actually card-carrying members of an anarchist body.

Today, anarchy has a small a. We use the term to denote disorder and disarray. And it underlies much of the anti-this and anti-that ranting that permeates social media.

Put simply, there are people out there who want to see the institutions of civil society brought down. They have no clear idea what should replace it and they don’t care. In a way, they are calling for destruction for its own sake. That is at the core of conspiracy theories.

Social media has become the new explosive. Much easier to come by than volatile nitro-glycerine or the “safer” dynamite, it can carry a destructive force over a far greater distance.

Digital bomb-throwers
The digital bomb-throwers use it in two ways. The first is by undermining truth, which casts doubt over the legitimacy of institutions. The second is by discrediting those who represent those institutions. They reserve special attention, however, for those who would presume to unmask, undermine and discredit them.

So, it came as no surprise that the verbal attacks on journalists rose to a new pitch after the appearance of Fire and Fury on the Stuff website and the series of revelations about local body candidates’ undisclosed affiliations with groups that spread conspiracy theories.

The crescendo of hate requires fortitude on the part of the journalists exposing conspiracy theorists and other bad agents. They can take some comfort from the fact that media organisations take seriously their duty of care toward staff — and freelancers — facing threats.

RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson told me the abuse was taking its toll.

“We have responded with improved security and health and safety planning, at our offices and in the field. We also have set up improved process for dealing with inappropriate and abusive feedback and social media. There are things we can do to mitigate the effects of the abuse but we cannot reduce the impact or risk to zero.”

Television New Zealand’s head of news, Phil O’Sullivan, is similarly conscious of the risks and effects.

“TVNZ has not made any changes to security arrangements due to recent incidents. But we have many existing safety precautions for reporters in place. Depending on the story, this can include traveling with extra security when covering certain events, reporting from safe locations and from a distance if a situation feels volatile and using technology solutions – for example drone footage, or footage recorded on mobile phones rather than a camera set up where needed.

“We have a responsibility to report on all the stories impacting New Zealanders — but ultimately, we need to do that in a safe way. At the forefront of this is the wellbeing and safety of our people and we have a number of measures in place to support this.”

Probing anti-fact organisations
He makes an important point: Media organisations must not let these diatribes and threats stay their hands. Investigation into anti-fact and extremist organisations and individuals must continue and are no more important than during election periods, be they local or national.

There is, however, a caveat. Journalists who call out conspiracy theorists and latter-day anarchists also have a duty of care. They have a duty to ensure they have the facts and that what they say is fair.

Last Saturday, the Wairarapa Times-Age investigated “local government candidates with controversial links” under the heading “Who is pulling the strings?” It “outed” a mayoral candidate, Tina Nixon, saying she “had been promoted by conspiracy website Resistance.Kiwi” and on Facebook had followed people associated with far-right groups.

Its source was FACT Aotearoa, a group that exposes conspiracy theorists.

However, the newspaper did not make direct contact with Nixon (it left an email saying she had two hours to respond but she did not see it within the required timeframe). Her only link with Resistance.Kiwi had been in giving them permission — along with several other websites — to reprint her submission on the 3 Waters proposals.

Like many of us, she follows hundreds of websites and social media users but does not support what many of them say. FACT Aotearoa offered Nixon an apology, saying there appeared to be a “miscommunication” with the Wairarapa Times-Age. In my view, the newspaper failed her and electors by not substantiating information.

There is potential here for witch-hunting or, as my former colleague Fran O’Sullivan put it on social media when calling out the mistake, McCarthyism.

In addition to fact-checking, media should give their targets an opportunity to explain their position before a decision is made to publish or broadcast. Tina Nixon is an object lesson.

There is a further reason why media must take great care in “outing” conspiracy theorists and extremists. Get one wrong and it might be seen as an unfortunate error. Get more wrong and the conspiracy theorists and extremists will say gleefully (and, irritatingly, with a very small amount of justification) that the media can’t be believed.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A prominent Australian lawyer, Greg Sheppard, has been arrested by Papua New Guinean police and is facing a range of fraud charges.

Sheppard, a principal of Young & Williams Lawyers, was arrested on Tuesday in Port Moresby.

He was charged with two counts of misappropriation and another two counts of money laundering.

Police say the charges relate to Sheppard’s alleged involvement in the transfer of funds amounting to US$14.5 million (52 million kina) in 2018.

These funds were part of the US$75 million (K268 million) that were unlawfully withdrawn from a trust fund established to finance development projects in PNG’s Western province, the Western Province People’s Dividends Trust Account.

Sheppard, 65, was previously arrested and charged by PNG police in January in relation to the same criminal investigation.

At the time he was charged with two counts of conspiracy and another two counts of false pretence.

So far, the defendant has been charged with a total of eight offences.

Sheppard has done extensive work in PNG over recent years, recently representing the country’s former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and Opposition Leader Belden Namah among other prominent leaders.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“What psychologists call apophenia – the human tendency to see connections and patterns that are not really there – gives rise to conspiracy theories”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apophenia

The Gordon Riots

“June 1780 [witnessed] the worst mob riots of the eighteenth century. Lord George Gordon was a born incendiary of extreme, almost insane, views. … He established an ‘association’, in the style of the time, and the Protestant Association soon came to include men of property, artisans, London apprentices and those elements of the city that were known as the mobile vulgus or more colloquially ‘the mob’.”
Peter Ackroyd, The History of England, Volume IV

The year 1780 was well after the ‘religious wars’ – the reformation and especially the counter-reformation – were over. But England was then an economic tinderbox, and was in the midst of a losing war to save its American empire. Nine years before the Bastille was stormed in Paris, the Gordon mob stormed London’s equivalent, Newgate Prison. Ackroyd says “the prisoners shrieked in terror of being burned alive … [but] were dragged away from the fires, or crawled out … the fetters still clinking about their legs. … On the same day, houses of wealthy Catholics were sacked or burned to the ground.” The mob also targeted the Bank of England, the Tower of London zoo, and Bedlam hospital. “Eventually the military restored order with some judicious threats and violence.”

This wasn’t simply random violence; it was fuelled by a baseless anti-Catholic conspiracy theory. Ackroyd comments: “The London poor did not attack their own. The Catholics who were pursued were wealthy gentlemen, lawyers and merchants. It came as an unwelcome surprise [confirming] that savage anger lay just below the surface of the century.” The rioters included a number of people who might be classed today as ‘middle class’. This was a case of ‘apophenia’, whereby a misreading of the social distress of the time led some otherwise intelligent people to target particular scapegoats.

The aftermath of these riots was a suppression of political dissent, meaning that England – and then the United Kingdom after that entity formed in 1801 – could not have a revolution of the type that happened in France from 1789 to 1799. The revolution that did happen, instead, was an industrial revolution; a revolution that eventually – and without political intent – addressed some of the issues that provoked the Gordon riots.

The Jan 6 mob, the US ‘election steal’, and other events that could have been misconstrued

The mob insurrection of the United States Capitol in January can be understood as a similar event; an event underpinned by super-conspiracy movements, such as Q‑anon. This case of apophenia was discussed recently – The Listening Post, Al Jazeera, 13 Mar 2021 – in terms of computer-game theory. People love to ‘solve’ puzzles through clues – remember the Da Vinci Code – and this process can lead whole groups of people down ‘rabbit‑holes’ of unreality.

If we who are not (or believe we are not) down rabbit-holes of unreality, we should be more aware of the kinds of symbols and processes that can fuel apophenia. In early November, I was concerned that – in many US states, including ‘battleground’ states such as Pennsylvania – the state authorities decided not to count advance postal votes until after election-day votes had been counted. It would be as if the many advance votes in New Zealand were all treated as special votes. The result of such a process in New Zealand would typically be a comfortable election-night win to the ‘right’, to then be overturned by special votes.

The sequence in which votes are counted has a big effect on the emotion and drama of an event. There are other analogies, such as the America’s Cup regatta in San Francisco in 2013. Team New Zealand, needing nine wins to win the Cup, was leading 8-1, and was comfortably ahead in what could have been the winning race. Then, with the finish line in sight, the race – in light airs – was called off [unexpected to viewers, who had not been pre-warned of this possibility]; this was because the participants had agreed that each race should be subject to a time limit. The situation was like a cricket test match where, on the last day, and with just one more wicket to claim, the five-day match is called off due to bad light. Subsequently, New Zealand could not win another race – the final score being 9-8 to their American opponents, Oracle. This outcome could easily have been construed as a conspiracy against Team New Zealand, whereas the reality was that the Americans were improving faster than the New Zealanders. Fortunately, the reality was understood by New Zealand sport fans, who never rioted (as some of the fans of Argentina’s recently deceased Diego Maradona have done since he died).

Back to the November election in the United States, if the advance votes in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin had been counted first – as they would have been in New Zealand – then on election night the final outcome of the election would have been much clearer, and the opportunities to see an ‘election steal’ would have been much reduced. The problem was that, in these states, the uncounted postal votes were overwhelmingly for Biden, and there were many more of them than had been indicated by the media. Thus, we saw states with allegedly ‘98% of votes counted’ switching from Trump to Biden as the remaining 2% swelled into rather more than 2%. Interestingly, in Arizona, the votes were counted in a completely different sequence from Pennsylvania; and, on election night, it was only Arizona that gave the key clue that Trump might not win. In subsequent counting, while late-counted votes were about 7 to 1 in favour of Biden in Pennsylvania, in Arizona the late-counted votes favoured Trump. While Trump still lost Arizona, that state – called for Biden on election night – turned out to be much closer in the end than Pennsylvania was.

For Americans already primed to believe that the election might be stolen, the dramatic change in the final result compared to the election-night result, had all the visual ingredients that a ‘steal’ might have. Of course, it was not a steal, but – given our propensity to apophenia – it had the optics of a steal.

The whole situation is potentially a slow disaster, in the world, for democracy. It is like the proverbial ‘butterfly effect’; an effect where small initial events can, rarely, escalate into chains of world-changing events. Decisions about the sequencing of vote-counting made by local bureaucrats in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin created much needless drama, and a resulting set of optics that has fed a popular movement that already had been well-primed. Since then we see not only the January riots but also that the Republican Party itself has become hostage to the ‘election steal’ conspiracy. And, even worse, since then a number of subsequent elections in other countries have had losers claiming, with minimal if any evidence, that election steals took place in their countries. The example that matters most of course is Myanmar, where the military coup – and its brutal aftermath – have taken place amidst this wider rhetoric of stolen elections.

These conspiratorial movements can become very ugly. One of the major people now being targeted is George Soros (see The Troubling Truth about the Obsession with George Soros, Forbes 12 Sep 2020); another is Bill Gates. Soros is a Hungarian-born intellectual (author of The Alchemy of Finance) – who like some past intellectuals (eg Isaac Newton, David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes) made a lot of money on the stockmarket – and also happens to be Jewish.

While Lord George Gordon, in 1780, targeted Catholics and set off a wave of riots, the present equivalents may be following the dangerous and well-preceded path of anti-semitism.

Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland.

contact: keith at rankin.nz

By Ben Strang of RNZ News

Thousands of New Zealanders do not believe the official version of the mosque terror attacks in Christchurch.

About 5 percent of the people are estimated to be hard core conspiracy theorists, some of whom have been spreading their theories online and over the airwaves, reaching a global audience, according to Victoria University professor of psychology Marc Wilson.

Professor Wilson, who has studied conspiracy theories, said it was no surprise that New Zealanders had been looking for alternative explanations for the Christchurch attacks.

READ MORE: Accused to face 50 murder charges, police confirm

Some New Zealand conspiracy theorists have been talking to American radio show host Alex Jones, who is well known for promoting various conspiracy theories.

For years he has argued the Sandy Hook school shooting in the United States was staged by actors to undermine gun ownership rights.

-Partners-

Families of the 20 children killed are suing him for defamation, and this week, in a court deposition, he finally conceded the attack was real and children died.

One of the people to talk to Jones was Sharee, a North Island woman who said there was a link between the recent measles outbreak in Christchurch and the terror attack.

No animosity
Sharee went on to say the attack didn’t make sense, because there was no animosity towards New Zealand’s Muslim community.

Another woman, Mandy, called American right-wing talk show Newswars.

She said the United Nations orchestrated the attack, and she was disgusted by the government’s response.

Thousands of other New Zealanders are active on Facebook and other social media sites, discussing different theories for what happened in Christchurch.

Professor Wilson said up to 5 percent of people were prototypical conspiracy theorists, while many more believed in some conspiracy theories.

“I’ve done some large scale surveying of thousands and thousands of New Zealanders,” Professor Wilson said.

“What I’ve found is that something like 30 percent of New Zealanders argue that, for example, the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was not conducted by agents of a foreign power.

‘Established fact’
“I find it kind of interesting, because I’m pretty sure it was the French actually. I mean, that’s a fairly well established fact.

“About a third of New Zealanders indicate that they think the All Blacks were poisoned before the 1995 World Cup final.”

Professor Wilson said the internet had fostered a dramatic increase in the number of conspiracy theories.

The flash point was 9/11, and now there are millions of people browsing websites which only strengthen their beliefs.

He cited confirmation bias, in which people surround themselves with online communities who shared the same views, and reinforced their beliefs.

Professor Wilson said conspiracy theorists seized upon any opportunity to question the official narrative, like the fact police charged the alleged gunman with killing someone who was still alive.

“Finding that police have identified someone as dead, who actually isn’t dead, then becomes the kind of information that someone who already has a predisposition to distrust the official point of view, then confirms that belief.”

‘Fake news’ phenomenon
Professor Wilson said one of the most mainstream conspiracies was the fake news phenomenon, which was spread most famously by supporters of United States President Donald Trump.

The president has also appeared on programmes like Jones’ Infowars.

Professor Wilson said it was a relief New Zealand politicians had not gone down the American route, but it was something he watched closely.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz