McBlog: Who needs ‘hate speech’ laws when we have the NZ media

In a disturbing display of media censorship in New Zealand, the major daily newspapers have banded together to pull a full page advertisement at the 11th hour. The advertisement asked the question “What is a woman?”. We reveal how the media all worked together to suppress this campaign and the resulting furor. We also analyse a hysterical bias hit piece on the campaign by one of the newspapers who refused to run the advertisement.


It’s been a fascinating 2 weeks. Week 1 was the issue around Spark ONE NZ formerly Vodafone and 2Degrees all deciding that support trans activists and calling anybody who agrees with biology and opposes radical gender ideology derogatory names such as TERF. There was certainly a strong backlash, which is actually building as NZers have had enough of having woke values rammed down their throat and they’re starting to push back. As BudLight have found out, and even Target and Disney to a certain extent, there’s only so much companies can lecture consumers before the consumers decide to turf THEM out and stop buying from them. And that’s what Spark and ONE NZ customers seem to be doing.

You have purchasing power and the ability to push back on this tidal wave of wokeness and lecturing.

Week 2 wasn’t much better! And it was all related to a simple question “What is a woman?” The main objective of the “What is a woman?” campaign is to communicate a truthful, biologically correct, common-sense definition of “woman” that has been carried down through generations and cultures.

There’s also a petition to ensure that ‘woman’ is to be defined as ‘an adult human female’ in all our laws, public policies and regulations.

Family First wanted to place full-page advertisements in six major daily newspapers on Wednesday 19 July to coincide with the launch of their “What is a woman?” campaign.

The newspapers were NZ Herald and Bay of Plenty Times (owned by NZME), Christchurch Press, The Post (Wellington) and Southland Times (owned by Stuff), and the Otago Daily Times (owned by Allied Press).

This is the advertisement…

All three companies approved the advertisement.

The Post, Christchurch Press & Southland Times (Stuff) on Monday….

“this has been approved so we are good to go”

NZ Herald and Bay of Plenty Times (NZME) on Tuesday

Confirming the ad has been approved

The Otago Daily Times on Tuesday of last week!

Yes all good to go. Thanks for your support.

Then they all seemed to get together over the phone – and nek minnit…. …..women are cancelled.

The advert is cancelled in all newspapers that had confirmed

* NZ Herald

* BofP Times

* Dom Post

* Chch Press

* Southland Times

* Otago Daily Times

Now, here is the conclusive proof that all three companies colluded together in some way to ban our advertisement.

From NZ Herald on Tuesday night at 8.30pm….

We are reconsidering our position… it wont be appearing in tomorrow’s paper

The date we had specifically booked.

The NZ Herald will try and claim that they hadn’t rejected the advertisement. But they were first provided the advertisement on 27 June! At the very last moment, they refused to run the advertisement on the specific day requested – after approving it.

From Stuff (The Post, Christchurch Press, Southland Times) on the day that the advert was supposed to appear (“a late decision”)…

Just to confirm there was a late decision made yesterday not to run the ad. It was decided that the campaign doesn’t align with the values of Stuff, due to the sensitive nature of the content.

In other words, they just don’t like it.

What are the “values” of Stuff? Exclusion if they don’t like your ad?

Remember – they had approved the advertisement.

But here’s the kicker. The Otago Daily Times (who also cancelled after approving the advertisement) reveals the full discussion that happened between the  newspaper editors and the level of collusion at the top level.

“NZME heard we got grief”

“Stuff got wind of it”

“Our CEO followed suit”

“The CEOs and editors are speaking now”

In a disturbing display of media censorship, the major daily newspapers have banded together to pull a full page advertisement at the 11th hour.

It should concern all of us that newspaper editors are now banding together to censor advertisements that they disagree with. Where does this place their coverage of the political debate leading up to the General Election? What else are they censoring?

The fact that they are working together is disturbing. Has the government funding of these media outlets spelt the end of independent public discourse on controversial social issues? It appears so.

After the furore over what the newspapers had done, although not surprisingly, all the mainstream media in NZ have remained dead silent on this event, The NZ Herald and the Otago Daily Times later offered to place the advertisement – in a later edition. However, this is well after the requested date coinciding with the launch of the campaign. Stuff and Allied Press have not made any similar offer.

And why would we want to give money to such a company.

Is this the effect of the $55m government funding to the mainstream media. They no longer rely or need advertising dollars – so they can pick and choose what adverts they want to run based on whether they agree with it or not.

Who needs hate speech laws when you have the mainstream media walking in step together.

But here’s the classic bit. From the weekend. One of the media outlets did talk about.

The Otago Daily Times did a feature piece on the advert – a response if you like – to an advert that they hadn’t even run.

The headline screamed “Haters gonna hate – Anti-trans campaign ramps up

And then inside, a full page hysterical one-sided propaganda hit-job piece by Tom McKinlay – ironically with photos from California. Note the masks on all of those listening so you can’t see them mouthing “this is weird”. Oh – and a Trump rally

So let’s have a read of this article. It’s actually highly amusing. In fact, let’s see how soon they use the term “nazi”, and “Trump”.

The best thing about this article is – it’s behind a paywall. So very few people will ever have to read it.

It’s always nice to get a tweet from Dr Jordan Peterson also who said in response to news travelling around the world on social media about what the NZ newspapers were doing….

The creature without whom A man cannot conceive

Well, it’s pretty clear we don’t need hate speech laws in NZ to shut down speech that the left doesn’t like and to cancel anybody who doesn’t bow at the altar of diversity equity and inclusion – or more correctly speaking, deception, inequity and exclusion.

Nope we don’t need hate speech laws.

We have the media already censoring free speech.

Welcome to NZ.

Scroll to Top