David Seymour's interview on Voice for Freedom radio station is fascinating

Friday, 12 May 2023

ANALYSIS: You’re a public figure, and you’ve been asked for an interview on Voices for Freedom’s (VFF) radio station. Do you agree?

Many would say no, opting not to give it oxygen. Some might say yes, hoping to ignore the loaded questions about vaccines and culture war grievances and pivoting to issues they want to discuss.

In an interview this week, ACT leader David Seymour took a third path, setting a possible template for how to be interviewed by someone from a media ecosystem often hostile to outside views.

Reality Check Radio (RCR), VVF’s radio station, has been programming for several months.

**READ MORE:

* Protesters called me a 'disgusting lesbian'. Here's what I say to them

* Michelle Visage on conversion therapy and why RuPaul's Drag Race is not for the fainthearted

* Performing not a drag for these talented queens - and king

**

It has a fascinating mixture of content: Long discussions with retired politicians, gardening tips, self-help, and pop bangers from the 1970s and ‘80s, mixed in with anti-vax grievance and climate change denial.

Despite this diversity of content, ideologically, it is remarkably narrow.

There have been few, if any, contentious interviews. The same perspectives on the same topics are repeated day after day. A typical listening experience is hearing two people in enthusiastic agreement, mutually wondering why others disagree with them.

It’s a safe space, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.

This can be a prime opportunity for political candidates. When RCR interviewed NZ First leader Winston Peters, Peters did not embrace the most provocative claims; instead, he subtly shifted the questions to safer ground. It may have given the impression he agreed with the question whilst not directly answering it – a tried and true political tactic.

It’s similar to another common strategy: rejecting a question's premise and answering it in more favourable terms.

Seymour could have taken either approach. Instead, he punctured the safe space, probably losing his party votes.

The interviewer was Paul Brennan, a former RNZ newsreader. Two of his ongoing concerns are that COVID-19 vaccines are causing widespread damage and kids are being indoctrinated with progressive understandings of gender.

These issues, naturally, came up during the interview.

“There’s a lot of… what’s the word… concern about some of the new social, I guess, attitudes that are creeping into the classroom,” Brennan haltingly asked Seymour.

“I think you know what I’m talking about. People are concerned about what young kids are hearing in schools by way of, let’s say, even promoting perhaps certain… lifestyles, or life choices. Have you got anything to say about that?”

Let’s pause to dissect what’s happening here.

Brennan has strong and forthright views on this issue.

In a previous interview with a friendly guest, he suggested that drag queens were making a concerted effort to sexualise children, and there was something “ritualistic” about gender-affirming surgery.

On Monday, he said a report into online hatred of trans people was biased because “the way they talk about trans… is in a very favourable light”.

Brennan likely knows he can’t speak in those terms. His interviewee is from outside the RCR bubble; people who don’t usually listen might find it off-putting.

Instead, he seemingly self-censors and tries to imply what he’s talking about, hoping Seymour will run with it.

Seymour does not.

“Well, let’s work on the evidence, Seymour responds. “What’s an example that concerns you?”

Brennan clarifies he’s talking about “a lot of the trans talk at schools… gender talk in schools to quite young kids seems to be happening”.

“So, what’s an example of something quite young kids are being told?” Seymour responds.

“I can’t tell you verbatim, but you should be aware of it.”

“Aware of what, exactly? You have to explain it to me.”

This continues for some time. Brennan acknowledges he can’t provide an example but insists it’s a problem. Seymour asks Brennan at least six times to state clearly what he means before rescuing him with examples of other things in schools that concern him.

Brennan returns to the subject, asking about drag queens reading to kids – again, not stating why they would be a problem.

“What is it about a drag queen that you think is problematic or different?” Seymour queries.

“I guess the concern of people is the exposure to sexualising at too younger [sic] of an age…” Brennan responds.

“So you’re not worried about drag queens, you’re worried about sexualisation. If the question is, is somebody who is a drag queen going to explicitly sexualise children, you’re not opposed to drag queens, are you - you’re opposed to anyone who sexualises children. So am I.”

This is notable because Brennan has never had to articulate why he holds his views. He can air his concerns, knowing most guests won’t challenge him and that his audience has the same beliefs.

By pushing Brennan to articulate his point, Seymour neutralised a common strategy: Whispering ideas into the discourse by pressing politicians to adopt positions based on vague concerns held by unspecified people.

Later in the interview, Brennan notes that many of his show’s listeners supported the protests at Parliament. Did Seymour?

“I support the right to protest, but I didn’t support a lot of the behaviour,” Seymour responds.

“What behaviour are you talking about, specifically?” Brennan counters. “It seemed to be peaceful and depending on who you talk to… what, specifically?”

Seymour says he supported the people with sincere concerns about mandates and the Government’s pandemic policies.

“But let’s be honest, there were people swinging nooses at us, there were people circulating plans to kidnap us, there were people who were blockading the roads, stopping small businesses…”

Brennan tries to interrupt: “I think I know where this is going, it’s a list of all the threats you received, I get that.”

“No, it’s not, actually,” Seymour continues.

“There was harassment of school girls walking to school, there were businesses who had suffered from two years of COVID restrictions and instead of being seen as allies and sympathisers were blocked from doing business for another month.”

Brennan is trying to do what Seymour did earlier – push him to articulate his views with examples. Instead of floundering, Seymour unapologetically lists them.

In doing so, he exposed listeners to what might be a novel viewpoint; support for the protest's intent with a refusal to excuse its unseemly elements.

Brennan tries to backtrack as Seymour continues, resorting to mischaracterising Seymour’s point.

“So you were sitting in there scared, is what you’re telling me?” Brennan says.

“No, I didn’t say that at all.”

“But you’re talking about the threats. It sounds like there was fear there. Okay, you were fearful.”

“No, I haven’t said the threats had any effect on me personally… I can see you want to put words in my mouth.”

Some will object to Seymour’s decision to be interviewed in the first place, but his approach to doing so may well have been valuable.

Political views aside, he advocated his position while preventing the interviewer from using his presence to inject ideas through implication.

By making his answers conditional on the provision of evidence, he set basic standards for the quality of the discourse.

In an election year likely to be rife with content about heated subjects, this may well be a worthy example for other political figures to follow. Even if it loses you votes.