I’m no Winston fan but really who cares what he said to Susan Devoy in 1987.
I tend to agree with Peter Williams that this should never have been reported:
During Dame Susan’s session, conducted by veteran sports journalist Phil Gifford, she made some comments about the deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters.
Now they were not especially complimentary comments, but neither were they malicious. It was a fun night, with lots of awards and lots of laughs.
It was a privilege for us media types to have Dame Susan – who I regard as a very distinguished New Zealander – among us. It was even more pleasurable to be sitting beside her, with Phil Gifford one chair over.
So when I heard that a former editor of the New Zealand Herald had sent out a tweet quoting Dame Susan talking about Winston Peters, without any context at all, and that Dame Susan had to leave the function to attend to the follow up calls from hungry media inquiries, I was – to say the least – quite angry.
This was a pleasant, harmless and – I thought – relatively innocent night out. What was said there was, I would have thought, off the record. Chatham House rules and all that.
Up until a few years ago there was a general presumption you never reported stuff that was informal such as humorous speeches, celebrity debates etc. But now all the fun is being sucked out of such events with the possibility that someone will immediately publish without context your comments.
But no, some journalists and editors can’t resist. Those bloody mobile phones and that awful medium called Twitter have wrecked a good night out for me and probably others too.
I’m embarrassed for the profession of journalism.
If every mildly controversial comment made at an awards dinner or sports function was reported then frankly, these fun functions would probably cease to exist because no sports personality would ever come to speak knowing the trouble they might incite.
Yep.
Having said that, God knows why Winston thought it was a good idea to hold a press conference to deny it, when his denial makes it worse:
“I never told her to ‘lose weight’, or that she was ‘a bit round’, or that she should ‘walk the length of New Zealand to lose a few kilograms’.
“Dame Susan Devoy’s memory is failing her. What I did say, a long time ago prior to her walking the length of New Zealand in 1998, was meant to be a compliment.
“I said that the then-Susan Devoy’s sporting skill was of such a level that she could beat the best in the world even when she wasn’t fit.”
When asked for comment on Gifford’s account of the event by Stuff, Peters called a press conference and said he did “not recall” saying she was a stone overweight.
“It was patently obvious she wasn’t fit,” Peters said but wouldn’t clarify how exactly he had worked this out.
It was patently obvious she wasn’t fit? Really? Winston can tell this magically. It’s an obvious code for weight or body size (and it shouldn’t be as you can be overweight but very fit) so Winston’s denial actually pretty much backs up the claims.
Anyway I’m sure we all have something more important to do that worry about what Winston said in 1987.
Of course he has made more recent jibes about the body size of women – about Paula Bennett and Tariana Turia. The Prime Minister (Ardern) and Minister for Women (Genter) both says they are ardent feminists. But I bet you they will not have a word to say on this!
