#BHN So many people seem so sure about what Maiki Sherman did

Added: 2026-05-06

[00:00:00]Let's talk about David. I just just very briefly want to touch on this because it's sort of happening and if you don't mention it's happening then people think there's a conspiracy theory and you're not talking about it.

[00:00:08]>> Just want I just say sorry to cut off the other thing that has broken today is that TVN Zed uh and I do I have to say allegedly I probably don't because it's been reported that TVNZ sent lawyers letters to News Talk ZB to not look into this situation which is an interesting uh wrinkle in this story as well. Um, but these guys all get into that. So, let's have a listen.

[00:00:32]>> I just found it interesting what you said yesterday about this spat between the two reporters that allegedly happened at a at a minister's office a year ago. Um, do you think there's something odd in the fact that we don't didn't know about it till now?

[00:00:48]>> Yeah. I I think it's very interesting that uh if a member of parliament had done the same thing or or even close and I could give you multiple examples of this. Uh this would have been on the news night after night, it would have been a major issue. Um but somehow that behavior on the parliamentary precinct uh against the rules of of parliament and way below the standard.

[00:01:10]>> I think we do have to actually also acknowledge that there can be different rules for different people. I mean, if a if a 21-year-old got a bit pissed up on Friday night and went and urinated on the steps of Parliament and then a senior minister did that, it would be a bigger story of one person doing it over the other. You don't always have to say exactly exactly. Now, in saying that, a reporter within the halls of power is obviously closer to power than the example I just gave. But it's like this example that comes out of America where constantly people on the right will hold some random Twitter user to a standard that they refuse to hold Donald Trump to.

[00:01:59]>> People at the top should probably have uh be held to account at the highest standard and there should be some kind of scale down and at the very bottom of that standard is podcasters from Deneden doing a live stream four nights a week.

[00:02:14]That's the bottom of the barrel. Mikey Sherman is certainly closer to the top than the bottom, but I'm not necessarily saying in this it would be exactly the same standard between reporter in parliament >> and parliamentarian in parliament. So the right do this very well. Like in America, the example is always about the leftists that make all these threatening comments and smart commentators go, can you point to a politician on the left who has said these things? And they never can. And then they go, on the right, there's the president, there's this person in cabinet, there's this person in cabinet, and there's this um this disparity between the power the person holds and the standard they are being held to. Now again, Mikey Sherman versus a politician, that's closer, but there is still disparity there between I think the level of accountability they should hold. Any thoughts, Joey?

[00:03:12]>> Yeah, look, all I'm sure you're making good points and I'm sure David Seymour is attempting to make a good point, but all I heard was blah blah blah rules from a man that tried to drive a Land Rover up the steps of Parliament.

[00:03:25]>> So, >> very good.

[00:03:27]>> Suck it. after he was told after he was told not to and then when he was d when he drove it up he kind of pleaded ignorance. So there's that aspect of that story as well. All right, let's get going.

[00:03:38]>> Precinct uh against the rules of of parliament and way below the standards that most people would expect from someone who has a a pretty big job, you know, basically gets to shape the news for the biggest news audience in in New Zealand so far as politics is concerned.

[00:03:53]You know, that that standard hasn't been held. many people knew about it.

[00:03:58]Apparently, uh, TV and Zed actually >> that [laughter] was a that was a that was a very late apparently almost like he went in real time. Oh, I knew about it and I never said anything. I should make sure that >> they they they I'm not saying he did that, but it was quite a funny pause.

[00:04:14]>> They took legal action to stop other reporters uh from reporting on it, which you know is strange because they're supposed to be committed to uh news gathering. Um, so I think unfortunately now that uh one woman, Annie O'Brien, with a Substack account on the internet has broken a story that none of these other media out.

[00:04:37]>> Isn't he downplaying who Annie O'Brien is?

[00:04:41]one random woman who has a Substack >> that used to work in Judith Collins, who is a political operator in her own right, who is a commentator on politics and has worked in politicians office and has shaped policy before >> and I I think I think is on the board of the free speech union.

[00:05:03]>> Yeah. Um, like that's that's kind of downplaying who she is. And that's really because he doesn't want people looking into who she is.

[00:05:13]>> Like people like us know who she is, >> but Joe Punter watching this interview may not know who Annie O'Brien is. So let's let's not make it easy for them.

[00:05:24]>> If what you're saying >> that's Annie O'Brien, random citizen. If what you're saying is true and he didn't want to bring attention to it, then he should not have said her name because some people might now go, "Oh, who is this person?" So maybe maybe what you're saying might be true. All right, here we go.

[00:05:41]>> Uh that that is going to have an effect uh on how people trust and see the media. I think it would have been better uh if something like the level of accountability these journalists would expect from politicians uh was applied to one of their own, you know, almost a year ago when this happened. Madam, do you have any views on this one?

[00:06:01]>> I think you know we had what people might recall is called the Francis Review. That was a report into making sure that this precinct, this parliament is a place that is safe for everyone, every single person that works in it.

[00:06:13]And that of course has to include our press gallery, all of the reporters. Um, so on the face of it, and I only have what has so far been reported about some people saying some things on the face of it, >> although I'm not saying that MMA is not doing this, but a point that I heard made today was if it happened at a press gallery event, there would have been press members from all the media agencies there, which again raises the question, why didn't it come out? Now, it the answer to that might be what people on the right are wanting you to believe that they've circled the wagons and this inside click of elitists won't let it out even though they work for different media outlets. It could be that. It could also be there's no there there which we don't know yet. That could I'm not saying is but could be the other option >> that wouldn't affirm and uphold a safe place for people to work. But I acknowledge that I do not have all of the facts. I do not understand all of the context behind what has been said.

[00:07:21]>> I mean, the fact that Mikey Sherman herself would have would have chased herself down the corridor for it.

[00:07:26][laughter] [gasps] >> Oh, there's that sense of humor from our favorite stand.

[00:07:31]>> Ryan Bridge. Ryan Bridge. Do you know who Annie O'Brien is?

[00:07:36]>> You do. Now, talking about context, now Chewy and I talked about this after the show because on some level this is just random uh titt on blue sky. Uh in another account, you could say some people are asking that. Now, I think what I'm about to say probably resonates with boys more so than girls. Not completely left or right or up or down or 100% zero, but boys, I'm I'm giving you an example, right? Boys can be horrifically vicious to one another.

[00:08:08]Like boys as in friends, completely horrific in the language they use to one another and boys are fine with that. So here's a context and I'm not putting this context out there that says it's gospel. I don't know but it is conversation that was going around blue sky that two very good friends got a bit pissed up. One said something pretty vile to the other one and the other one responded with something pretty vile.

[00:08:39]I'm already hearing people denounce that as a theory, but that is a possible context which might make it if it was that different. We don't know the context right now. But what I'm about to show you from News Talks EB Wellington is quote, what did I say? uh he pre he's pressing uh Christopher Hipkins because we know the whole context is about to be what said to Chris Hipkins about this issue >> before we do and look I'm not by the way I'm not putting that theory out there as gospel I got no clue what's going on but I guess what I'm saying is when you have no clue you have no context can there be a situation where contest which when to use that f slur is okay I mean amongst boys saying horrifically horrible things to one another in the safety and security of your own house. Most people might go to to coin a phrase, chew Chewy, uh, locker room banter. Heard that somewhere before. In a work setting, a couple of friends doing that to one another. That's really unwise. No matter what, it's really unwise. But the context may not have been the vicious nature in which it's about to be explained to us as. Um, look, I I I look, Chewy, I actually want you to to correct what I'm saying or come in because I don't want to be seen right now to be putting up a defense for Mike. I'm not doing that. I'm just giving you an example of what some people are saying on the internet to bring a context to it, which may or may not be the case. In other words, we can't know the context. Chastise me, Chewy. Um, you know, treat me rough.

[00:10:11]>> Pat's a bad pat, and he says nonsense all the time. Um, no. Look, without dancing around too too much, we might be only hearing half of what was said to start with.

[00:10:25]>> Um, the way that I have seen it reported is um, the word that Mikey said is the the homophobic slur that starts with F. U, but it may, and that's just been put out there, right? But what if it was in a sentence that is like, "Hey, you wouldn't like to be referred to as a would you in response to a comment that may be racially charged."

[00:10:53]>> So that context makes a difference.

[00:10:55]>> In this case, both of these people have done something stupid. And and I I I think that Nicola has maybe come in halfway through, heard one thing and come down hard and shut the whole thing down.

[00:11:11]But you know, there's, as I said last night, I think this whole story is very politically motivated that it is driven by dirty politics. It's must be seen in the context of the other actions that are being taken against TV and Zed rather than the fact that it is the instigator for those those actions.

[00:11:30]It's not the instigation.

[00:11:32]>> Yeah. And I just also I also want to make clear that Chewy's giving you a different context >> that we don't know if it's accurate or not. So all I guess I'm wanting to highlight with these two sort of conversations now is as of today it is uh 9:27 p.m. on the 29th of April. We don't have the context yet. And you heard last night me saying that f slur is a very serious and serious thing to say and a very serious thing to be thought through. The pileon by some people speaking in certainties has been interesting to watch when we don't have context yet.

[00:12:07]>> Let's get to News Talk ZB in uh Wellington. Uh the guy's name is Nick Mills. I have no idea who he is. I've never met him. I don't know him. Uh >> oh my amuse bush. I have >> he [laughter] is about to talk to uh Chippy and he's going to make sure that we all know and you know when you're doing you're trying to convince someone you know Chippy you know what's real. I know you know we both know what's the truth. He says and I'll say again I quote again um we know the whole context. We know the whole context. That's what he says at some stage. That's what he says after Chippy says I think we don't know the whole context. He says, "No, no, we know the whole context. Have a listen."

[00:12:47]>> If the facts are confirmed and correct, and we've got no argument, no one's actually saying they weren't correct or not. If >> was no one, that's that implies that we know everything. So, we already are saying we don't know if they're completely correct or yet because we haven't heard back.

[00:13:01]>> She called the reporter what she called him should she lose her job. Look, I'm not going to pass judgment on that. I wasn't there. I don't know what was said. I don't know the context of it.

[00:13:10]I've actually been called far worse by journalists.

[00:13:13]>> Hold on, hold on, hold on. We're just pushing it all to one side. You know exactly what was said and you can't tell me you didn't because you know everyone knew what was said and now it's been made public what was said. So you know the whole context of it. You know how it was >> just go back. The exact whole line we just said just came up there. You know the whole context of it. Listen again.

[00:13:31]Public what was said. So you know the whole context of it. You know how it was went down. Should she lose her job or should she keep her job?

[00:13:39]>> Those are questions for the individuals and for their employers. Would you be surprised if she kept her job after making no stomach?

[00:13:46]>> As I've said, those are just those are those are really personal question.

[00:13:49]>> Well, no, no, it's not because neither one of them. But you will be surprised that she'd keep her job. Can I just say from a person, I'm not trying to sound arrogant, who's done hundreds and hundreds of interviews, most of them at a radio setting. This is [ __ ] awful.

[00:14:04]>> He's a [ __ ] terrible interviewer.

[00:14:06]Like I' i've left, you can see right at the end of it. I couldn't do all this stuff where he was talking about the the government, you know, being friends and all getting on well together and being strong and stable. He this is he's terrible. Like I mean I don't say that often about media people. He's terrible.

[00:14:20]>> The people involved nor am I their employer. And so I think it is important that the employers get to respective employees make these judgments and no politician should interfere in that process.

[00:14:31]>> Yeah. There you go. So that's the con that's the context of that conversation.

[00:14:36]Yeah. I I just said don't know him.

[00:14:37]Don't know who he is. Never really heard of him before from watching that one whole 20 minutes interview. He's [ __ ] awful. Well, I mean, okay, I'll even be fair. It was a [ __ ] awful interview.

[00:14:47]Maybe that was a bad one for him, but it was terrible. Absolutely terrible.

[00:14:51]>> Yeah, in all in all fairness, you don't know what's going on in someone's life.

[00:14:55]Maybe uh maybe that interview has got a lot of stuff on his mind, like the fact that he owes IRD $1 million.

[00:15:03]>> What?

[00:15:04]>> Unpaid taxes.

[00:15:07]He's a bit of a known character in the Wellington hospitality scene, mate. Uh you might want to check the the private chat there. Um yeah, so he he was part of a group that uh owned a couple of venues in in Wellington and they went under. Um, and now he is currently crying foul over the fact that the IRD are being very mean to him and um, not accepting his very generous offer to pay [snorts] 40% of the back taxes that he owes.

[00:15:42]>> I just Googled this. Is your links better than this? Have you sent me a link or something? Have you?

[00:15:45]>> No. No, that's the link that I sent you.

[00:15:47]>> Okay. Um, so yeah, he's he's a wealthy man that thinks the Ird has been very very mean to him.

[00:15:57]And I don't know, this flavors my opinion of him somewhat.

[00:16:01]>> It does. It does. And I'm not saying this to defend him. I'm just saying this is what we'd say about if it was the opposing view. Just because you're sitting somewhere politically doesn't mean you're wrong. Now, I think listening to that interview, I didn't know what any of that other stuff you just said about him was. It was a terrible interview. So, just it's standing in and of itself.

[00:16:24]>> It was terrible.

[00:16:24]>> A multi-layered [ __ ] bird. Like there's there's, you know, like I referred to Plunket, you know, it's an onion made of [ __ ] Every layer you peel, there's just more [ __ ] And I think this is the case.

[00:16:36]That was a dreadful interview.

[00:16:39]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:16:44]>> Because yeah, as you said, he is stating things are facts that we know all the context to someone that wasn't in the [ __ ] room.

[00:16:53]Like Chris Hipkins wasn't lurking at at the the pre-budget drinks and Nicola Willis's office, was he? No. There are two people that could come forward and clarify what went on. Mikey Sherman and Lloyd.

[00:17:11]>> Well, and there may be others as well.

[00:17:13]>> I don't think it's going to happen.

[00:17:15]>> Look, I actually think what I have got to in this conversation is actually also a really interesting point. The room was full of journalists.

[00:17:25]Why has no one else reported on this?

[00:17:28]And it's going to be one of two issues.

[00:17:31]Either they are a cabal of elites who scratch each other's backs and stick close and won't won't tattletail on one another. So some some great defender like Annie O'Brien had to come in and and do it all. So okay, one option.

[00:17:45]Option number two that there is some kind of context which doesn't make it this cardinal sin that all these people on the right are currently telling us it is. Now >> I I'll say this thing kind of to be clear. Using that kind of language in a work space even with your best mate is [ __ ] stupid, right? Like if that was some kind if there was a context where it was supposedly light-hearted. I'm not saying that people should use that word in a light-hearted way or any kind of slur, >> but >> just but especially in a workplace, like I said, if you're with your mates and you're at home and you're having a few drinks and you're getting raw, that's a very different scenario from in a work space because in a work space there might be 10 other people who don't share a relationship with you who are saying that. And again, look, I'm not trying to put up a defense here. saying if that was the case no matter what I guess what I'm saying is that kind of language shouldn't be used uh in a workspace in particular I would say don't use it at all but in particular so there's there's a there's a either a there's either a a evil and wrong thing done here or a stupid mistake it's kind of those two things it's not going to be like it's fine it's fine it's not going to be it's fine but it might not be as as serious as what the right commentators are saying right now >> yeah look I I I don't it's it's not the main part of the story for me I don't care. Like if Lloyd Burr had an issue with it, he has a platform that he could have torched someone for. You know, I I think the aspect is here, like with anything, who benefits most?

[00:19:18]Who has the most to gain for TVNZ's chief political editor getting [ __ ] canned months out from the election?

[00:19:29]>> [laughter] >> Oh. Uh, let me let me tell you >> who who who can benefit uh by being an extra special good loyal boy to the government when he's got the IRD breathing down his neck for a million bucks. I'll um I'll tell you something that made me laugh really hard today. I'm not going to play it. Don't panic, Faro, when you get a jump scare, right? I'm not going to play it. So this dude, this dude did a piece today uh reaction to Mikey Schuman using vulgar language at Parliament. Oh man, it was something different. Maybe on his website language >> or maybe on his website it says I might have made a mistake. Let me go and have a look. Let me go and have a look cuz on one of the clips about that he he he might have made a mistake. And I was thinking, oh that's interesting. And I I hadn't looked into the news or anything today and I was thinking, "Oh, I wonder if um I wonder if Plunket came out yesterday saying all these things about Mikey Schuman because that would be his that would be his MMO, right? And I wonder if actually now it has come out that it was inappropriate, wrong, but albeit sort of banter between two friends." And I thought maybe Plunkett was actually going to come out and sort of do the right thing and say, "Oh, no, it's different. Oh, that's really interesting. They've changed the title of it.

[00:20:50]>> Has he made a mistake about his mistake?

[00:20:53]>> So, the title was I wonder if I still got it open somewhere. That would be brilliant. The title was something like I might have made a mistake and I thought, oh, he's going to he's going to make some kind of commentary about, you know, you know, shooting the load too much yesterday and actually he was wrong and it's not as serious. But at the end of the clip, he says he he didn't cover it and he was apologizing to his audience for not covering it. So the mistake that he made was yesterday he didn't blow it up. Obviously some of his audience were like, "Why aren't you talking about this? I thought you were the man." And he wasn't talking about it. Uh and so the whole in fact, I wonder if I play the last few seconds and it's it's this massive big buildup about the whole thing. And then at the very end of it, he goes >> it off. And the minister misinterpreting it was really much more than a storm in a teacher.

[00:21:45]>> So he's saying it was he thought it was more than a storm in a tea.

[00:21:47]>> I may be wrong.

[00:21:48]>> I may be wrong. So he's he's basically apologizing to his audience for not inflating the story yesterday. I'm so sorry, guys. I didn't I didn't This is the the culture card that I missed. The culture wars conversation I should have been having. So he apologized for not actually making more of it yesterday, which I thought is just So what's happened is Plunket has had a look at the virality that this has caused and he's gone, "Oh [ __ ] I missed an opportunity >> and um he apologized to his audience for uh not making more of it." So I thought that was kind of hilarious cuz I listened to it waiting for this kind of apology for blowing things out of proportions and he was literally doing the opposite. I apologize that I didn't blow it out of proportions yesterday. It was very funny. Was very funny.

[00:22:31]>> [music]