What is Winston Peters doing? Professional wrestling gives clues
A concept from the theatrical sport can explain why the deputy prime minister has launched a war on the media. By Charlie Mitchell.
For a wrestling fan in the 1990s, there was nothing more satisfying than seeing “The Undertaker” chokeslam his opponent through a table.
The Undertaker was a giant in a trenchcoat, a dead man said to have been resurrected and granted mystical powers by a magical urn. Most wrestling fans understood this was fake. The Undertaker wasn’t supernatural; he was just a huge bloke named Mark.
This is the contract between wrestlers and fans. Both know this is a performance, but to experience the emotional satisfaction being offered, the fans have to set that aside and indulge the illusion.
It’s a weird mental space to inhabit, simultaneously knowing – but pretending not to know – what’s going on. But our brains, somehow, manage it.
The specific term for this is “Kayfabe”. It was recently added to the dictionary.
It has been plucked from wrestling and applied to politics. The concept usefully described the phenomenon of former US president Donald Trump, himself a longtime wrestling fan who blurred performance and reality.
To some of Trump’s supporters, it didn’t matter if he was actually going to build a wall on the Mexican border, or lock up Hillary Clinton. That he was pretending he would was enough to satisfy an emotional need.
As social scientist Nick Rogers described it: “Kayfabe isn’t merely a suspension of disbelief, it is philosophy about truth itself. It rests on the assumption that feelings are inherently more trustworthy than facts.”
Kayfabe has always been present in New Zealand politics, but it’s rarely a driving force.
That looks to be changing. Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters is emerging as a local master of kayfabe, and provided a good example with his comments about the media this week. Those comments – in which he agreed he was in a war with media, and described the Public Interest Journalism Fund (PIJF) as a “bribe” – rest on layers of contradiction. They expressed an emotional truth rather than a factual one.
Peters sincerely dislikes the media. He’s a politician; it would be strange if he didn’t. But he also needs the media, which is why he complains that he didn’t see journalists enough during his campaign.
Most politicians grit their teeth and complain about this dynamic in private. Peters is instead doing the equivalent of The Undertaker’s tombstone piledriver: A dramatic finishing move made to look like he had brutally maimed his opponent, even as they lay on the mat uninjured.
The need to do this largely stems from the support base Peters cultivated for the election.
Earlier this week, Peters discussed his media comments in interviews on The Platform and Reality Check Radio (RCR), the broadcasting arm of Voices for Freedom.
They were his chosen media platforms during the election campaign. RCR, in particular, was a safe space where he would answer softball questions from interviewers thinly disguising their admiration (he’s been interviewed by its hosts eight times since September).
Journalism is critical to democracy, Peters said in both of those interviews this week, when “they’re neutral, independent, and tell both sides of the story”.
Sure. Many would agree with that. But his choice of venue – aggressively partisan, opinion-driven media that are one-sided, not neutral, and often don’t abide by basic journalistic principles – is like complaining about forest fires to an arsonist. Some might respond by saying his problem is with the PIJF, the so-called “bribe”. But it’s not a point that Peters makes often. In speeches and interviews, he more regularly complains about reporting standards, not funding.
It’s not hard to see why. Several of New Zealand First’s policies include Government support for journalists, including direct subsidies. It’s not something he philosophically opposes, as many of his new supporters profess to.
When Peters sniped at journalists before the first Cabinet meeting, he demanded they reveal “what you signed up to to get the money” – presumably a reference to conditions in the PIJF funding contracts.
But the PIJF was a contestable fund, not a blanket payment to media companies. To get funding, individuals had to propose specific projects or roles and apply for money. Most journalists received no funding and therefore haven’t signed up to do anything.
Day-to-day political coverage was exempt, so that likely includes most of the people Peters was addressing that comment to. They know that. Peters knows that. It’s kayfabe.
The media is complicit in this. Peters’ comments are good content and advance what is likely to be an ongoing narrative that he is a destabilising force in the new Government. Both sides of this war benefit by pretending it’s real.
But journalists also have a professional duty to point out that’s it’s not real – we need to break kayfabe.
What is Peters doing? He is constructing a reality in which he performs the role of crusading culture warrior, crushing the enemies of the freedom movement. The media’s role is to be affronted by Peters’ lack of decorum and his attacks on a pillar of democracy.
As with wrestling, many fans will see the artifice. During the campaign, it was common to see people in the freedom movement embracing Peters whilst openly acknowledging he wasn’t truly one of them.
Peters, after all, had been an enthusiastic supporter of Covid vaccines. He was deputy Prime Minister during the lockdowns. His mea culpas were – to any neutral observer – thoroughly unconvincing.
But like Trump’s wall, the performance satisfied an emotional need, and some of the policies they support will likely happen.
There’s danger in normalising political kayfabe.
A related wrestling concept is “the mark” – a person unaware of kayfabe. They don’t see the winks and nods thrown at the audience to reassure them of the performance.
One Telegram user this week urged Peters to “get stuck into the maggots”, meaning journalists. Another user made fun of a “psycho deluded media whore” – “Never thought I'd say it, but Go Winston.”
One far-right Peters supporter said in a video this week that his attacks were “a great show”, that journalists were “insane” and “corrupt”.
Are these people marks, or are they in on the game? It’s impossible to know.
It’s one thing to cheer for The Undertaker. But we need to make it clear that, beyond the veil, he’s just a bloke named Mark.