Columns

Last Sunday evening, before the first issue of Critic had technically been published (we distribute a day early for reasons of practicality), an editorial decision had already left me labeled a “numbnut” on Twitter by local National list MP Michael Woodhouse.

For me, there are two key points to be made here. First of all, I must surely have set a new Fastest Time record of any Critic Editor to be given a derogatory nickname by a politician. Second, and more importantly, let’s consider what an incredible word “numbnut” is. With only a rough idea of what it means (but having intended to look it up since my childhood), I turned to Wiktionary to find its two definitions.

The first use of the word is to describe “a slow-witted, unresponsive or inept person.” Unfortunately, this clearly wasn’t the meaning Woodhouse was going for; his next Tweet contradicted this almost perfectly by saying that I “sound like a smart guy.” Flattered, I turned to the second definition: “A recruit who is unintelligent or difficult to train.” I guess I owe the guy a “thank you” to some degree – it’s quite the compliment that he’s finding me difficult to train; although seeing me as a “recruit” is probably a tad overzealous even if it is an election year.

But then a beloved family member pointed out the truly shocking part: Woodhouse got my nickname wrong. It’s my brother who was always called “numbnut;” I was “fuck-knuckle,” which, on reflection, is a very strange nickname to give a child.

Anyway, back to the tweet. In terms of the politics behind Woodhouse’s comments, I must admit that I see his concern. To give some context, he was responding to the fact that Dunedin North MP David Clark has a column within these pages while he doesn’t – although I wonder whether he would’ve bothered mentioning it if not for his trigger-happy puppy dog Liam Kernaghan initiating the discussion. Crying foul over the “first editor to show such bias in my time,” the concern is that in an election year it is unfair to give one candidate a mouthpiece and not their rivals. From this angle, Woodhouse is completely correct even if he is prone to aggression.

However, your electorate MP can’t suddenly stop representing your interests because it’s an election year. That would make all such MPs completely redundant for a third of their terms. David Clark must still be allowed to do his job of representing the Dunedin North electorate, of which the student population is a significant part. To do so he must be approachable and accountable, and for that reason I resolutely stand by the decision to publish his column.

I am highly conscious of the fact that this is an election year. We have a Politics Editor starting in the next few issues, and we are looking to publish plenty of relevant and balanced political coverage in the lead-up to this year’s General Election. Encouraging students to care about their futures and make informed votes at the end of the year should be seen as a top priority; let’s face it, students don’t have it too easy at the moment and the apathy that accompanies this is frightening.

But all that this discussion highlighted for me was how easily your standard political hotheads will work themselves into a feeding frenzy. It was one of those frightening moments when I understood, briefly, why so many people could completely shun politics. I only ever made seven tweets in the early part of the debate, yet it provided literally hours of entertainment as I watched the chaos continue to unfold, almost entirely self-fuelled by the spiels of those who’d self-branded themselves as my opponents. For all that effort, there wasn’t a single flash of progress.

Zane Pocock
Critic Editor