Who, whom?

The Luxon Piñata Shows We Can Never Escape the Playground

Vote for Pedro

Remember when you were a kid, and some disfavoured person in your year did something lame and everyone pounced on them for it? Then your friend did the exact same thing, and suddenly it wasn’t such a big deal anymore? You didn’t want to criticise your friend because, well, they were your friend.

It felt different, even though it really wasn’t. That’s exactly how the reactions to political events occur and a big explanation for some of the double standards we see in the press.

Remember when a guy on Twitter sparked media outrage with his #TurnArdern campaign? It shouldn’t have been a big deal, really. A guy just started turning around magazines and books featuring Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s image in bookstores and supermarkets.

This small act of protest was motivated by frustration with what he perceived as Ardern’s focus on media appearances and lack of attention to pressing issues such as child poverty and the housing crisis. The actions were peaceful, non-destructive, and largely symbolic. It was probably annoying to retailers, though, and it’s not something I would probably do.

But for such a small thing, it sparked such significant moral outrage and media coverage that it quickly escalating into a national talking point.

The media framed the guy as petty, misogynistic and emblematic of a crumbling political culture. People like Michelle Duff, argued that his actions represented a simmering hatred of women and a refusal to accept Ardern’s prominence as both a political leader and cultural icon. Journalists doxxed the the man, revealing his identity, occupation and general location online. Public harassment followed, including threats of violence.

Fast forward to December 2024, when an image emerged on social media of a piñata made to resemble Christopher Luxon, leader of the National Party, at a union event in Auckland. If #TurnArdern was controversial then so should be the piñata, which by its very nature, is created to be struck and destroyed. Yet - somehow - the incident has attracted virtually no media coverage, public debate or condemnation.

The absence of outrage is notable given the parallels between the two incidents—both are symbolic acts of protest targeting a prominent political figure.

The disparate reactions to these two incidents reflect the ongoing issue of double standards in how political protests are covered by New Zealand media.

It’s worth noting that this is not the only time this has been apparent.
destruction or violence, as in the case of the piñata. Take, for example, the 2017 sculpture of Nick Smith and the 2023 Rotary Club incident involving Jacinda Ardern. In 2017, artist Sam Mahon created a enormous and disgusting sculpture of a pantsless Nick Smith squatting over a glass of water without notable media criticism or backlash. Contrast this a subsequent event where a toilet seat trophy adorned with a caricature mask of Jacinda Ardern’s face sparked extensive media outrate with the event—intended as a lighthearted debate—being condemned as disrespectful.

Another example: during the TPPA protests, demonstrators displayed a guillotine along with cutouts showing the decapitated heads of John Key, Bill English and Judith Collins. The media’s reaction was relatively muted, framing it as part of the larger protest narrative. By contrast, during the anti-mandate protests in Wellington, the presence of a noose was heavily highlighted by media. One was treated as a theatrical, if extreme, symbol of anti-establishment sentiment while the other was assumed to be an express threat.