What did Mike King actually say?

A case for going easier on our villain-of-the-day

First Homer Simpson, now Mike King. The most exciting topic in the local news this week has been an interview the comedian and mental health campaigner did in which he talked about alcohol being a solution for people who are in a dark place. It’s been received with the most widespread disapproval since David Seymour last opened his mouth, and last night I saw a piece shared online which really stuck the boot in: “King is the best example we have of what happens when someone with a God complex receives enough publicity and money to match their ego.” Below the post were 124 comments, most along these lines:

“Thank you for writing about this grifter, he’s dangerous.”

I know “cancelled” is a culturally loaded word, but I don’t think it’s controversial to say that Mike King is being cancelled (some might prefer to say he’s being consequenced). And, as with most cancellations, once it’s on it’s on.

“Hmm yeah, always had concerns, now he’s peddling a climate change kids book he’s written, badly, with Genesis Energy! With logos all through the book, guess how he got the funds…”

“This is why I refuse to give money to Gumboot Friday.”

“I worked with this man in the late 90's and clapped at this article”

And God, life would probably be easier if I woke up this morning and wrote a Substack post about the easy, delicious eggplant curry recipe my friend Gaurav shared with me, but as I lay in bed last night I couldn’t stop thinking about what was going on with Mike King.

A cancelled public figure is radioactive. Everybody must distance themselves from him, nobody must support him. Maybe that is reasonable, but I think there should be room to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think, when you hear second hand that somebody has said something stupid, you should at least find the source of the comments and try to determine what he meant instead of taking the worst possible interpretation of his words and sharing it round as evidence of his idiocy.

(That’s no shade to the piece I mentioned above by the way - even our news bulletins were reporting King’s comments in such a way that when the headline was read out yesterday, two members of the band sitting in the studio with me face-palmed).

Why should we show charity to somebody who’s said something so potentially damaging? Because I think if you believe in consequences, you need to make sure the punishment fits the crime. I think Mike King is being punished as though he’d instructed suicidal people to solve their problems with alcohol, or as though he’d proposed alcohol as part of some societal fight back against clinical depression. That stuff perhaps would have justified the amount of contempt he’s currently receiving, but if you listen to the original interview (I know, I don’t have the time either but I forced myself to do it for the both of us) he’s not saying anything like that.

Here’s a transcript, my emphasis added. For context, he’s talking about a police decision not to license a polytech fundraising event which King is not connected to.

Mike King
…At the heart of this is a bunch of young people trying to do the right thing by mental health to help a local charity. And that's where the decision should be made. Not on this thing, that there's an intrinsic link between alcohol and suicide. Because you know what? Alcohol is not a problem for people with mental health issues. It's actually the solution to our problem. Until you come up with a better solution. 

Host
What do you mean by that? How is it a solution? 

Mike King
Well, it stops those thoughts. I would suggest to you, I would suggest to you that alcohol has prevented more young people from taking their own lives, than actually takes their own lives. I mean when I was, I'm a drug addict and alcoholic. In my whole life, I use drugs and alcohol to stop that little voice inside my head that told me that I wasn't good enough, that I was useless. So it's like a release. 

Host
Like a release. 

Mike King
It's a release. It's like a video game. It's exactly the same thing. You know, I would always be out and about with groups of people because the thing I feared most was being in a room by myself. So the drugs and the alcohol helped that until I got counselling and I found a way of dealing with my bigger issues. So alcohol has never been the issue. It shouldn't be in the mental health act at all. We should come up with alternatives. It's like methadone: it keeps us going until some help comes along. It's our life jacket. 

Host
Yeah. Really interesting perspective. Hey, thank you, Mike.

Don’t get me wrong, there is some wild stuff in here - you might disagree with most of it, including the part about how alcohol has actually saved lives. But reading through that, I don’t think you can deny that his central point is much more convincing than how it’s been publicised.

He’s saying (I think) that in a moment of despair people use alcohol to numb the pain, as a temporary solution to what they’re feeling in the moment. He’s saying that if you don’t have any other ideas or more positive solutions, drinking can get you through the night.

He is clearly (and perhaps recklessly) ignoring the physical harm that alcohol does, but I don’t think you can claim he’s saying it’s harm-free, or that it’s the right sort of solution. “It keeps us going until some help comes along”. He’s describing why people in emotional pain drink, but over the next 48 hours his words would be reported as if he’s said that people in emotional pain should drink. That drinking will solve the cause of their problems, as well as the symptoms.

****

Why go into bat for somebody who’s messed up? Why deny New Zealand society the shared experience of a villain? Well, for selfish reasons: because if you or I ever say something stupid on live radio you would hope we’d only have to face the consequences for what we actually said. But also because I think it’s an opportunity to exercise the muscle of good faith.

When everybody is laying into someone, it feels unnatural to interrupt. When that person is Mike King, an overly-confident, often unlikable public figure, it can actually feel pretty good to see him get a come-uppance. My instinct (and you might disagree - all good!) tells me that’s an urge I should resist.

Mike King is being publicly punished for all sorts of things right now. You might argue that a lot of what he said is wrong or even harmful; it’s harder to argue that his heart wasn’t in the right place.