Conservative Party leader Helen Houghton says New Zealand media organisations should face serious questions over how Byron Clark came to be presented as an expert on extremism after Clark and publisher HarperCollins publicly apologised to her following a legal challenge over his book.

Houghton challenged her inclusion in a chapter titled “Women and the Alt Right” in Clark’s book Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists.

Speaking to chrislynchmedia.com after the apology was published, Houghton said she first discovered her name in the chapter after buying the book to see what had been written about the political party she led.

She said she was horrified by what she believed was being insinuated and sought legal advice.

Houghton said the wider presentation of the book concerned her because readers could associate people appearing in it with figures they should fear.

“I don’t want my grandchildren in the future to read this about their grandmother, or even my sons.”

She said the issue went beyond her personally and raised questions about how easily labels such as extremist and alt right could be attached to people because of their political or social views.

Houghton said her own involvement in politics began after raising concerns about gender ideology in schools and she later found herself portrayed in ways she strongly rejected.

The settlement has now put renewed scrutiny on Clark’s standing within New Zealand media, where he was repeatedly presented as an authority on extremism and the far right.

Houghton questioned how media organisations had assessed his credentials before giving him that status. “Did they check? I mean, how did they check and qualify his expert status?” she said.

She said the word expert had traditionally carried an expectation of substantial academic study, recognised expertise or proven professional experience.

Houghton said media organisations had a responsibility to be far more careful when giving that level of authority to commentators whose assessments could seriously affect the reputations of individuals and organisations.

She was scathing about what she believed was a wider failure within New Zealand media. “The media in New Zealand is absolutely corrupt,” Houghton said.

“They’re disgusting.” Houghton accused media outlets of deciding which political voices received attention and which were effectively ignored.

She said the Conservative Party had struggled to receive coverage despite having been established for years, while newer political movements received regular media exposure.

Houghton said she could not discuss the terms of the settlement, but confirmed changes would be made to future copies of Clark’s book.

“I’m very happy with the settlement.” The Spinoff also published an edited extract from the chapter.

Asked whether she believed The Spinoff now owed her an apology, Houghton said: “I would like an apology from them.” She indicated further discussions could follow.

Houghton also rejected any suggestion that pursuing legal action was inconsistent with supporting free speech.

She said there was a clear difference between expressing an opinion and publishing material as fact.

“If you’re putting something in a book that’s claiming as fact by an expert, then you jolly well better have some blimmin fact to prove that.”

Houghton said she regarded the material as defamatory, making clear that was her own view.

The apology is significant beyond the dispute itself.

Clark was repeatedly given credibility by New Zealand media as an authority on extremism, while his work was used to help frame public discussion about political figures, movements and organisations.