Idiot has posted on the Holmes affair, comparing it to Corkery, and suggesting I have double standards.
Firstly I totally reject that laughing about body parts being returned to a mother whose son died in Sept 11, is anywhere near the same scale of offensiveness as Holmes referring to Annan as a “cheeky darkie”. As I originally blogged, the appropriate comparison would be a broadcaster making jokes about missing children in the Wairarapa.
It saddens me that just because people do not like the US, or the current US Government, that they try to diminish the awfulness of having your child returned in pieces over a two year period.
Idiot says that my reaction to Corkery was “hysterical”. I would suggest that the hysterical reaction is having the PM and various minions condemn your remarks and being the major news story for several days, compared to blogging how offensive you found some comments and firing off a polite letter of complaint.
Idiot also accused me of double standards in not condemning Holmes, yet before I read his blog, I had indeed done so – albeit more lightly than I did Corkery, but any rational person would not suggest the two were equally offensive.
Finally the big difference between the two is that Holmes is showing very sincere remorse and has had to put up with nation-wide vilification, while Corkery had almost no negative publicity and even better got paid out the rest of her contract without having to turn up to work.
Informed sources advise me that Corkery’s show was stopped because she refused to apologise, and refused to give any assurance there would not be a repeat. TVNZ had been idiotic enough to sign a contract giving her total editorial control (which is very stupid), so as she would not back down, had no alternative but to stop the show early, but still had to pay her out.No tag for this post.