Colin Espiner’s Blog
August 31st, 2005 at 8:39 am by David FarrarI am still underwhelmed by the party leader blogs on Stuff, but have just discovered that Press Political Editor Colin Espiner also has a blog.
Colin has caught onto blogging. It isn’t just about rehashing stories or press releases. He gives a first person, on the scene, perspective of the campaign trail.
Now if Fairfax could managed a dedicated RSS feed for their blogs, then I could get automatic updates for them.
August 31st, 2005 at 8:54 am
Pity that Espinall comes over as such a labour supporter that he should be wearing a red bracelet. He paints an unflattering picture mof Don, and what about this quote “Why does National need to take money from pensioners when it’s raking in millions from big business and overseas campaign donors? Who authorised these collections? What happens to the money? Are the donations added to the total political parties are allowed to spend on their election campaigns? Is National paying GST on it?”
Are you really raking in millions from big business and overseas campaign donors David ? The only story about a big overseas donor has been to Labour, perhaps someone should remind Colin of that. And big business usually (at least IMO) hedges its bets and gives money to both major parties.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 9:59 am
Espiner is a commie. Plain and simple. I wouldn’t give him the pleasure of a hit on his ‘blog’. It should be ‘espiner’s bog’ cos that’s what he writes.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 10:09 am
He is a commie, but in his defence, he did call the debate for Dr. Brash.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 10:29 am
For those of you outside Christchurch who may not be aware, Colin Espiner writes banal drivel that is quite possibly the worst political commentary in the country. Don’t bother with the blog. VCR instructions are more intellectually stimulating.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 10:57 am
Whatever his political leanings it is more interesting than many of the other tryhard “blogs” that MSM seem to be pushing at the moment. The Leaders’ blogs, Rodney Hide’s excepted, a particularly good example.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 11:13 am
I agree with most of the comments here- Espinall comes across as just one more media commie.. Shame is these media commies only rarely want to deal with feedback.. I didn’t see any such facility on Espiner’s blog. I’d guess they prefer to deny the public’s increasing irritation at leftists in the media advocating for labour/ socialism under the guise of presenting opinion and news..
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 11:42 am
I’m a Fairfax journo, but for a business monthly, not one of its dailies.
Vote:Why not email your comments concerning RSS feeds, the ability to leave comments on Espiner’s blog, or bias to the company.
I cannot guarantee you will get what you want, but it’s worth a try.
One other thing, while certain journos maybe ‘commies’, the same cannot be said of the top management.
The new CEO – David Kirk- is a former All-Black with links to the National Party.
The new chairman- Ron Walker- is/was a fundraiser for the Australian Liberal Party.
Not sure what, if any, influence this might have on Fairfax’s political coverage. But I thought the appointments were significant all the same.
August 31st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
So Kirk and Walker are management, and the implication is that they influence what journalists will write. I don’t think this happens. Its a leftist myth. If Conservatives were controlling what is written in the media by means of the fact that they are owners, then how come the commentary is so predominantly leftist? It just isn’t true. Murdoch for example owns some of the most leftwing papers out there.
The reality is that the owners only look at the bottom line. They want a profit. The news and opinion is generated by journalists and editors, and they are almost always leftists.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 1:39 pm
You are right redbaiter
Comment/opinion is generated by the journalists and editors.
Vote:But the appointment of editors will be influenced by top managers.
And of course, there is the bottom line.
If a paper is losing readers and revenue by having an overt political stance, then I am sure top management will take notice.
The challenge for readers like yourself is to convince these top managers that the overt political stance of a newspaper is costing the company money.
I have tried convincing one myself over a drink and got a fair hearing, though it is too soon to say what might happen, if anything.
The voice of one carries little/no weight.
But the voices of many might.
Good luck!
August 31st, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Thanks for your best wishes D. The sad fact with NZ is that most of those who might think they are right wing (managers) are in reality a long way from that political perspective. They might think they’re right wing, but on NZ’s existing one sided political spectrum, this makes them (IMHO) about center left on the real political spectrum.
…and they’re behind the times always. In the US, publishers have awoken to the fact that right wing sells. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are the biggest radio events. Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and Fox News lead the Televison stakes. (here we’re still suffering leftist bimbos like Hill, Wood and Campbell)
Ten years ago you couldn’t find a conservative book on a store shelf. Then Regenery Publishing took off, and now the NY Times Best Seller’s List is full of conservative titles.
I reckon the NZ’s media rigid preference for leftist politics is dated, and probably damaging their bottom line. I’m not sure whether they don’t know this, or if they are trying to deny it.. even to themselves..
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 2:37 pm
The book angle is new to me.
Vote:But I tried making similar points concerning the Sunday Star-Times just the other week.
In the UK, the market is big enough for a range of papers to have a variety of opinion from the Guardian right through to the Daily Telegraph.
Here, you have situations where the market is only big enough for one paper.
Thus Auckland only has the Herald, Wellington the Dom-Post, Christchurch, the Press, etc.
I argued that by being so left-wing the Sunday Star-Times will piss off and lose more middle-of-the-road and conservative readers.
Thus, to maximise readerships and revenues, a paper needs to be safely in the centre, neutral or more pluralistic.
But now, on reflection, maybe that is the problem with New Zealand. The reader of a ‘quality’ Sunday newspaper has nowhere to go, there is no Sunday Telegraph, so they stick with the SST.
But I will carry on doing my bit to convince my bosses that a lefty slant is bad for business.
And it is up to righties to try and do likewise by writing letters to the editor, sending emails, etc.
August 31st, 2005 at 3:00 pm
Good stuff, darren!
I only read the SST very infrequently – I used to read it every week. Read it last weekend and was very disappointed at the bias, but put it down to my own prejudices (although I consider myself reasonably centrist). Glad to know I’m not the only one who believes its slanted. Ditto for most of ‘stuff’, actually.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 3:31 pm
What is interesting is when you look at the results of the polls that Stuff.co.nz runs. Now I realize that they are not representative on the NZ public, but they are of the readers of the website and newspapers. They are predominantly right wing, while the editorial staff veers left. Means nothing just interesting really.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Today’s Dominion election page has every single item reading like positive heartwarming Labour propaganda.The editorial is also condemnatory of National. I rang up an cancelled my subscription after having had it delivered for fifteen years.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Gee..now you’ll have to buy toilet paper. Will yout budget stand the expense?
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Here’s an idea for those out there concerned about media bias. Get a job as a journalist and do something about it and save us from the incessant bitching.
Or failing that start a publication of your own. If the public is as fed up with the coverage as you think then you should have a profitable business.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Baxter was a bit harsh cancelling his DomPost.
Vote:I hope he told them why.
Now, randonanomity, good point.
I would love some right-wing friends to join me.
It can get a bit lonely.
And if anybody wants to start a new title, the added employment choices would be great too.
Where’s an indulgent billionaire when you need one?
August 31st, 2005 at 6:10 pm
Baxter was a bit harsh cancelling his DomPost.
Vote:I hope he told them why.
Now, randonanomity, good point.
I would love some right-wing friends to join me.
It can get a bit lonely.
And if anybody wants to start a new title, the added employment choices would be great too.
Where’s an indulgent billionaire when you need one?
August 31st, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Darren..Yep I told them why..Johnnie Don’t worry about my finances I not only save on the red rag subscription , but I also pay less tax when your lot crash out.
Vote:August 31st, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Darren:
IMO, the only colour Kirk and Walker will be focusing on is dollar green not Tory blue. Fairfax may have posted a pretty healthy profit this year, but it is still facing a long-term circulation decline over most of its titles and the over-heated advertising boom is showing signs of cooling off. There’s also the perrenial challenge of holding your market share in a savagely competitive media market.
I also remember when some idiot at the Guardian ran a conpiracy theory that conservative Rupert Murdoch was imposing a pro-war line on his media outlets someone actually looked at the editorials run by the newspapers he owned in New Zealand (now part of the Fairfax Group). Russell Brown (hardly a spinner for Murdoch or the right) pointed out on RNZ’s MediaWatch fisked the arse off that one – INL papers were overwhelmingly opposed to the war.
Vote:September 12th, 2005 at 1:50 am
Craig, you’re right. Redbaiter, you’re wrong.
To quote George Monbiot: “Tell people something they know already, and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new, and they will hate you for it.”
Since NZ is one of the last sane outposts in the anglosphere, wingnut journalism is simply not going to have the same appeal here as it does in a country where almost half the population goes to Church on sundays and people like Rush Limbaugh are actually taken seriously.
To change our collectively leftish opinion would take a dedicated long term money-losing media onslaught, and Murdoch just couldn’t be bothered. Fairfax won’t either. Too expensive. No point, much more money to be made in any given state in the USA.
Vote: