Well, I wish the Prime Minister could get just a little upset about over a million dollars ear-marked for non-commercial programming being poured into Sensing Murder — if that qualifies as ‘non-commercial’, I’m a heterosexual Communist atheist.

Some here, such as Philu, would argue that Sensing Murder isn’t just non-commercial programming, but compulsory viewing for the unenlightened

Is it just possible that Close Up went one step further and provided suitable “wardrobing services” – you know, just so Tane looks really scary to the TV1 viewers?

TV1’s defence of its actions on “Close-Up” failed to convince me.

Well, I wish the Prime Minister could get just a little upset about over a million dollars ear-marked for non-commercial programming being poured into Sensing Murder — if that qualifies as ‘non-commercial’, I’m a heterosexual Communist atheist.

And my sources tell me that this kind of thing happens regularly, so let’s cut the shit and get real here: What’s the real outrage, the practice itself (which I’d like to see banned outright, and the sanctimonious hypocrites elsewhere in the media following suit), or that the folks involved in this particular case are Tame Iti’s son and daughter-in-law, itis and you don’t much like the resulting story. If that’s Clark’s real objection, I’d politely remind the Prime Minister that political interference in the editorial content of TVNZ and RNZ is explicitly prohibited.

TV1’s defence of its actions on “Close-Up” failed to convince me. They had the perennial court jester Mark Sainsbury looking decidedly awkward as he delivered a carefully-crafted “angry” statement claiming justification (from my memory) on the basis of:
- The Iti family going to Waitangi anyway. (So why pay for the petrol?)
- Common courtesy when you ask someone to “change their plans”.
- Normal TVNZ and other media practice in these circumstances.

Defiantly Sainsbury declared that TVNZ would not change its policies in response to criticisms from other media or from the Prime Minister.

At no point did TVNZ quantify its expenditure on accommodation and petrol for the Iti whanau (if indeed these were the only expenditure items), an important and necessary ingredient for transparency in an instance such as this.

Next we’ll be hearing – again – the financially-illiterate message that TVNZ is an independent commercial organisation paying its own way through advertising revenues earned in competition with private-sector multinational competitors. That “defence” ignores TVNZ’s privileged position maintained by Government via a number of funding elements:
- the company’s equity base, and with it:
- an implied “Government guarantee” of TVNZ’s financial obligations;
- seemingly unlimited Government advertising, especially in election year;
- payment of Charter compensation with no visible improvement in quality.

TVNZ’s relationship with Government is far too cosy for democratic comfort. It should be sold forthwith. If the population can’t yet stomach full “privatisation” (big business, overseas interests, and all that) enshrine the company’s constitution in legislation pre-sale with a limit of 10% for any single shareholder (including its associates) and a combined limit of 33.3% for shareholders either resident abroad or majority-owned abroad.

A good question is whether she will front on TV1 on Monday.

Helen doesn’t go to Waitangi as she knows that one more break into tears at the “threat” proposed by Titehat Harawira would be the electoral death knell. Pure cowardice.

According to the news Helens official excuse for not attending the dawn service is that she isn’t a morning person.

I heard Horomia trot out that line too, and when are the press going to develop a spine and start asking some rather obvious questions like”Well, few of us are — but Helen sure seemed capable of getting her arse out of bed before dawn at Gallipoli and Paschendale.”

God, I wish she’d stop trying to be cute and folksy — because she sucks at it.

Meanwhile, number of arrests at Waitangi today: ZERO. All this despite those cheeky Tuhoe darkies have a bit of a protest march, and Helen’s provocative presence at the annual staged walkabout.

There’s so much bullshit coming out of Clark’s mouth, I wish she’d come and talk to my rose bushes.

What kind of excuse this that? Is that because the makeup session takes 4 hours she would need to be out of bed at 1am?

When you have a job (which I think she has forgotten that she has one) you do things you don’t like doing. I don’t like getting up early to fly to Sydney or Wellington, but you have no choice.

Good to see she is above what mortals like us have to do.

It seems to me that when one holds the position of PM there are events and occasions that one is invited to. Given the 6 February is considered so important that it is a Public Holiday and there is a well set attendance precedent by previous Prime Ministers the current PM has an obligation to attend.

As does the Governor General in this instance – was he there?

I don’t think it is smart to try to force the PM to go somewhere and get abused by some group unless we support the objectives of that group – which I assume people here don’t generally speaking.

No, GNZ, my point is that political leaders can’t spend their whole hiding in their offices and only leaving for carefully sanitized photo ops. Like Ratana, I think polis of all stripes could do with being taken aside and told, “it’s not all about you, darling.”

Also, for all the bloviating about “disrespect” at Te Tii, I most disrespectfully suggest they clean up their own fucking whare because the stench of bullshit coming out of Parliament on any given sitting day is pretty overwhelming. But hey, Trev goes feral and according to Clark it’s just chivalry in action.

In future, I suggest Ngapuhi tell Clark she’s not invited, so don’t bother making the opportunistic snub.

I don’t know what Helen Clark’s version of the “secret conspiracy” is as that is known only by her and presumably the national party (assuming she is correct). What I was referring to is that apart from changing to a leader who was very much in the engine room last election anyway, very little has changed in the national heirachy between 2005 and now. Have they changed their spots in the last three years or have we just always been at war with Eurasia? I think that is a perfectly legitimate issue to raise.

I haven’t heard national refer to a referendum on the maori seats but I’m happy to stand corrected if that is the case. Maori actually have a referendum every few years already when they choose which roll to go through that the number of maori seats to be contested. If you are suggesting that we have a referendum of the whole voting population then I can see that being extremely divisive (not to mention the result being something of a foregone conclusion). IMHO that would be a serious mistake.

National has talked about offering a referendum on the future of MMP. One would hope that the public aren’t manipulated into ditching it by the vested interests who want a return to the good old days but I fear that that may just happen. MMP has given us a much more representative parliament. Apart from their being a few more unionists, teachers and gays than the wider population courtesy of Labour, the make up of parliament generally reflects New Zealand. This is a good thing….and we haven’t ended up like italy!

National was doing a bit more than argueing over how services should be targetted. There was an implication that maori were getting special treatment at the expense of the white man. The intention was to generate envy and to make white people – Brash’s mainstream, feel like victims and to turn them against the “non mainstream”. It was calculated and nasty and in gaining national lots of votes highlighted a really ugly side of NZ…I’m glad that under Key National has toned it down.

Well, well, well? News manufactured to order. Payment in advance for Services to be rendered to Close Up.

From what I understand TV1 has used taxpayer’s money to pay to have people at a certain place at a certain time, and then create news about them. Surely this is misuse of public funds to create news?

HOWEVER, IT’S NO DIFFERENT TO THE PLEDGE CARD, AND THAT’S BEEN VALIDATED

Yes, they’ve glossed it a bit recently by saying it wouldn’t happen until after all Treaty claims were settled, but it remains policy.

And Innocent bystander is correct: National slammed the F&S legislation as far too generous to Maori, and took the position that it would legislate over the court decision to remove any prospect of customary title.

Act had about half a dozen positions, from offering its votes to Labour to immediately legislate over Ngati Apa to letting it go to the courts, depending on what day of the week it was.

It was made by a desire by Brash to say that all NZ’ers are equal, and judging by the effect the speech had, a lot of New Zealanders agreed with him adn had had enough of the special treatment dished out to the Maori.

I think it fair to say that probably wouldn’t have minded so much, except it was obvious that the money and effort being dished out to the Maori was not really producing a tangible result. A new approach was called for, that’s what Brash was saying.

But to the point, you really get the feeling that Clark is so desperate she is becoming increasingly paranoid. Unfortunately, this can become a self fulfilling prophesy.

The specific cunning insertions are:
– “National’s true colours” – is this another permutation of the hidden agenda meme? You do know that is an entirely fictitious conspiracy theory don’t you?
– the suggestion that National would remove the Maori seats without consulting with Maori. I think their policy is to hold a referendum on it or some such isn’t it?
– I don’t see any evidence of National would be trying to remove MMP, so it is foolish to speculate that they might in the context of removing the Maori seats
– the misrepresentation of National objecting to targeting of services on basis of need. What they said is that there is no particular evidence that targeting race directly is a good proxy for need, v’s just targeting the need. Giving all Maori special treatment advantages well-off Maori, targeting the poor directly covers all poor, both white and brown.

Most of the rest of your filler I agree with

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0411/S00413.htm

Brash would also have legislated to circumvent the courts and would have passed a law that would have confirmed the crown’s ownership while giving even less recognition to Maori then the current law.

Letting the court case take its course would have been the correct thing to do in my book.