Dick Griffin
October 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am by David FarrarRichard Griffin is one of those great guys who is very loyal to his friends. I worked with him a bit in the Beehive and you won’t find a more funny person. One of life’s great people.
So my comments here are not critical of Dick, who is loyal to one of his best mates – Winston.
They are more about the media needing to be careful of how they use and describe Dick. On the issue of Winston he is not an impartial commentator. He is one of Winston’s closest mates and even appeared in a campaign opening for him a couple of elections ago. He is an advocate for Winston, not a neutral commentator.
I think it is laudable he stands up for his mate. But media, including Radio NZ, should put his comments in the proper context.
Related posts:
- More fantasies from Winston
- Griffin grades Telecom
- Dick Hubbard
- Peter Griffin causes relationship break-up
October 24th, 2008 at 9:27 am
David, I’ve raised this issue with you before.
You frequently appear in the media, including on Radio NZ, as an unbiased expert on whatever subject you’re talking about (and god only knows, you seem to be able to talk about every subject known to humanity, which is doubtless why you’re always being interviewed).
As often as not, the media interviewing you fails to mention you are a very prominent National Party activist. While you are of course not always in the media promoting the National Party line, you also often are. Surely you would agree the listeners deserve to be told of your connection so they can judge what you say accordingly?
I recall only a few weeks back, Radio NZ crossed live to you at the privileges committee for an update into the hearings against Winston Peters there. You were portrayed as some kind of impartial commentator reporting from the committee. In fact, you were there actively to promote the prosecution of Winston Peters. It was a breathtaking example of media credulity.
You need to be careful not to be the pot calling the kettle black.
[DPF: I am open about my background. More open that I'd say almost anyone else in public life. I do not control how I am described though.
You will note my comments were not aimed at DIck G, for standing up for Winston. I do not think he is any way responsible for the way the media describe him. So why would you think I am responsible for how the media describe me?]
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 9:41 am
poneke you are such a cardy-wearer. I note you didn’t mention:
Vote:Hagiographer Brian Edwards actingas the Labour mouthpiece at least once a week for an hour on National Radio
High ranking union rep Brent Edwards spouting the Labour Party line any chance he gets on, funnily enough, National Radio
Labour Party karaoke specialist Chris Trotter talking up Labour on, gee, National Radio
If it comes down to issues of fairness and conflicts of interest, there’s a few more to worry about than DPF, who is in general even-handed when on TV or radio.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:43 am
“As often as not, the media interviewing you fails to mention you are a very prominent National Party activist. ”
What a joke your complaint is when that media almost in its entirety are activists for the Labour Party, and rather than bring us objective facts as is their duty, daily spew an unending diatribe of left wing propaganda without turning a hair. Go away with your faux outrage hypocrite.
Glad to see the New York Times is fast going down the gurgler. One more deceit ridden left wing propaganda edifice we’ll be rid of. The jewel in your Gobellian crown.
Can’t wait to see a few more such “news” outlets come to a similar end. Too many so called “journalists” are just deceitful propagandizing left wing scum. Read any fact sheet on the Obama election bias for the proof of this. Its worse here in NZ, a country almost completely devoid of any publicly expressed opinion that conflicts with those approved by the left.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Wow poneke , first you attack the credibility of Ian Wishart and now David. Who made your opinion mean anything? The leftist control of the kiwi media is sickening to witness. Your type are pathetic.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 10:35 am
The inference of your last two posts are not unambiguous, David. If you are going to tell people not to make allegations of someone’s sexual orientation on here, why are you doing it covertly? Make the allegation openly, if at all – there is no law against it. If you contradict one of your social liberal ideals to do it, the personal gain for you will be greater than any lefty accusing you of hypocrisy.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
A quick perusal of this blog will tell anyone (if they didn’t already know) that for once the word hatred isn’t to strong to describe what David Farrar thinks of Winston Peters.
I’ve long puzzled at quite why this might be so personal. At first, my theory was it was born in the general marked anal-retentive (as in Freudian psycho-analysis) characterisics of many hard-right commentators in the NZ Blogsphere. Then I decided it was childish feuding carried over from the failed National government of the 1990′s. then I thought maybe it was because of old grudges from the Winebox inquiry.
Now I’ve decided its a complex and heady mix of intense personal jealousy of a man with a lot of personality traits many of his most vociferous critics secretly long for, the fact he crossed the neo-liberal business elites that the likes of Mr. Farrar so desperately want to identify with, and the fact he’s got away with it all so far.
It has all translated into a frustrated loathing that brooks no reason.
And I am no fan of Winston Peters – ideally, he and his party would have quietly dropped below the 5% threshold at the upcoming election, and we would have been rid of him. As it stands, if Winston Peters were not be in the next parliament as a result of a personality driven smear campaign, perhaps secretly funded, then it raises some serious issues about the use of unelected and unaccountable power.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Poneke, I am 100% with Redbaiter and the other critics on this thread. The fact is, that Mr Farrar would NOT ever BE on National Radio if he WAS an inveterately biased right winger. His mild, nice guy views are the most that that rabidly leftwing organisation will allow by way of “balance”.
Imagine how you would feel if National Radio had regular time for Ian Wishart, Trevor Loudon, Peter Cresswell, Roger Kerr, and Bob McCroskie; AND didn’t run Chris Trotter and the other wall-to-wall lefties, and “Whale Oil” complained that David Farrar was on too often and this was too much leftwing bias………well, that’s how people like Redbaiter and the others on here feel NOW.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
And regardingWinston Peters; he is well on his way to being despised by commentators all over the political spectrum, seeing that he has now fatally poisoned Labour after having done that to National in the 1990′s. I fully expect to see Labour supporters displaying just as much bitterness as Mr Farrar towards Winston in years to come. And I regard Mr Farrar’s bitterness as fully justified; but about Labour’s misfortune, I would only say “sucked”. You were without excuse.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I often squirm at the way David often leans over backwards to give some credit(ill-conceived) to Clark, Cullen ,and leftwing policy and commentators and I am middle of the road.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Everyone here should be well aware already that the MSM is utterly corrupt and without exception all political commentators you see/hear/read there are dirty leftie sycophants. It’s all part of the global embedded socialist conspiracy, you see.
Just ask the other Ratbiter. He has impressed this point upon us all at great length.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
As a mate, Griffin knows Winston is ambivalent about money.
Vote:The Glenn drama was a beat up & Griffin knows that too.
No illegality has been proven.
It all comes down to who you believe: Winston or Glenn?
I’m with Richard Griffin & Peter Williams.
Glenns a creep.
October 24th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Richard Griffin being Winston’s best friend, and Peter Williams being Peters’ criminal lawyer. How very impartial of them.
Glenn, apparently, is the creep that Winston and the Labour Party were very happy to spend time in his company, and from whom they were very happy to take large donations. Glenn is the creep whose evidence that everybody in Parliament, with the exception of Labour and NZ First, believed. Glenn is the creep whose story remained consistent, and was backed up by documentary evidence, whereas Winston and his lawyer “lost” all the documents they had proving their case, and retracted their story time and time again when Glenn’s evidence disproved their story.
Thank you for playing coolas.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Um, how is Dick going to spin this bugger:
NZ First has revealed it gave $78,000 to help the survivor of the brutal Auckland RSA triple murder who is suing the Corrections Department.
The money is part of $158,000 NZ First gave to charity in lieu of paying back the Parliamentary Service for wrongful spending in the 2005 election.
The party today said the money went to a charitable trust for RSA killings survivor Susan Couch, whose lawyer is Mr Peters’ lawyer, Brian Henry.
Hey – Susan Couch might need a trust to fight Corrections. But the unholy trinity of Brian Henry, Winston Peters, and my money in the frame? Is it just a not very clever way to pay Brian for his, ahem, ‘pro bono’ time?
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Winston was on Tangata Pasifika last night. He talked about his policies. Not that that would be of any interest here…
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
wouldn’t be of interest anywhere, that populist pap. Say what the audience wants and make sure dinner isn’t in your teeth. he’s an oxygen thief.
Vote:October 24th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Okay guys: another development on Winston Peters.
TV tonight (Friday) says Peters has finally announced the charity getting the money in his donations etc imbroglio. The charity seems to be a trust for the woman who survived the horrendous Auckland RSA massacre.
Now does anyone know whether this is the same lady who works for Peters’ lawyer, Brian Henry?
Charity may begin at home. And this lady certainly deserved help. But does the fact that she works — now or recently, full or part time, paid or unpaid — for Peters’ lawyer complicate this? Or are they all just very nice guys?
Vote: