Tacky
There are some questions the media should not ask – no matter’s whose spouse they are. The HoS asks Peter Davis:
I ask if they shower together, to conserve water. “No! No, no – we don’t use much water at all.” …
This leads to an inevitable question – does he like sex?
“Arr … err … hello, that guy took interest in what you just said,” says Davis, referring to another pedestrian.
Well, do you like sex? He mumbles for a moment. “Well that is a personal part of my life … and I don’t want to talk about that.”
I’m with Peter Davis on this one. I know there is a fascination out there with the Clark and Davis relationship. But really. Would a journalist ask Bronagh Key if she showers with her husband and whether she enjoys sex?
I actually feel very sorry for Peter Davis for all the shit he has to put up with. Helen is PM and a fair target, but he isn’t unless he gets involved politically (which he does from time to time – in fact my blog byline comes from a letter he wrote to the editor re the NZ Herald).
Oh and advance warning for comments – demerits will be handed out liberally for inappropriate comments. The issue is whether the media should be asking such questions – not what you personally think of their relationship.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:08 am
DPF the media – particularly the print media – can ask whatever questions they like. Journos ask questions for a living – bloggers don’t. But it doesn’t follow that the recipients have to answer them directly. Which is the approach Davis took in the second question about sex. You`re a great blogger David, but if you were to become journalist I would expect you to ask any question to anyone. No question is sacred. It is the demanding that the recipient answers directly that could be seen as unacceptable.
[DPF: I disagree. I don't think being a journalist gives you the right to ask someone if they shower with their wife, and do they enjoy sex]
October 26th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Well, if they want to invite us into their home and talk about reheating half-drunk cups of tea then I think the question on water conservation is acceptable.
The question about sex was unnecessary (as they have never held themselves out as people who would enjoy it).
October 26th, 2008 at 11:12 am
DPF the media can ask whatever questions they like.
True, but its a shame they ask questions like this and avoid the acid tests on policy.
Sad we seem to be hurtling down the American road where a plotician’s private life is seen as having more import than their political life, their policies and actions.
I don’t care who Peter Davis showers with, in fact, I don’t care about Peter Davis at all; he is irrelevant to the election campaign. As is Bronagh, and I wish Key would leave her at home and concentrate on defining and articulating a vision.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I don’t find political leaders partners all that interesting at all. If they make political utterances they’re fair game (as DPF notes).
As for their sexuality etc, I don’t care about that either as long as they don’t go around lecturing about morality then get caught out.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I’m with David on this one
I don’t think any candidate should be asked whether they like sex
or whether they shower with their spouse.
It is salacious and puerile.
The MSM should be asking the sort of questions that would
qualify them as journalists such as:
Did Shane Jones grant NZ citizenship to a Chinese Mafia memer for cash?
What is the purpose and secret agenda of Labour’s mini budget
I do think disguising one’s sexuality behind a marriage is an issue for voters as it shows a duplicity and a lack of honesty.Especially in this day and age when homosexuality is not a crime and is generally well tolerated.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I have just read the article. DPF’s post is a bit misleading – it sounds as if the question about sex came hard on the heels of the shower question. In actual fact, the interview had moved on somewhat and the “inevitable question” came after Davis had denied being a prude.
I think the ellipsis should have been on a line on its own
…
to show that a fair bit had been cut out.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:20 am
True, but its a shame they ask questions like this and avoid the acid tests on policy.
Exactly, why does the MSM so carefully tip toe around asking policy questions from Helen Clark?
I believe it is because over the three terms she has got her spin doctors beating the media
with the carrot and the stick. They just want to keep their jobs!
October 26th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I think the media should ask him straight out if the widespread rumour that he is a homosexual is true or false. The public have a right to know.
[DPF: They have, and he has denied it. And that is final post on the issue]
October 26th, 2008 at 11:24 am
On the face of this post it is true that most would resent those questions being asked. Tasteless. Agreed.
But wait a minute. In spite of Mr Farrar’s call to not make comments about the detail, hasn’t he managed to repeat them anyway and throw the insinuations out for offline thinking? That too is pretty mean David!
October 26th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I could not give a toss about the sexual preferences of Clark or her husband and I sure as hell do not want to know how or where the may “do it” HOWEVER…..
This election is all about TRUST!
If you cannot be open and honest about your personal life then that does become a matter of TRUST.
Klark and Labour have NO morals or ethics when it comes to retaining power therefore it is ridiculous to expect others to extend to the PM the notion of decency or fair play when she does not reciprocate.
What so many long term Nat’s cannot get their head around is that Labour (under Klark) tossed out the rule book years ago, so while many long term Nat’s (like DPF) may not like this type of “gutter journalism” they need to understand that all that is happening here is that at long last Klark is being subjected to a dose of her own medicine.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Um disingenuous???? Sure enough David. It worked. See above.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:34 am
There are very few occasions when questions about showering and sex are legitimate questions for a journalist to ask. This wasn’t one of them. It’s none of our business.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:35 am
brev, you have put it very well. Let no one forget that the comments about Brash’s alleged affair were made with Clark’s approval if she did not in fact put Trevor up to it.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Look- the media are obliged to report political deceit. If they don’t THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB.
You can put restraints on this if you choose, and quote weak verbal palliatives like “what they’re sexual preferences are makes no difference to how they do their job”, but that does not address the fact that if their is deceit from any politician, the pubic should know.
Don’t forget this is the same “media” who have launched an unprecedented attack on the Republican vice presidential candidate where nothing has been held back as “too personal”, including allegations of affairs and even the utterly disgraceful allegation that her daughter’s baby was fathered by Palin’s husband.
We are in a battle for freedom here, and there’s only one side fighting by the Queensbury rules. Its a mistake. You’ll never defeat the left by being nice. Its exactly the weakness they expect, and the one they intentionally prey on.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
What the hell is this shit?
If the aledged journo was working for me they’d be looking for another job.
I don’t give the slightest crap who’s side Peter Davis on, this entire line of questioning is well out of order.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Why fire bullets for the commies??
October 26th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I don’t think that prying into people’s private lives is the role of the media, and I think that asking those sorts of questions of peter davis is purile.
HOWEVER:
There are rumours surrounding Peter Davis which relate to an alleged incident in Los Angeles, and I can see a circumstance where questions about his sexuality may be relevant as part of a larger inquiry into those events, which the MSM seem to have no interest in pursuing.
This is clearly not such a circumstance, and it seems to be a rather pathetic attempt to embarrass the guy.
Poor bloke, he already has to put up with being married to Hulun…
October 26th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Redbaiter Don’t forget this is the same “media” who have launched an unprecedented attack on the Republican vice presidential candidate where nothing has been held back as “too personal”, including allegations of affairs and even the utterly disgraceful allegation that her daughter’s baby was fathered by Palin’s husband.
I wasn’t aware the HoS was part of the American media, and I wasn’t aware the HoS had launched any attacks on Palin.
However, if you want to bring that ditsy dorah in to the debate, how can you defend her idiocy about research?
Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXqKEs68Xk
October 26th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Heh,heh, glass houses, now how many of you were ranting that Don Brash was trustworthy, after he had bought family values up and was shown to be a rank hypocrite.
Of course having an affair while married would be seen as good family values to some.
Maybe all jounalists should imagine they are interviewing Hone, think they would try that crap on with him ?
Funny how so many seem to want politicians from all the parties never to have put a foot wrong.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Bullshit knows no political alignment.
Bullshit is bullshit and this is very much pure bullshit.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Well, as Heilen has publicly stated. she would like NZ to be just like Sweden – a country whose socialist system and society mores have been brought on and institutionalised by sexual liberationists, where the populace have complete uninhibited sexual freedom – actually, about the only freedom they have. Earlier this year in Sweden, there was a bill before their parliament to legalize human/animal sexual relations – enshrining bestiality in law.
Now this is the type of country/system/moral values that Heilen wants to foist upon NZ, and I consider this disgusting and absolutely undesireable. So as far as I’m concerned, any question is fair game.
One proviso – the questioner tends to indicate their own preferences and depth of intellect by the questions they ask.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I really don’t want to have the mental image of any politician showering with their spouse as I’m consuming my brunch on a Sunday morning.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
David,
While I agree in part that the question should not have been asked, there are some issues surrounding the Clark/Davis marriage that give it a higher profile than others in the political sphere.
Helen Clark is on record as saying the reason she was married was on the face of it, political. It was deemed that she should be should she wished to pursue higher office. She is on record as saying that had a civil union been an option at the time, she would have done that.
But more telling is the answer to the question.
“Well, do you like sex? He mumbles for a moment. “Well that is a personal part of my life … and I don’t want to talk about that.”
Why is that a personal part of MY life? I may be reading to much into it but I would have thought that “that is a personal part of OUR LIVES” might have been a more appropriate answer?
October 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Redbaiter is still banging on about the vacuous barbie doll Sarah Palin.
Obama will win, as will Key here!
October 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“I wasn’t aware the HoS was part of the American media, and I wasn’t aware the HoS had launched any attacks on Palin.”
Well maybe you should get yourself better informed before you waste people’s time with comments on issues you clearly know so little about. The Herald runs plenty of commentary from international sources including the US media. Tiresome idiot.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/palin/search/results.cfm?kw1=palin&kw2=&op=all&searchorder=2&display=10&start=0&thepage=1&st=gsa
October 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
slightlyrighty Clarks marriage has NOTHING to do with her ability as Prime Minister.
THAT ability is deeply floored and is the issue that should be addressed, not who she chooses to shower with.
Claims of “trust issues” is nothing more than a convienient excuse. You would wear it of it was about John Key or Rodney Hide and there’s no reason we should accept it about Clark. Focus on the real issues, not gutter titilation.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Slightlyrighty disagree. It was Davis who was asked the question. He was asked if he liked sex. No mention was made as to who he liked to have sex with. And if the question wasnt so interesting none of you would be commenting.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
DPF. You will never get a consensus on this issue. And to ask ‘do you like sex’, is to ask ‘are you human?’ (regardless of sexual orientation). Personally, I want the leaders of the society I live in, to be representitive of mainstream society. Therefore (for example), I would expect ‘leaders’ to have had real jobs in their lives, and if they are a woman of child bearing age (and ability), to have at least conceived once in their lives. Neither Helen Clark nor her husband, fit this mainstream profile, therefore by proxy, become a target for endless inuendo by mainstream society. And after all, the majority of NZ’s did not want Helen Clark leading this country at the last election. So as they say, if your can’t handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Redbaiter, the ever so creepy Sarah Palin worshipper!
October 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Intriguing comment from Labour toady Paul Holmes in his Herald article on dinner at Helen’s place-
“In fact, the more I see them together at home, the more I see how down to earth and normal, in their sense of normal, they are.”
In their sense of normal??? There is more than one sense of “normal”..??
October 26th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Redbaiter (4057) Vote: 0 2 Says:
October 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“I wasn’t aware the HoS was part of the American media, and I wasn’t aware the HoS had launched any attacks on Palin.”
Well maybe you should get yourself better informed before you waste people’s time with comments on issues you clearly know so little about. The Herald runs plenty of commentary from international sources including the US media. Tiresome idiot.
redbaiter, you need to learn to read AND to comprehend.
Your post has not proven the HoS launched any attacks on Palin. OK, they ran material sourced elsewhere, but your attempt to accuse the HoS of launching attacks on Palin was YOUR stupidity. Do you know what “launch” means?
Still, that’s about the level I have come to expect from the dumbeddownRight.
I guess you, just like your Barbie Doll VP candidate, have trouble understanding WHY research is done. But that’s OK, leave it to the lefty liberal scientists to continue the quest for knowledge while you wallow in, and celebrate, your ignorance.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Such a tepid response to an insulting question says far more about his personality than his sexuality. What a doormat.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Your post has not proven the HoS launched any attacks on Palin. OK, they ran material elsewhere, but your attempt to accuse the HoS was YOUR stupidity.”
Thanks for that opinion. Like most the left hold, its entirely worthless, but of course you’re free to express it. For now that is. Probably not much longer if your totalitarian political idols continue to run the show.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
The marriage of Davis and Clark is a sham of the same type as Winstons shams. (ring any bells?) and it didn’t take Clark milliseconds to condemn Brash so she deserves what she gets as does Davis, who really is just another pig in the taxpayer trough.
Trust is built upon truth and honesty, which is probably why the trust has never ever surrounded Clark who is more interested in expediency.
Apart from the serious side of this story the mind boggles at the images of a cuppa in the shower when the man can’t even remember how she likes her tea. But actually that incident alone illustrates very clearly the sham nature of the marriage.
Mad Hatters Tea shower anybody? HeHeHe
October 26th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I don’t think being a journalist gives you the right to ask someone if they shower with their wife, and do they enjoy sex
Not a right, an option. But where do you draw the line DPF? Is it OK to ask a leader if they have smoked drugs ( as I have done) – or if they currently do? Is it OK to ask if they have cheated on their partner or if they are having an affair? What about if they have ever been to a massage parlour or smacked their kids – or if they have ever locked their cat in the house when they go on holiday for a few days and it is not fed?
Apparently its OK to ask a leader who they`d turn gay for – or if they are gay. Anyway there’s more important questions that journos can be asking.
[DPF: Drug use is okay as that is against the law. The turn gay question is an obvious joke and treated as such. The others would only apply if there was hypocrisy]
October 26th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
When both the extreme left (any political economy theorist) and the nutty right (e.g. Redbaiter) agree regardin’ media conspiracies ta thwart democracy, ya can rest assured that the media are doin’ a reasonably good job.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
slightlyrighty wrote:
I thought the same when he said he made Helen a pot of tea in bed. Not that he made “us” a pot of tea in bed.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“When both the extreme left (any political economy theorist) and the nutty right (e.g. Redbaiter) agree ”
“Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist, or Nazi or insane …. The association will, after enough repetition, become “fact” in the public mind.”
–Communist Party, Moscow Central Committee 1943
October 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Another interesting point from the Holmes article- When asked if they has an environmentally suitable toilet installed, Mr Helen Klark responded- “Dual flush is good enough for us.” Now when you and your spouse are pulling in about half a million a year plus the rent from 6 houses and looking at big pensions when they retire, at the same time as they punish every other NZer with idiotic environmental regulations, wouldn’t you think they’d be setting an example on environmental awareness rather than be seen to be displaying such open contempt for the concept??
October 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
15) When you have to make a difficult decision, what is most important to you?
Arriving logically at the best choice
Being as fair as possible
Doing the right thing according to your own beliefs and values
Getting the approval and agreement of others
Doing the right thing according to my beliefs and values. DPF.
Fair but won’t necessarily arrive at the right decision for others.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
About bloody time the media start debating the entire “does he or he doesn’t he” question. Helen has made it her career to question other peoples home lives and she has been sheltered for some sad reason by the media for way too long. Why should she be any different?
Peter Davies put himself out there by writing this idiotic letters in the papers and has slithered away afterwards. I say put him under the microscope! If there was nothing to hide why is it that Helen and Peter have never commented on this for well over a decade? Her lack of honesty on even this tiny detail adds to my distrust of this woman.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
While the neutral/ambiguous nature of some of Davis’s comments fuel further speculation, I thought he came out of it quite well, almost like an endearing figure, warm even, in complete contrast to his missus.
I would say he did better than the ‘no comment’ job we saw concerning Bronagh Key in the SST, leading the paper to cobble together something based on previous interviews.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Clintheine: The reporter should have got to the root of it and asked..’Do you like sex…….with men?”
October 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Interesting reading on a sunday avo.
IMHO they are both open to scrutiny, yes the sex question is a bit off beam, but it is typical sensational comment, and completely vaccuous.
Hulun is a minority PM, unelected by the majority, lets not lose sight of that, she & by association her husband are wide open to scrutiny by the public.
Anyway Peter has his nanny, she visits from time to time for a cup of tea, is it the hoarding Helen?
He must have answered the “Hey You – Need A Nanny?” ad in the HoS. pg47
October 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Having read the story and read paul holmes sickly sweet piece about dinner with them I would think we should be calling him the first flatmate… not the first husband.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
If Clark and David have a Labour Government regulation 6 litre per minute shower head, then I can’t imagine they’d be able to shower together. That isn’t enough water to wash one person properly, let alone two. Or enough water to enable a bit of warm soapy fun.
Showering with a friend: Just one more thing you’ll have to do without if you vote for Labour or the Greens.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Now you know why fewer and fewer people by the SST.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“Having read the story and read paul holmes sickly sweet piece about dinner with them I would think we should be calling him the first flatmate… not the first husband.”
I think it is outrageous that a key member of NZ’s media should be having dinner with the PM and her husband. How could Paul Holmes ever do his job effectively whilst maintaining such an intimate relationship. Klark and all politicians for that matter should be in desperate fear of the media, and the media should be in the business of instilling that fear within politicians like Klark, not cuddling up like pet Pomeranians. Nauseating and an event that should disqualify Paul Holmes from ever working again in any part of the NZ media that deals with political issues.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Interesting to see that in NZ, statistics show an increase in marriage nuptials. I translate this to be a swing back towards traditional, human values. I wonder how this might affect the vote for labour, with the current leader being of another generation and different values?
October 26th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Is Helen Clark actually married?
Did she deliberately allow details of the alledged affair of Brash into the media?
Did she actually leak it deliberately?
If DB having an extra marital affair was enough to cause shame, then has she had different, multiple partners since marrying? What would be her reaction had the roles been reversed?
Was the NZ State apparatus used to protect and repatriate someone close to her?
More questions than answers here, but it is all about trusts?
October 26th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Isn’t it about as tacky as ‘her’ alleging that John Key shouts at his familiy at home?
Not quite in that league but getting close.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“..In their sense of normal??? There is more than one sense of “normal”..??..”
would love to hear your dictums on what constitutes ‘normal’ there..ratty..
oh..!..hang on..!
..don’t bother..!
..eh..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 26th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Just a thought , Philu.
There is really only ONE sense of normal. Otherwise, its abnormal, sub-normal etc.
Which would apply to you I wonder?
October 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“dictums”
Dicta, you fuckwit.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Don the Kiwi: Dispute ONE “Normal” I do not think that there is one absolute normal nor anything else.
Challenge: Name ONE normal that is absolute and universal. Thought not except self of course.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
1. I hope Helen’s got more of a clue about inflation than Davis does. At 5% per annum your worth is devaluing by 100% in 14 1/2 years. So in order to maintain the same standard of living, your income has to go up by 100% over the same period. Moron.
2. I’m sure they’re doing just fine on more than $500k a year, which shows how out of touch they are with ordinary Kiwis. Helen and Peter are obviously “rich” (under Key’s wonderful definition), but it’s a shame that Labour hasn’t been able to extend that to anyone else (apart from a few bureaucrats) during their nine year tenure. In fact, they seem hellbent on driving the “rich” out of the country.
3. The flaming hypocrite. So Clark rails against Contact, telling people to shop around all the while they maintain their business with them. Just another fucken flip/flop from this out of touch academic. It’s time for her to go.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Oh poor peter!
October 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Poor Peter my arse.
This bloke doesn’t have a bloody clue, cloistered, ivory tower, academic, real life sleeper, things just happen around Peter, life is a cruise for types like him.
Helen is an inconvenience I am picking, and probably vice versa, but lends a facade of normality to them, kind of.
Poor Peter my arse.
He could shoot anytime he wants, he is doing as he is told……….. Make another cup of tea Peter….NOW…
October 26th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
We’re not America.
there is no moral standard needed for office in this country.
The hypocrites will point out the faults of others, while they should be pointing at themselves
but there may be some herer who also think the Beehive will become the next astep after Waikeria. let’s be fair, that prison is only minimum security.
Now that the gangs can apply for treaty handouts, the next step is public office. So if you think Peter Davis personal life needs to be magnified, I would suggest you don’t see the really big picture under communism.
Has the word ‘democracy’ been edited from political speak yet??
October 26th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I’m with Redbaiter on this. After Clark’s disgusting innuendo about Key shouting at home it’s open season on her and her family. Take the gloves off.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
JamesP says:
My thoughts exactly. What sort of man (or woman, for that matter) wouldn’t respond, to a question like that, with something along the lines of “What’s it to do with you, you salacious little upstart?”.
Meanwhile Redbaiter asks:
Remember Paul had Jim Bolger as guest of honour at his wedding? It’s an odd phenomenon – no matter how famous people get, they seem to still seem to need to seek approval from others in a different sphere. So for instance Winston, who’d have spent the night being treated like a king in every pub and restaurant we visited, would suddenly become a giggling courtier if a famous rugby player walked in. In Paul’s case it’s politicians – and it has nothing at all to do with their political philosophy. If Rodney Hide were to become PM, we’d be getting breathless accounts of dinner at his place.
Paul has always been perfectly open about his personal friendships with the powerful, which allows an intelligent readership to distill his remarks with that knowledge. Rather than worry about a bit of star-struck nonsense, we should be far more worried about some very pernicious influences between those in power and those in the media – influences that are never public. And I’m not just talking national politics – if you want to uncover a real rats’ nest, start digging at local government level, with particular attention to the way in which media are influenced and controlled. I’ve seen corruption there that makes the Melbourne underworld look like a tea party.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Ok, after some thought I’m going to backtrack and change my position. In and of itself the question was tacky and inappropriate, and there is no need to lower ourselves to Helen’s level. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Rex. You’re on to it. Local body government is a Pandora’s box of corruption and the most wanton waste of tax and ratepayers money, ever. Few have any idea.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
This from the Holmes article.
So these people enjoy holidays in the outdoors, and one is a birwatcher, and they have lived in this house since 1980.
Does anybody else find that third paragraph extraordinary?
October 26th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Nothing in Paul Holmes article surprises me. They are both detached from mainstream society, yet one is the leader of this country. Go figure.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
How far do you go? You may state an opinion on the blog that you do not approve of something, but that may be taken as a carte-blance to allow all and sundry to discuss all sorts of stuff – to such an extent in may be categorised as an ingenious dogwhistle?
Maybe my ‘dogwhistle ears’ are too sensitive, or I’m just too damned cynical, but it might be better to just ignore some stuff. It is a sad reflection on the state of the nation’s journalism though, when a famous academic is approached in this manner. Thank God he wasn’t interviewing Monica Lewinsky. Or that Austrian bloke you mentioned th other day.
Still Helen has had a field day dog-whistling that ‘you can’t trust them’ while describing JK. So I suppose all is fair in love and war…
Eugh, now I’m doing it!
October 26th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
David, as you say in your Myers-Briggs answers you tend to appy your value system to all situations (and expect others to agree-to be fair so do most people, to varying degrees).
I personlly felt a bit sorry for PD until I thought about his motives – cleary driven by his wifes election campaign.
The questions may not have been to your taste but Peter by his actions in the past has made himself a target for those questions and any journalist who didnt go down that path would have missed a trick.
Also, HC has opened up the personal lives of the leaders and partners to probing questions by implying in an insidious manner that Key was a wife beater.
Besides – HC had srcipted the interviews to show her as a frugal normal kiwi and experienced leader (in cntrast to that flash harry key) and the result has been an insight into her world, strangely detached from the world of most NZ’rs in many many ways.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Challenge: Name ONE normal that is absolute and universal. Thought not except self of course
It is normal for humans to sleep at night.
It is normal for them to eat during the day
It is normal for men and women to have sex together
It is normal for mothers to protect their children from harm
Need any more? I can think of thousands of them!
October 26th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Sigh! Haven’t you learned anything in the last decade?!? Off to re-education camp for you my friend. (and do try to hang on to the soap…)
October 26th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
They must both be dreading with all their hearts the end of Huluns political career. The tea argumeents will be horrendous.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
How offended will NZ be, when the wicked witch of the South. Married. Portraying Domestic, if childless harmony is busted as a serial womaniser?
October 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
LOL.
I feel sorry for that Tui, when she retires buys a slug gun. Rocking on the back porch just waitin for it to trill too loudly.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
What, you mean the Tui outshouting Helen. Now that wouldn’t do.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Although I must admit to getting the thermos mug out for tea of thermal longevity *hat tip dear leader*, I’d forgotten I had one.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:08 am
To play devil’s advocate here, yes that story was “tacky” but it’s hard to feel much sympathy for Davis when he’s quite happy to participate — and Davis has been all over the media in ‘human interest’ stories that have all the substance of froth on a badly made cappuccino. Anyone remember when Howard Dean’s wife, Judith Steinberg, said she had a busy medical practice, and thought that would be a more productive use of her time than doing photo ops with her husband (who was the one standing for public office, after all)? She got a lot of shit for that, but I thought she was right.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“Sigh! Haven’t you learned anything in the last decade?!?”
Sigh! Yes
Sigh! Lots
Sigh! I learned to remember how to propogate the species!
Sigh! Such fun too!
Sigh!
God Bless the little blue diamond!
October 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Puke. Tacky question in a tacky, but run of the mill, interview.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Tacky is the Trolls that think they can influence anything.
Corruption is the signature of Winston First, and their master Labour.
The real deal is that nearly 600 spinmasters have less effect than 20 -50 committed agents of change.
Why has no troll disabused my information on how badly Labour have found out they are polling internally!
Change is good!
October 27th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Isn’t the purpose of the article to put people off using public transport?
If P Diddy is travelling by bus back to Mt Eden at night then surely that’s the best argument possible for getting back in the car and commuting to work by that method. Why isn’t P Diddy using the train to head to and from Auckland? Is he waiting for the tracks to be electrified or does he accept that the regional fuel tax is a waste of money? Despite there being a train station at Mt Eden and at Britomart does he acknowledge by his actions that trains are near pointless as a transport solution for Auckland?
October 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
People on here make every revolting insinuation, condemnation, and downright lie that comes into their heads about what they think of Clark/Davis’ private life, for years, but suddenly NOW that’s not acceptable on pain of demerits?
Horses have well and truly bolted through this particular barn door, methinks…
October 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It all seems a bit tacky to me. I think simple politeness and respect for people should preclude such questions.
Unfortunately journalism has become so dumbed down and the drive for ratings so intense that journalists will ask those sort of questions just for shock value.
I would like interviewers to ask more pointed questions of Helen Clark’s policies rather than speculating on what should be a married couple’s private life.