The first post Cabinet press conference
John Armstring has an interesting narrative on John Key’s first post Cabinet press conference.
The Monday press conference enables a Prime Minister to say things without saying things. A particular inflection in Helen Clark’s voice or change in her facial expression could speak volumes about the previous Prime Minister’s real opinion of something or someone compared with the official version.
Journalists could pick up what she meant. If that resulted in trouble, she could still deny she had ever said it. Such is the symbiotic relationship between politician and political journalist.
Key, obviously, has some way to go on that front. And his Monday audience has to work out when he means something and when he doesn’t.
How about if he says it, he means it? Or is that too naive?
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 am
Does this mean journalists aren’t used to honesty from a PM so when they see it they don’t recognise it?
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
Yes, agree David. It sounds like another example of the fourth estate and Hulun getting a little bit too symbiotic.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Helen’s Press Conferences always reminded me of a Headmaster addressing a class of third formers totally cowered to question what they were being fed.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 am
“…And his Monday audience has to work out when he means something and when he doesn’t…”
Translation: This Monday, if Key does not tell me eco-warrior slogans I’ll make something negetive up about him and if there are any protestations I’ll make up some more along those lines again next monday.
The reason I’ll never be PM is because if the press ran up to me asking about the world melting and what I was going to do about it, I’d tell them the world was not melting, end of story, nothing more to say, discussion over, don’t ask me again.
DPF can we have equally regular comment from sources other than the Herald and SST? Laughing at the stupidity of an ignorant media is fine and dandy, but possibly some international comment (hey, even from a right of cente source!) on issues that also effect NZ would start worthwhile discussion.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:47 am
What a pathetic piece of journalism. Paul Holmes was also rabbiting on this morning about not getting our Nationals back from Thailand, when his own station had an interview last night with one of the people stranded who said the NZ government were arranging a flight for them and had bent over backwards to help everyone.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 am
I believe we’ll see the pasty NZ jornos trying to score points off key… by leading questions designed to trap him. After years of being well outfoxed by Clark they must be ready for a some payback
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 am
Since Key has allready contradicted his Minister of Defence and its only the first open to all comers press conference.
I expect Mapp to get a slap down and sent to Bangkok airport to handle the baggage as hes not fit for his job.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
And this is what we have had from our fourth estate and Government for the past 9 long years. Everything filtered through the warped lenses of a group who think they have the key to a unique code and are therefore privy to secrets of attitude and opinion which dare not be exposed to the public gaze by any means other than via their word processors or a spin doctor’s press release.
What utter and unmitigated bullshit is that? Armstrong has exposed the press gallery for the bunch of fawning has-been manipulated self-indulgent hacks for what they truly are.
If I don’t hear a reporter use the term “… that is code for ..” for the next 10 years it will still be too soon.
It also becomes laughable when the 30 year “veterans” of the gallery cocktail circuit and travel junkets to pontificate about “front bench renewal” and the advantages of “new faces”. Perhaps a mirror should be installed in the press gallery bathroom.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
jacob, there is a difference between a strike wing and the possibility of having some jet powered training aircraft in the fleet don’t you know!
Don’t see any contradiction there.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 am
Isn’t it time this old drongo Armstrong was put out to pasture?
It reads to me as if he’s still trying to make up excuses for (amongst other things) his embarrassing story about Labour’s “significant” neutron-bomb discovery about John Key pre-election – that blew up in Labour/Williams’ face, and exposed Armstrong as the partisan Labour lackey he was, and still is.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Even B4 the defeat of his beluvved Hulun, Armstrong was, and still is, way off-Key
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 am
How about a little straw poll here.
Give this comment a “thumbs-up” if you think that the PM of the country should take however long he needs to make a critical decision even if he is late by three minutes for the press conference.
Give me a “thumbs-down” if he should cut a cabinet meeting short in order to make the press conference on time and avoid upsetting the gallery.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 am
“Armstrong has exposed the press gallery for the bunch of fawning has-been manipulated self-indulgent hacks for what they truly are.”
Quite correct. Contemptible partisan disgraces to the craft of journalism. Many though were probably aware of this long before Armstrong, who is as useless himself. (in my opinion). These leftist thinking bozos have converted journalism into a left wing cuddle club where apart from the token connivance, no questions are asked that might cause any kind of real problems for leftists and their long march.
Example 1- real journalists would have asked questions about the global warming scam, not acted as a mere clearing house for pro-warming propaganda.
Example 2- real journalists would have brought us the truth on the Iraq war instead of the routine hate Bush Marxist template, and would now be reporting it as a victory with at least half the zeal they previously reported it as a failure. Notice the silence these days?
Example 3- real journalists would not have acted as a strike force for Labour during almost every election campaign of the last ten years, and fired bullets (some that were obvious duds) for Mike Williams and Helen Klark at John Key and/or Don Brash in such a starkly partisan manner.
Largely from the New York Times school of advocacy journalism (a euphemism for purveyors of leftist propaganda) they are mostly responsible the decline of journalism over the last decade or so. Their teachers and lecturers and mentors indoctrinated them with the ideals of leftism, and they never managed to break free from this handicap. New journalist from new schools could revive the industry, but I think the blow dealt to the craft by a generation of these shallow partisan pretenders will make recovery a long and difficult road.
The only qualities that might cause one to give a journalist credibility over a blogger is information and trust. These lying partisan bozos don’t have either, and its why they’re losing big time.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
Dickheads like Armstrong have not woken up to the new world they now inhabit. He also mentioned in his article that all the journos wanted to talk about was climate change and implied that Key didn’t get it. Sorry mate, no more spoonfooding of the party propaganda and irrelevant BS. If he can’t work it out I will not be sorry to see him go. Same applies to Colin James. I like the new order we have these days – very refreshing and relevant !
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
jacob van hartog … you are coming across as a dork and not a very intelligents dork at that. Your knowledge of things military is about as good as my understanding of the worth of socialism.
So, in the interests of helping you post intelligently (yes I know, perhaps an oxymoron) let’s recap the sequence of events.
As reported in the Royal New Zealand Herald … “Dr Mapp’s office was asked under the Official Information Act if there was a move to restore the Aermacchis to operational service so they could work with the Army and the Navy. He responded that a defence white paper to be completed next year would provide a process to consider whether it is desirable to retain some level of jet training capability”.
Now Jacob …. listen carefully. The Aermacchi is a training aircraft not a strike aircraft and it could be used to provide calabration for RNZN ship systems (currently provided by civilian jet a/c) or by the Army in providing a (very) limited ground attack role. They are equipment ‘in being’ albeit without the force infrastructure need to support and maintain them in any meaningful sense and IMHO the authors of the Defence White Paper would be failing in their duty to at least debate the pros and cons of returning them to operational service.
For what it is worth I suspect the White Paper will conclude that the additional cost involved at a time when the Defence dollar is under real pressure (witness the Project Protector debacle) cannot be justified.
John Key rightly commented that the Government was not going to reinstate the air combat wing (Skyhawks). That is National’s policy.
Problem for you Jacob is that you don’t know the difference between a Skyhawk and a Aermmacchi, and Mapp’s statement was factual and was not contricted at all by John Key.
So Jacob, if you represent the informed and intelligent face of Labour then I am comfortable in the knowledge that our Centre/Right Government is likely to remain in power for a very long time.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
“Problem for you Jacob is that you don’t know the difference between a Skyhawk and a Aermmacchi, and Mapp’s statement was factual and was not contricted at all by John Key.”
All Jacob knows is how to vote for a time warped sandal wearing commie peacenik for Prime Minister. The pseudo academic Klark was never anything but an ignorant single minded leftist loon full of Marxist dogma and too smugly stupid to understand the full and long term financial and political consequences of her actions.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
! And don’t we bloody know it.
Helen Clark’s ability to tell the truth & lie at the same time is legendary.
Yet, only now that she’s out of power that a senior political commentator has the guts to say what we’ve known all along.
This really annoys me.
I’ve never been a John Key sycophant – but he’s proving to be so refreshing. His press conferences are devoid of ego, he’s knowledgeable & he doesn’t beat around the bush. His arguments for why NZ should exclude agriculture from the ETS were so sound & logical it’s hard to imagine anyone agrueing anything different. I.e. cut in agriculture production = food shortage = more polluting countries picking up the slack = global warming.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:24 am
I agree David, entirely. The tendency for the media to disappear down some rabbit hole attempting to divine the PMs real intent was maddening.
Whatever does happen though, I hope he keeps them up…
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
Ross,
Why don’t we pick up some Harrier GR9′s from the UK when they move to the F-35? Would make sense for NZ to have some air capability that could be used from sea and land. It would restore much needed confidence in NZ’s military capabilities, and fulfill a training role that the Aermacchi cannot.
I don’t mind paying taxes if it goes towards our core defense and training capabilities. More bureaucrats – no, but sea/air defense – yes.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
Yes, that is too naive.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
It is wonderful to see the all-seeing blinding white light of John Hamstrung’s journalistic and investigative prowess brought to bear on the very important issue of how punctual John Key was to his first Press conference. Shame about his deathly silence about this during Clark’s nine years.
But still better late than never, eh John?
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
” The Monday press conference enables a Prime Minister to say things without saying things. A particular inflection in Helen Clark’s voice or change in her facial expression could speak volumes about the previous Prime Minister’s real opinion of something or someone compared with the official version.”
I presume this refers to Helen Clark’s patented vulgar snorting and grimacing. It was more akin to a doctor testing your reflexes with a sledgehammer, than the subtle and graceful pantomime Armstrong implies.
“Journalists could pick up what she meant. If that resulted in trouble, she could still deny she had ever said it. Such is the symbiotic relationship between politician and political journalist.”
Journalists should never enable a politician to make comment during official speeches (either explicitly or implicitly) and not be held accountable for it. If they snort at some suggestion as an “unofficial response”, I’d play a clip of the unoffcial response back to them during the interview if she became evasive. Were it printed media, an unflattering photo of her facially gesturing would similarly serve to illustrate her oppinion.
Finally, am I the only one slightly disturbed by a supposedly independent press talking about a symbiosis with the government.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Good post paradigm.
The ‘nostalgic’ commentary from some in the media since JK took over has inadvertently revealed how much they were hand-feed by Helen.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Finally, am I the only one slightly disturbed by a supposedly independent press talking about a symbiosis with the government.’
“symbiosis”.
?????
That’s putting it fucken mildly.
The bastards are the propaganda arm of Socialist International. All over the globe, real journalists have been shoved out the door, and left wing lackies and poseurs have taken their places. Look at the craven adulation they have displayed for Barack “he sends a shiver up my leg” Hussein Obama.
These deceitful partisan scum have to be confronted if those who value liberty are ever going to regain any political ground. Where once the profession of journalism was entrusted with protecting us from big powerful government and totalitarianism, it’s practitioners now sneakily and slyly advocate for those concepts. Journalists today work assiduously and endlessly to send civilization down the one way street of soft socialist tyranny.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
mavxp wrote:
^ that would be freakin awesome.
The Harriers are capable aircraft too. With their VSTOL capability, they can land in fields or parks – which is perfect of NZ. And with their sophisticated radar they’d be good for maritime search & rescue, and scaring off those illegal fishing boats.
Also, they can technically land on the helicopter pad on the back of a Frigate.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Ross Millar you are wrong. The Macchi is indeed a strike aircraft. Thats why it was bought for NZ . It could be both a trainer and a (light) strike aircraft) and as a trainer only there was no need for 18 planes.
Many times they have been used in exercises for attacks on navy ships, waking up half the North Shore in the process.
But why would we need to train pilots on a fast jet ( Macchi) if we didnt have a combat air wing. The rest of he airforce is helicopters which have a complely different advanced training or propellors, where we have adequate multi engine propellor aircraft allready.
The Macchis were also usefull for rocketing mud huts and guerillas in pickup trucks. But that isnt a requirement for NZ.
The fast jets are not coming back ( no money ) and the macchis on their own dont have sufficent use to make it worthwhile
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“But why would we need to train pilots on a fast jet ( Macchi) if we didnt have a combat air wing. ”
So we can send them on loan to allied military forces. That’s generally what happens. Eventually NZ will regain an effective military as part of a healthy and sensibly protected economy. The only reason we wouldn’t is because a particular political party was intent on turning NZ into the Cuba of the South Pacific – sans the AK47s. And if they go for New Cuba, they’ll have a S.E. Asian garrison here anyway so there’s the effective military.
You’ll still be paying for it of course, but how much you can effectively contribute when you’re earning $5 day in a shoe factory I don’t know.
Why build a booming economy and leave it wide open to attack? Hello? If you’re surrounded by sea and not a naturally aggressive nation, you need a fast capable airforce more than two hideously expensive frigates that are really just target practice for a foreign navy with invasion capability.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
mavxp/nx … we won’t get Harriers (or any other strike ac) for the simple reason that National campaigned on a promise not to do so. Look folks, the military is chronically underfunded to carry out its existing tasks so lets put that right first before we consider acquiring any new capabilities. But more importantly those decisions need to be taken against the backdrop of a White Paper that clearly identifies a way forward.
Right now what do we have …
An Army of two understrength light infantry battalions and limited supporting arms plus a SAS Group.
A Navy of two ANZAC Frigates rapidly approaching their half life. A two decades old tanker; a Support Ship with major problems; 2 OPVs not yet commissioned with their own major problems and 4 IPVs plus huge manpower problems in the technical trades.
An Airforce of 6 P3s (40 years old); 5 Hercs (same vintage) and two 757s plus troop carrying and rotary wing replacement ac on order.
Before people start rabbiting on about acquiring new capability for Petes sake lets address the serious problems that exist in operating and maintaining what we have.
And the start point is a Defence White Paper.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
jacob v h … the Macchi is essentially a jet trainer ac that can fullfill other roles. They are here in being and it would be remiss of authors of the White Paper not to at least discuss the cost/benefit of recommissioning some to carry out some of the tasks now performed under civilian contract. But I don’t think for moment the cost/benefit will stack up.
But where you are completely off the wall is to suggest that the statement by Mapp puts him at odds with Key and National’s policy. I repeat. The Skyhawk is an air combat ac. The Aermacchi is not.
But I guess you have supped long and hard from the cup of spin that so ruled your Labour masters.
But tell me, just how are you going to blame the Project Protector debacle on National? Your precious Mr Goff will, I suspect, be gone by lunchtime once the full truth is known. Labour requiring the ships to be built down to a price rather than up to a standard and in the process people have died.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
JVH “Ross Millar you are wrong. The Macchi is indeed a strike aircraft. Thats why it was bought for NZ . It could be both a trainer and a (light) strike aircraft) and as a trainer only there was no need for 18 planes. ”
The Airmacchi is a modern strike aircraft in the same way a Harvard was a US WWII fighter. Just because you can strap a bomb under the wing doesn’t make it a strike fighter. Training pilots to fly jets is one of the things air forces do. Fuck knows where Air New Zealand gets it’s pilots now.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Comparing a real strike aircraft with an Aermacchi…
F18E: Max takeoff weight 30 tonnes. Engine power 200kN.
Aermacchi: Max taxoff weight 4.5 tonnes. Engine power 18kN.
Enough said. It’s like comparing a bicycle with a motorbike.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Other commentators use words like pathetic, dickhead and dork to describe Armstrong and they are right. He cant seem to get over that Helen is gone. Helen who use to feed him his stories, and for whom he spun her lines. Reading his column I thought he wanted to have Helens babies. Get over it John Armstrong this is a new Government with new people, who wont play by your old rules. You need to cuddle up to others like Colin James who is cuddling up to Simon Powell or was that power.