A rare mis-step
August 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am by David FarrarMy views on the Greenpeace 40% campaign are well known. And its use of celebrity endorsements, rather than rational arguments, for its campaign represents all the worst aspects of what should be a serious public policy debate.
How-ever it was an “unforced error” for John Key to tell Keisha Castle-Hughes to “stick to acting” even though I am sure he said it with a smile. Greenpeace should be the target of criticism for their celebrity driven campaign, not so much Castle-Hughes who is advocating for something she believes.
Part of this is common sense. The PM vs a young mother is a fight you can not win. Also the main outcome from it, is to give more publicity to Castle-Hughes and her advocacy. As I said I call it a rare “unforced error”.
I saw the interview with Castle-Hughes on Close Up and thought she composed herself well, and resisted taking shots back at the PM – instead focusing on the issue. Having said that Sainsbury did give her the kid gloves treatment and didn’t ask her questions about the economic impact of a 40% target, what would she say to farm workers who would lose their jobs etc etc, what her views were on flexible land use rules for forest replanting, why she advocates 40% not 35% or 45%, how she thought methane emissions from cows should best be reduced etc etc.
A reader reminds me to quote the Team America movie, and questions whether Keisha will be asked to join the Film Actors Guild, quoting their spokesperson Janeane Garofalo:
“as actors it is important that we read newspapers and then say what we read on television like it is our own opinion”
Heh. That was a great movie.
Related posts:
- Keisha Castle-Hughes pregnant
- Greenpeace attacks Govt emissions trading scheme
- Greens spot carbon target change
- Clark’s hollow record on climate change
August 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’m sure his intent was to make the jab at Greenpeace by suggesting she should stick to acting rather than endorse an absurd concept of emissions reductions, the point being it’s so obviously absurd that it’s silly of her to put her name to it, but yes, he shouldn’t have engaged in the way he did, even if it was intended as a humorous quip.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 9:47 am
DPF, Michael Laws is discussing your analysis of what a 40% cut would mean for the country on Radio Live. And he poses “do you understand now why the Prime Minister might have suggested, ‘Keisha, stick to acting honey, stick to acting.’”
[DPF: Michael Laws quoting me. Hmmn, I'm not sure how I am meant to react to that
]
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am
A reader reminds me to quote the Team America movie, and questions whether Keisha will be asked to join the Film Actors Guild, quoting their spokesperson Janeane Garofalo:
“as actors it is important that we read newspapers and then say what we read on television like it is our own opinion”
You mean, like John Key and his Notional Government?
From herceptin to folic acid; from slapping down dissenting opinion to legislating away legal defences; day afer day after day the Notional Government announces yesterday’s news as today’s policy.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
She is just another airhead actress who thinks that they are important and that people listen to them. She should stick to acting. She can do skits at the village fairs and harvest festivals that will pass for entertainment in Greenpeace’s vision of a bucolic medieval utopia.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
One square of loo roll per visit will do the trick!
Thanks Cheryl Crow.
You saved the World.
Actors have opinions, but the MSM promote them like they are Gospel.
Bet she never ran a business and employed anybody!
Harriet Harman, The deputy leader of the Labour Party in Westminster is in charge while Wacko Jocko has a wee holiday.
Her latest push is for 12 months paid maternity leave. An extra 3 month than exists. Would cost the private sector 500m directly.
Even more for the bloatocracy. Celebrity endorsed. But the Unions are surprisingly cautious.
Fabulous idea if cost effective, let alone affordable. But there again, you can’t have too many womens rights.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I don’t mind Key being a slightly fallible genuine tryer. Same for Keisha.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am
DPF said: The PM vs a young mother is a fight you can not win.
Unless the young mother is on a benefit, of course. Then even the Minister of Social Development can win.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Thankyou to Mr key for bringing this to the Blogisphere, K C-H is a fine actress and brings immeasurable publicity to our nation. However wtf qualifies her to offer her opinions to this debate. I am certain a 40% reduction will have minimal impact on her earning potential or lifestyle but it will totally devastate mine and most other residents of NZ. IMHO the use of celebs and I use that term adviseadly, to publicise this and other challenges facing us is extremely regrettable. Frank Oliver’s son, Greg Turner’s brother and Mrs Neil’s son come to mind.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am
That sweet wee maori lass who saved those whales?
That fat cat pakeha merchant banker?
Key told Paikea, “Fu*k off”?
Really???
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:04 am
MNIJ wrote “legislating away legal defences” Surely you are not a Weatherston apologist MNIJ?
I suggest the Labour were no different… Brash’s Orewa speech (an surge in the polls) led to a purge of all ‘race-based’ policies by Labour – how is this different?
Good governments have broad principals, but are fairly fluid as to the details of policy. Showing flexibility and listening to what people are saying is a sign of strength, not weakness.
MNIJ – your home is at The Standard. You will find many friends there!
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Can somebody tell me why we should listen to the opinion of some stupid little girl who is dumb enough to have unprotected sex?
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am
“Can somebody tell me why we should listen to the opinion of some stupid little girl who is dumb enough to have unprotected sex?”
You can’t say that Big Bruv, everyone knows that people that pretend to ride whales or work for that pillar of NZ excellence, Shortland street, are far more intelligent and understanding of important issues than us common folk.
Vote:How would Kiwis know what to think without quality social commentary like Shortland Street?
August 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am
I would give Keisha the same advice as the prime minister did.
Vote:Look, I don’t want to sound like some middle-aged, doddery old fart or fart-ette telling a young and spirited woman what to do.
I have a lot of admiration for her.
She took responsibilty for her pregnancy, and she kept her head when all around her all the finger-pointers and media-quoted ‘renta-quote’ experts were all having their say about someone whom none of them knew.
But saying, ‘I’m a mum’, as if that explains everything, doesn’t do it. It wouldn’t do it if I said ‘I’m a dad’. So what? Sainsbury failed to ask the ‘so what’ question.
And yes, prime minister v young actress — a losing battle. Just as Dame Kiri taking a swipe at Saint Hayley Westenra a year or two back was similarly a bad look. Westenra didn’t take the bait, either.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Sainsbury did ask one relevant question; what was she doing personally to save the world? Not much it seems. Still flying off to places etc etc. Oh that’s right, she has changed her light bulbs.
That’s what gets me about these people. They want every one else to change their behaviour but consider they have a right to carry on as they want to as they have a “higher” calling and, after all, they are the elite.
Bah, humbug.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am
I watched Keisha last night, and they did indeed handle her with “kid gloves”.
If you look at the interview again, you’ll see she didn’t really defend her position, except to say (and I am paraphrasing here) that she would be stupid to put her name and face to something she didn’t know anything about and hadn’t researched.
Well…
From what I saw she really didn’t come up with any facts to support the lending of her celebrity to Greenpeace – that is, apart from the fact that she went to the Cook Islands to see (something?) first hand (although what that has to do with the issue is beyond me, are they melting?)
I reckon she’s been fed the Climate Change line by Greenpeace, shown the Gore film (she mentioned him by name) and just believed what she was told without having looked at any conflicting info (of which there is much).
It may have been a misstep for Key, but I am breathing a little sigh of relief now that I can see he’s not being completely pulled into to the Climate Change bullsh*t. I am sure I am not the only one who winces and changes the channel when that Greenpeace ad comes on.
The Herald report on what Key said –
This is also very good. It shows Key is not jumping into this thing boots-and-all. Rather a watered-down commitment than the spending of millions to protect what might not be a watered-down world.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Big Bruv asks:
“Can somebody tell me why we should listen to the opinion of some stupid little girl who is dumb enough to have unprotected sex?”
For the same reason we’d listen to the opinion of your mother, bruv.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I have no problem with Keisha having an opinion, nor with her using her celebrity to promote that opinion. Hell, if people wanted to listen to my opinions because I was a celebrity, I’d be using that for all it was worth.
I have a problem with our media pushing those opinions as if they were somehow more worthy. I have a bigger problem with them on the one hand pushing that opinion as if she knew something, and on the other hand treating her like she is clearly too stupid to answer the hard questions. That just doesn’t make sense.
And the Prime Minister should know that he doesn’t get to make jokes or quips. Someone will always take it out of context, or not find it funny. Yes, she should stick to acting. No, he doesn’t get to make that decision. He should have instead asked hard questions, and pointed out how shallow her opinions were. Caring about the environment is great, but we don’t live in a vacuum. Life and politics are full of tradeoffs, and she seems to think there are no tradeoffs here. Which makes her opinion worthless – let’s just have 40% reduction without any of the bad things that will go with that. Puhlease.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Who is Keisha who?
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:38 am
“However wtf qualifies her to offer her opinions to this debate.”
1. Being human.
2. Living on planet Earth.
Whether anybody has to listen is another matter entirely, but that’s not her problem.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Key went up in my estimation by saying this. btw keisha’s celebrity is mystifying. Her acting is abysmal and whale rider is trash IMHO.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:51 am
There are two ways a religion can grow:
1. Evangelising
2. Force
The AGW religion is currently practising 1 whilst preparing to engage in 2.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I don’t think it was a misstep. Key has built up enough credibility in the bank to get away with a snide remark or two directed at people who really don’t know what they are talking about.
It is no surprise that actors are promoting this campaign – they’d be one of the few professions that wouldn’t be adversely affected by the economic slaughter.
Greenpeace have overstretched themselves on this one, and people are beginning to realise it.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Why are we discussing this I thought all the important people in the world had decided the science was done on this.
Vote:Hell didn’t they get an Oscar for the movie or something?
August 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Matt Damon.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Beep!!! Kimble bet me to it!
Feck it.
MATT DAMON
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“Having said that Sainsbury did give her the kid gloves treatment and didn’t ask her questions about the economic impact of a 40% target, what would she say to farm workers who would lose their jobs etc etc, what her views were on flexible land use rules for forest replanting, why she advocates 40% not 35% or 45%, how she thought methane emissions from cows should best be reduced etc etc.”
But that is the point isn’t it? It wasn’t an interview. It was a soapbox opportunity; no doubt unchallenged. I say “no doubt” because I can’t even be bothered watching that git or his counterpart on the other channel.
Although I must confess, it can be amusing to watch the other one occassionally. Has anyone else noticed that he looks like a Thunderbirds puppet? The heavy ponderous hand gestures adding EMPHASIS to the SONOROUS tone; oh yes, VERY IMPORTANT. The pen POISED for action. What a twat. Once a month is enough though. Any more and anyone with half a brain and having only modest capacity for independent thought would be wanting to through a large garden implement through the screen.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am
You want to be careful with saying twat. Apparently it is very rude.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Can somebody tell me why we should listen to the opinion of some stupid little girl who is dumb enough to have unprotected sex?
Demographics BB.
Have a look around and you’ll see that young Maori are doing their best to level the field by having lots of babies and they’re having them while they’re young.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Castle-Hughes agreed to put herself in that position by consenting to the ad so she should wear her part of the responsibility.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 11:45 am
PaulL
Yes, good point Paul. But having regard to the context, I’m sure that readers will understand which meaning of that epithet I was intending. That is not of course to say that the alternative meaning is not equally applicable for other reasons.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
That won’t end to well Joe90 considering the financial pressure put on a declining part of the population to support a growing minority, if anything it is more important the views of those who pay for the decisions being made are taken seriously otherwise things will go the way of Boston.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Banana Llama, it could be 28% of the future work force or WTF?% of a future muster and like it or not
Vote:it’ll all end in tears unless our trough snufflers present and future work it out that kindy teachers are cheaper than screws.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I would agree mate, i don’t think it will end any other way though since our elected crawl around with their belly’s showing more often than not.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
So can we complain to broadcasting standards about this Sainsbury piece last night? After all, if TVNZ got done for lack of balance with that interview with McVicar then how is providing a soapbox for an unqualified sometime-actress to bleat about global warming any different…oh yeah I forgot, one rule for…
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
The use of celebrities by populist anti-this-or-that groups such as Greenpeace is not new. Paul Watson’s outfit (which burns up fuel in the Antarctic ocean and throws lots of junk and acid in the sea in an effort to protect the lives of a few hundred whales of non-endangered species) also employs the tactic, as do various other commercial protest organizations, much to the angst of the people who are villianized by their propaganda.
This is a general problem, but I think the problem is that people only really realize it when they find themselves in disagreement with the celebrity on the particular topic. Here we see people telling Keisha to stick at her forte, but the exact same thing is happening with Pierce Brosnan, Heath Ledger and other know-jacks campaigning against people eating whales of non-endangered species.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I have no opinion on the emissions debate yet, but I’ve never liked the “stick to [INSERT JOB HERE]” defense in politics, because the inherent assumption is that only politicians know anything and that none of us have any right to have an opinion on anything not directly related to our occupations. Now because Castle-Hughes is peddling a point of view that many disagree with here, I’m sure most clap their hands in glee at Key’s jab, but his words could equally apply to any of us. You can take issue with NZ society’s (and most of the world, actually) kneejerk desire to afford celebrities unearned expertise in political debate, but that’s a separate thing.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
ps, as far as representing causes with discretion, isn’t Keisha the same girl who appeared in Prince’s music video ‘Cinnamon Girl‘ in which she plays an Arab-American girl after 9-11 who dreams of blowing herself up as a human suicide bomb? The New York Post said it “might be the most tasteless video ever”..
oh, yeh, she’s very smart at what she decides to endorse….
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
David – banning whaling has about as much sense as banning eating of ruminants. There are so many different types of whales, they range from animals that are pretty much the seagoing equivalent of sheep or guinea pigs, through to animals that exhibit behaviour more akin to chipmanzees or other great apes. Blanket bans don’t address this, and result in poor controls for those animals that it makes sense to protect.
I’d like to see some discrimination that seeks to protect:
– those whales that are endangered – predominately the large ones (blue whales and the like)
– those whales that are more intelligent – predominately the carnivores – dolphins, orca, sperm whales etc
Minke whales don’t fit in either category, and if people like eating them then it is all fine with me. Some people don’t like me eating cows, and I’m not real keen on them being able to get international campaigns to ban that either.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
And what qualifies any of you to criticize climate change science?
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
PaulL, yeah the blanket ban on whaling is silly. New Zealand nonetheless continues to support the provision, and probably will for the forseeable future due to a lack of big enough constituency that would benefit from a policy change. Or a lack of enough people who care enough to say it’s silly and push it up the priority list.
Agreed that endangered species (or those that are still not well recovered from past over-exploitation) should be protected on a species by species basis. People at least can agree on this principle (with arguments contained to interpretation of what is endangered and what isn’t).
However I’m not sure that getting international political agreement about the basis for protecting other species on perceptions of intelligence would be feasible. I struggle to see where one could draw the line of “too intelligent for eating” and get agreement on it. To my mind decisions on that sort of basis ought be left to individual states to determine for themselves, rather than by agreement in the international community. Maybe Keisha can explain it to me though.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
racer1, I imagine most here have about the same level of qualification on the matter as Keisha. Thus Key and the government should not pay more heed to what she believes than they pay to the rest of us – like he said, make a submission. Only Greenpeace seem to think their reps deserve more attention than the rest of us, despite their arbitrary appointments. No one ever voted for Keisha or any other Greenpeace spokesperson.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“racer1 (153) Vote: 0 0 Says:
August 6th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
And what qualifies any of you to criticize climate change science?”
I forget – we should leave any criticism of climate change science to Al Gore. The world reknowned climate scien……
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Saw the interview, agree Sainsbury was pretty limp wristed in his questioning. She clearly did not have even an elementary grasp of
(A) the science and
(B) what policies might be effective vs what will send the economy into freefall
were she interviewed alongside a hostile party, she’d get demolished. However there was no way the PM or any government member was going show up against her on close up. That would just give her legitimacy.
I noticed Kiesha kept bringing up the fact that she was a young mother. Might have been fun if Sainsbury has asked “how many other young mothers should we kick off the dpb to finance the 40% climate change policy, given that money is very tight at the moment”
As for John Key’s statement, it will probably resonate well within the traditional national audience. However they are not the audience he is targeting – its the swing voters that matter to him, the traditional national voters are a captive audience and Key doesn’t need to appease them (especially since they arent showing any sign of shifting to act).
It would have been much better if John Key had said the “actors should stick to acting” without singling out said single mother. Follow it up with “perhaps for their next campaign, greenpeace could get someone with academic authority to front, such as a professor in atmospheric physics”.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Hard one there David. I wouldn’t support a lifting of the ban if it didn’t provide protection for Orca, porpoises and dolphins. That’s my personal opinion, but I’d hazard a guess many others agree with me. I realise it may be hard, but perhaps a way to deal with it is to come at it backwards. We currently have an almost full ban. Let’s agree to lift the ban on Minke. And then work up from there as far as public opinion will allow. Gives the effect, and has a clear path to make it possible.
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Maybe someone should sit this silly unwed teenage mother (actress my arse) down and show her the counter-balance to the Reverend Gore’s propaganda. It’s called The Great Global Warming Swindle. Maybe then, she would see that the “evidence” which the Reverend Gore spouts off in his cartoon movie is more than wiped out by “evidence” the other way. Or perhaps someone should give her a lesson in economics 101; how not to destroy the economy of a small primary-producing nation. Or perhaps she should just STFU until she’s old enough to have an opinion that isn’t given to her by the Reverend Gore and his watermelon mates.
Still, bad look for the PM to take a swipe at a sille unwed teenage mother though. Rather he use the political capital for something useful like … maybe fixing the fucking tax code? Or the welfare “entitlements”?
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I think KEY was asked a direct question by a journo,’”What do you think of Keishia C-Hughes advert,” and he replied directly as we expect of him.
Vote:Personally I am far more interested on a strictly intellectual basis in the views of Pasquale (Siobahn Marshall) from Outrageous fortune.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Whats this “unwed teenage mother” shit we are waffalling about? If Key had said she should be more concerned about getting her spawn a Father and raising it a stable relationship I would have applauded!
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
PaulL, yeah I’m sure there would be others who would share your view, but its all hypothetical. Not enough people in the anti-whaling nations care about the issue, there are bigger whales to fry, so until Japan and other pro-whales-as-food nations decide to set up a new IWC to replace the existing one (or take actions with similar / equivalent effect) nothing will change much.
But actually, in effect the IWC moratorium doesn’t cover those species you would like to see protected anway. Pilot whales are eaten in places such as the Caribbean and Faroe islands. I think the Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands also have people eating smaller cetaceans too. Japan too has long maintained it’s view that the International Whaling Commission only has management mandate for larger (mostly baleen) whale species (about 13 or so). So Japanese domestic regulations allow hunting of those smaller cetaceans – something like 15 ~ 20,000 cetaceans each year if you sum up the different species.
The demand for these products spiked after the moratorium in the late 1980′s as the supply of baleen whale meats was drastically reduced and the market turned to alternatives. An unintended side-effect of the measure, but in recent years there has been an increase in baleen whale meat supply again due to various reasons, and the quotas for smaller cetaceans have been going unfilled. You’ll be pleased about that much!
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
he could have been more direct and just said “Are mo’s for female Greenpeace members standard issue?”
She got off lightly
Vote:August 6th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Actors like her really should stop telling others what to do. Key was bang on.
Vote:August 7th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Global warming is NOT a government issue.
Vote:The politics comes from liberals thinking that the warming is caused by man’s existence.
The globe has changed over time irrespective of the efforts of man to affect the climate with his internal combustion engines.
A single volcanic eruption can send into the atmosphere thousands of times the carbon that man has produced–ever.
And it seems the earth continues to survive.
The earth has gone through many temperature cycles throughout its existence.
It is appalling that anyone thinks that man has the power to make changes in something as great as the earth.