Goff blames lack of photos on 2011 loss!

November 27th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

NewstalkZB reports:

says newspapers’ biased coverage of last year’s election certainly didn’t help his result.

He led Labour to its worst-ever defeat, and a Massey University expert says he has grounds to feel he was unfairly treated by four of the country’s biggest newspapers.

Associate Professor Claire Robinson has assessed all the images run in those papers in the last month of the campaign, and found ’s picture featured 138 times while Mr Goff featured only 80 times.

“It would have substantially helped to have had favourable coverage and greater coverage, and particularly of photos,” said Mr Goff.

Yeah, you lost because there were not enough photos of you!

If Goff thinks Labour would have won if there were more photos of him – why then did his own campaign team decide not to have photos of him on their billboards and hoardings!!! Their campaign strategy was based on promoting Labour, and not promoting Goff, as they knew he was a negative for many people.

John Key launched the “Kicking the Tyres” book reviewing the 2011 election last night. He referred to the aforementioned study, and commented that he may have had more photos of him, than Phil Goff, but most of his were with John Banks and were not necessarily that helpful :-)

I’ve purchased a copy of the book and am looking forward to reading the various chapters.

UPDATE: Poneke also analyses the study:

Dr Robinson’s research looks flawed because it treats the election campaign as a two-party race between Mr Key and Mr Goff when in fact it was a multi-party contest between National, Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, ACT, the Maori Party, Peter Dunn and Mana, to name most of the main contenders.

I think that is  valid point. We are no longer in FPP where it is National v Labour. The analysis would be better looking at centre-right v centre-left.

It is also flawed because it examines the content of just four newspapers, whereas the election campaign was a cacophony of coverage by newspapers, television stations, radio stations and countless websites, blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter feeds.

I’m not sure that is a flaw, more a limitation.

Tags: , ,

28 Responses to “Goff blames lack of photos on 2011 loss!”

  1. Monty (899 comments) says:

    Goff had 80 photos in newspapers? wow that is about 80 more photos that his own Party had of him of Bill Boards around New Zealand. Even is own people did not want pics of him anywhere – so what hope was there that the media would show his ugly socialist mug on the pages of their rags?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Bob R (1,420 comments) says:

    Goff would have lost but the issue of media bias generally is a serious one. In the US the media cream their pants over Obama and it is reflected in their coverage. Downplaying anything that could reflect badly on Obama and amplifying things that reflect badly on his opponents.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072206024.html

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/082712-623715-one-sided-media-coverage-shows-bias.htm?p=full

    The same thing occurs in Australia with Julia Gillard”

    “Importantly, at no time in the past 17 years has the Australian public been informed of these remarkable circumstances surrounding Gillard’s conduct. Not by the mainstream media nor the authors nor the political insiders in Canberra and Melbourne…

    On Wednesday, the 25-page transcript popped out. It was a mine of information. It was Gillard, in her own words, explaining her conduct as a partner shortly before she had to go. But something else was growing in momentum. Significant sections of Australia’s media, in my view, showed they lacked the will and the wit to deal with the truth.

    They did not pursue it doggedly without fear or favour; they increasingly questioned whether it was even legitimate and worked overtime to downplay it.

    They saved their worst for Thursday when the Prime Minister seized on a trivial error by my colleague at The Australian who had incorrectly reported in an inconsequential page 6 colour story that Gillard had established a “trust fund”, not a “slush fund”.

    Gillard beat this nothing typo into something that a child would see as inflated nonsense.

    She then reached out to journalists too naive or intellectually dishonest to call it for what it was – a desperate, craven deflection.

    The Prime Minister used journalists to shoot the messenger, and at a time of threatened media regulation, they obliged and pulled the trigger.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/opinion/medias-shameful-silence/story-e6frg99o-1226457713761

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Positan (396 comments) says:

    Labour seems determined to show not only just how inconsequential it is, but to keep on underlining the fact.

    Claire Robinson, associate professor of “creative arts,” is nowhere near credible as an independent political observer, and for Goff to show himself so desperate for publicity as to be idiot enough to declare that he was “looking at making compliant to the Press Council” more than shows why he and his hopelessly inadequate party failed to be elected.

    To judge from the contempt this “story” has generated, neither Goff nor Labour will be wanting to say anything more on the subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (14,169 comments) says:

    As if at the time we needed more photographs of this dull, boring, and tired socialist trougher. Go away, Goff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. lofty (1,317 comments) says:

    @ Positan….”To judge from the contempt this “story” has generated, neither Goff nor Labour will be wanting to say anything more on the subject.”

    You would think so, but I bet a dollar to a donut it gets a bit more attention, it is symptomatic of the “death wish” politics Labour are indulging in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    Wow. An Associate Professor did this. Perhaps if our tertiary institutions weren’t so chronically under-funded a full blown Professor would have been able to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    I still can’t believe New Zealand re-elected a junk bond dealer in the middle of a global financial crisis.

    [DPF: You I am sure can’t understand how anyone ever votes for anyone centre-right – because none of your friends do.

    And for the record Key was a currency trader, not bonds. The fact you don’t know the difference suggests you have problems balancing a cheque book]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    It was anything but your policies and how you presented them… :neutral:

    Fuck’s sake Labour – four years out in the wilderness and you still appear to be showing no sign of having found your bearings yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    I still can’t believe New Zealand re-elected a junk bond dealer in the middle of a global financial crisis.

    What, instead of re-electing a party that stole taxpayer money and pissed the rest of it down a hole?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Bob R: you’ve got it all wrong. Obama is brilliant and the media is if anything, downplaying it.

    Also, Romney kills fluffy kittens for fun. But that didn’t come out in the campaign – why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tristanb (1,127 comments) says:

    The analysis would be better looking at centre-right v centre-left.

    So that would be National, but who’d you look at for centre-right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    I still can’t believe New Zealand re-elected a junk bond dealer in the middle of a global financial crisis.

    I know!!!!!

    I can’t believe New Zealand rejected a rudderless c-list clique of former trade union organisers who couldn’t even roughly cost their main flagship policies, in the middle of a global financial crisis… :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Harriet (5,201 comments) says:

    If campaigning is all comeing down to ‘attractiveness’ then Labour -or anyone else for that matter- won’t ever select a gay male or gay female as leader as they would only get 2% of the vote, and maybe the other 2% from the opposite sex from the gay sex crowd – probably out of sympany! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. wat dabney (3,844 comments) says:

    Fancy electing someone who knows about global finance, when there was a grubby local rent-seeker available! Pure madness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Falafulu Fisi (2,141 comments) says:

    Physics jokes from here:

    Q: Why are quantum physicists so poor at sex?
    A: Because when they find the position, they can’t find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can’t find the position.

    Professor Claire Robinson thought she had the momentum in her research finding only to be pointed out by Poneke that her finding has no position to stand on (ie, faulty), hehe!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Chris2 (775 comments) says:

    What concerns me more is that a university professor, doubtless on a six-figure salary paid for by the taxpayer, is doing the type of research that a high school student could accomplish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Grant Michael McKenna (1,110 comments) says:

    How many pictures were shown in previous elections? Were Brash and Clark equal? Is this perhaps simply the incumbency effect?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Bob (445 comments) says:

    I thought Phil Goff was a good minister for foreign affairs but wasn’t leader material. A leader has to be more than a technically competent politician. Look at Muldoon, Lange, Helen Clark and now John Key. All had strong character and personality. Shearer doesn’t appear strong enough at this stage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    Hey DPF – isn’t your headline a bit of a stretch?

    The article quotes Goff as saying the bias “…didn’t help his result” and later “it would have substantially helped to have had favourable coverage and greater coverage, and particularly of photos.”

    That’s somewhat short of blaming lack of photos on the 2011 loss (followed by an exclamation mark) as per your headline.

    Furthermore, being a grammar pedant, I think you mean it the other way around – “..blames the 2011 loss on lack of photos.”

    [DPF: Goff is an idiot to have commented. He looks like a bad loser. Mitt Romney in all three debates had significantly less time to speak than Obama. Do you see him sounding petulant and saying that didn’t help]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Bed Rater (239 comments) says:

    I know you probably get a sub editor to write your post titles, but that looks really terrible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. greenjacket (486 comments) says:

    “a Massey University expert…”

    Say no more – you know it’ll be rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. 3-coil (1,199 comments) says:

    Goff is just confirming what was obvious to all the voters at the last election – he is still a knob.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. barry (1,191 comments) says:

    Well – what a fuckwit………

    Typical left/liberal idiots – blame the photographer – in fact blame anyone but their own deficiencies……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    [DPF: And for the record Key was a currency trader, not bonds. The fact you don’t know the difference suggests you have problems balancing a cheque book]

    That’s a bit rich coming from someone who doesn’t understand how school zones work, and who thinks the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are one and the same.

    [DPF: Don’t lie about me or you will be gone. I have not got either of those wrong]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Chuck Bird (4,906 comments) says:

    Clare Robertson goes on about media bias. How many lefties like her are on Q + A compared to those of the right if there are any political scientists right of centre?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. thedavincimode (6,890 comments) says:

    3-coil

    You appear to have zeroed in on Goof’s fundamental problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. rouppe (983 comments) says:

    This raw statistic is worthless. When Helen was Prime Minister she would hold back policy announcments until the 9 months leading up to an election. Never mind what was ready, what was good for the country, she held them back so they would be announced in a flood just before the election. This media headlining was not electioneering so allowed the incumbent government to vastly dominate media coverage.

    Short memories…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ben (2,279 comments) says:

    Bias is surely detected by reference to other campaigns. How does Dr Robinson control for the fact that Key was also the incumbent PM? National also polled higher, and causation probably goes both ways. Alleging bias without controlling for these would be pretty unhelpful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote