Shunda barunda 4:52 pm. Yes, I’ll have to ask one of the rellies to buy me a copy. I’ll even bookmark their website if there is an online edition. This is great news. In theory, the paper’s readership will rise, and ad revenue will follow. The key of course will be in having editorials and articles that treat the readers and advertisers like they’re something other than filthy capitalists who deserve a one way trip to the Gulag. They might take a leaf from the Japanese and Korean dailies. The articles from local journalists are ‘just the facts’. Their name and email address is at the bottom. They don’t editorialise. The socialist stuff comes from their foreign content.
The “toy thrower” was ‘Bomber’ Bradbury apparently. I am sure he wouldn’t have quit if he had not been overlooked in favour of his blogger rival. (Well, OK, the extreme left vs. right views between the two of them might have contributed a little.)
…enslaved through learned helplessness…
I was talking to a National Party candidate a couple of days ago. His wife was accosted during his campaign, presumably because she is Maori, and questioned as to why she was supporting the (implied) racist Tories.
Her, off the cuff, response was “welfare has enslaved my people for long enough.”
The wailing from the socialists should reach a crescendo on Thursday with the first issue under Whale’s editorship. I may even lower myself & read the bilious rantings which will fill ‘The Standard’ about the injustice suffered by the socialists losing their death grip on the NZ media.
One small weekly wrested from the liars……could radio & TV follow suit one day?
Cameron wouldnt know the Truth if if harpooned him.. Parata & Brownlee may be easy targets to take down because it is so transparently obvious how detached they are from those in their ministries and bureaucracies and the mounting opposition to them because of who they favour over Cantabrians….
If he begins to buy his lattes in Sierra and potted Bennett for the only developments she is actually interested and engaged in, and then did an editorial on the lack of democracy in the planned Auckland Council move one might be able to stop laughing at his new position..
As it is, blogger to editor may find him back in court in a blink if he forgets the difference between accountability and name suppression.. Wont be subscribing.
That was a good bit of publicity for the rebirth of Truth, Cam did well.
Whale has been given an opportunity to change the face of political coverage here. It will take him a while to get things changed the way he wants, and it will take some notable scoops. We’ll see how successful he’s been in six months or so, I don’t expect a lot as the year fizzles out.
Part of the success will be how much support it the new Truth gets, both in print sales and in online participation. We can all help generate interest and get something groundbreaking in media happening, by getting involved. It won’t always be pretty and things won’t always work but perseverance and engagement from us plebs can make a difference here. There’s little to lose by seeing where this can be taken, and helping nudge it along..
It was a good interview.
I’m not sure why some people have turned the interview into a Cam Vs “Lefties” battle, though. It didn’t come across that way to me. There seemed to be a genuine interest in what Cameron was going to do with the paper. After all it was an interview, not a puff piece.
You have to love Redbaiter’s take on it at 5.19pm:
“Three against one. Two boring tired old media commies and one mindless commie bimbo against Whale.”
I bet ole’ Red thinks everyone except himself is a “commie”!
It’s odd how you see the situation differently than what CM said himself nasska.
He’s got a market to hold onto and to expand, like he said incremental changes not little pearlers for you to get your jollies off on.
It could be a breath of fresh air, from his account he’ll be breaking stories. His priority will obviously be to his job not point scoring but general strategies to increase critical readership which he pointed out. I thought Ralston and Edwards were fairly generous and possibly a little in awe in CM’s intention to in some ways to not only turn back the clock but to link blogs with print media as he said was also the case currently overseas.
I agree that Ralston (and to an extent at least) Edwards tried to turn the interview into a conversation, rather than a pure confrontation. Edwards did appear to try to strike a few points, but I think that was more old media vs. new media, than left vs. right, as such. (To which, Cam’s response about Fair Go being much more relevant when Edwards had it really floored him; he had nowhere to go, having tried to trap Cam in the premise that Truth’s old “stand up for the battlers” line had been usurped by Fair Go and Target.)
I thought Raltson’s point about Cam referring to churnilsts and repeaters, and now having to manage some, was pertinent and not overtly confrontational.
Certainly, if it were a boxing match, Cam would have won the points decision. I did wonder as I was watching it if he had missed the ‘conversational’ vs. ‘confrontational’ signals and perhaps missed an opportunity to converse instead of (what appeared as) lashing out because he felt cornered.
Those that looked for a stoush would have scored a clear win for Cam, I am sure. Those that weren’t, probably far less so I imagine.
Can’t see where you’re coming from. Granted change will be incremental but the socialists will not see it that way & that was the point to my comment. Bomber has already thrown his toys out of the cot so I can just imagine the reactions of Prentice & his queer mates.
Agree, bhudson. Cam did seem to be going in on the defensive, and to that extent he held up his own.
I didn’t see it as a left wing vs right wing either, as you say more old media vs new media.
Having not read the truth, I’m no doubt stereotyping but I see truth readers as the ‘blue collar workers’ type. Cam doesn’t really strike me as their number one supporter. It will be interesting to see how it goes.
I see truth readers as the ‘blue collar workers’ type. Cam doesn’t really strike me as their number one supporter.
Good point. But I ask who is the supporter of Blue Collar workers in NZ ?
It is certainly not the Labour party. ( unless they are Maori, crippled, lesbian, solo mum Blue Collar workers)
NZ is a bleak place for us working stiffs. There is no party that is representative of the working masses. The left have gotten so far up on their ideological horse they now regard their traditional supporters as ignorant red necks worthy only of taxing into poverty.
Slater was very impressive indeed, he showed Edwards as tired and bleating and also Ralston completely forgettable.
Slater thrashed Edwards over the value of David Gareth, by suggesting that some forgiveness after thirty years could be a good idea.
I wonder if it would be a good idea to get rid of the girl pictures out of truth, its pretty 1950’s stuff.
There was no value in Bomber, he is obsessed, and completely irrational.
Is Barnsley Bill in Slater’s line up of journalists. Slater said he also had three left wing journalists, but others not announced yet.
Well given the Labour Party (and the Greens) want to increase the cost of living of working New Zealanders by trying to artificially raise the cost of imports [lower the exchange rate], I struggle to see how they can possibly claim to represent the workers!
I can just see them at the ports, the manufacturing floors, the bus depots, and in the offices with the cleaners late at night… “Vote for us so that everything you spend your income on is more expensive!”
So you’re trying to say that workers cost of living rising is them (the workers) taking one for the workers?
Imports may be things that workers cannot afford, but they are not things that workers can put off buying. Think petrol and clothing to start with. Then move in to the constituent components of everyday items such as plastic – you can forgo the Coke bottles, but milk comes in plastic bottles. Even the cheapest mince is wrapped in plastic.
And electronics are not only simple consumer items. So while mobile phones will rise in price, more costly for the workers will be all the optics and electronics that go to maintain the existing landline and mobile networks, and which are required to build out the newer generation networks. So the workers can all look forward to not talking to each other again.
To paint imports as luxury items for the wealthy only is absolutely ludicrous. The reason we struggle to get into surplus is partly consumerism, but mainly that so many of our supply chain inputs are imports.
And Labour and The Greens want to make those more expensive. Not only will that raise the cost of living for households, they will also increase costs for businesses. So much for helping the manufacturing sector!!
That interview was great as girl Rachel was left right out of it and the guests got on with it.
She did manage to get her opinion in at the end with her opinion on page 3 girls. She was earlier trying to make the point that opinion didn’t count in “journalism”, she’s no journalist.
I don’t agree with a lot of Slater but he’s definitely a breath of fresh air and Bradbury is a complete arse.
- Serious consideration of the impact of the level and variability of immigration on national saving, and the impact that this might have on the living standards of New Zealanders. There are indications that our high immigration rate has pushed up government spending, house prices and business borrowing.
– Improving data on household and business saving.
No. You ignored the very real fact that so much of our supply chain (cost) inputs are imports. That, far more than the Australian Banks that poured capital into NZ to keep us alive during the GFC, is what places so much pressure on our BoT [along with our consumers' tendencies to spend of course]
Hamnida (827) Says:
November 4th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Mr Whale and the Truth are a good match.
Mr Whale and truth is a different matter.
It’s impossible to exist as both a MSM persona and an at times irrational and borderline defamatory blogger.
One will need to give way. It will be fun watching.
I thought he just bullied his way through the interview as is his modus operandi, but Edwards scored a good hit with his gossip from the Green Room – a bit naughty as well but Cam can’t complain about that, can he?
You guys are adorable. Slater did okay, but many of you seem to see some great victory over the msm. Bless.
Certainly, if it were a boxing match, Cam would have won the points decision.
I dunno, but reasonable people could disagree about which side ‘won’ in a rhetorical, points scoring sense if we want to look at it that way. Slater looked awkward on a couple of occasions (“What is a real opinion?” “That means wha… w.. what I believe..)
But I agree with bc – I don’t think Edwards or Ralston were trying to be all that confrontational. And anyway when one of them did have Slater in a spot, the other often undermined the point by moving on to their own point. OTOH Slater was unnecessarily defensive to perfectly legitimate lines of enquiry.
If manufacturers want a lower dollar, and they do – it’s because imported compinents of their production cost are only a fraction of their total cost and yet all of their sales revenue is improved by a lower dollar.
The working class spend less of their money on imports (think housing food and power) than others and they are being offered a higher MW – that places upward pressure on wages in the $15 to $20 an hour category – as manufacterers who export pay a premium above MW to get the right workers.
A lower dollar and higher MW is a combination good for both manufacturers and workers. When National realise that, maybe they will do better on jobs.
You refuse to acknowledge the supply chain costs of a lower dollar. Talk about consumers housing costs? What happens to their mortgages when the Banks are buying credit with a lower value NZ dollar? What happens to the cost of transportation when not only petrol, but all imported products: rubber, electronics and car parts are costing more? What happens when imported food (e.g. fruit) costs more?
Aside from those consumer costs, business input costs will be increasing. Aside from credit as mentioned above and fuel, any component that is imported, or has constituent components that are imported, will increase in cost.
Which leads to a conclusion which can either be painted as an unintended consequence, or a Labour sell out of their roots… What export sector will benefit most from a lower dollar and harmed least (or not as much as many) from the increased cost of imports?
Labour are proposing to increase the cost of living for workers so that farmers’ profits will increase. I think you will struggle to find that in the little red book of 1916.
Meanwhile the manufacturing sector will remain as stagnant as it is now, with its exports worth less per unit due to a lower value dollar, while inputs increase in value due to the lower dollar for imports, and due to the increase in minimum wage you desire (which places upward pressure on wages right up the chain.)
That threatens competitive advantage which faces the business with the choice of increasing prices (which undoes the positive effect of the lower dollar value), or reducing profits, which forestalls growth and additional employment (and quite possibly leads to retrenchment to maintain profits – fewer staff doing all the work.)
And that is even without considering the inflationary pressures of the Greens plans to print money. Just how well did that work out in the Weimar Republic? In South America? In Zimbabwe?
The Labour and Greens plan will (at best) result in flat exports, with no increase in employment and with increased costs of living for households and increased costs to businesses. More likely is reduced employment and conditions as employers are forced to cuts costs to maintain profits and competitive advantage in the face if increased costs from a devalued NZ dollar.
No Steve. I was referring to Martyn quitting because he was annoyed that his blogging rival (nemesis) had been appointed as his boss, at the paper he had been contributing to and which Cam had had no involvement.
Of course you knew that.
Josie Pagani doesn’t seem to struggle with the idea of working for an editor with very different political views to hers. Perhaps she has more (metaphorical) cajones than Martyn.
Perhaps you and Bomber might want to give her a call? You might learn something…
Well who cares Steve. I saw that not as a diversion but a progression on the same subject for Cam was saying how he would differentiate the paper into an uncovered segment, and if you know blogs, you know this is a recurring theme, all the time, ergo there’s a train of thought in the market that’s not tapped.
I thought personally the most telling segment was the first where Cam explains Churnalists and Repeaters and when you read Stuff and NZHerald etc it frankly is, mostly that, isn’t it.
If Slater gets obsessed with trying to create a Murdoch style right wing tabloid, the paper will likely fail. There is not enough support for a popular newspaper with that sort of politics in New Zealand, and beating up on Labour and the Greens is something that we don’t really need help with (those parties seem to have adopted a right wing philosophy and are thus fairly bootstrappy when it comes to self immolation).
On the other hand, there is a market for a muckraking, hold-them-to-account, defend-the-little-guy, newspaper and for some actual real journalism. I think Cameron Slater could manage that just fine, if he can resist partisan temptations at least some of the time.
bjhudson, does the dollar value really impact on the mortgage cost paid by homeowners? Care to explain how? Fixed term rates will not change.
(not that low paid workers own homes).
Despite your prevarication, you apparently do comprehend that the imported cost component of manufacturing (and other expoerters) is less than 100%, the sales component is 100% so manufacturers are better off with a lower dollar. This includes local industry competing against imports as well. No wonder the manufacturing sector advocate for a lower dollar value.
This allows these businesses to afford higher wages. A high dollar is one reason for low wages.
Ironically the industry sector with the most to gain and who employ the least workers – farmers are the least keen on a lower dollar. Probably because they make their real farming return money on the untaxed CG of rising and value.
does the dollar value really impact on the mortgage cost paid by homeowners? Care to explain how? Fixed term rates will not change.
The propensity for fixed rates has shifted to floating with the low interest raes we have enjoyed for some time now. Any devaluation of the NZ dollar means that the cost of money borrowed off shore by banks (principally used to shore up the long term liability of a 20+ year mortgage) will increase – i.e. interest rates will increase.
They will increase immediately for those on floating mortgages (which is now a larger group) and when the fixed terms expire (which will typically be between 1-3 years.) What is more those on fixed terms will be fixed with what they have today because any change – relocation or rennovaiton – will cost them more.
Of course the imported cost of manufacture is less than 100%. But the profits are geared to the costs as they are now. So any increase in cost (even for only parts of the overall process) place pressure on prices or margins. Competitive pressures tend to militate against price increases, so cost cutting becomes necessary to maintain margins; stagnant or decreased employment. Businesses that do choose to increase prices will see any front-end (sales) advantage of a lower dollar eroded by those higher prices.
Those businesses will most certainly not be able to afford higher wages. In fact the opposite is almost certain.
As for farmers and capital gains… Quite frankly you need to get your head out of the party political manifesto. While farmers do benefit from capital value over time, the reason they invest in land and plant is to increase productivity; to increase output, revenues and profits. Now.
The idea that they borrow enormous amounts and pay swathes of their income in interest solely for a future capital gain is nothing but a myth used by the Left to perpetuate the idea that farming is neither productive for society, nor a capital inside business (which therefore demands macro economic gearing in favour if investment and low interest rates.) These are just that; myths.
Farmers do call for a lower dollar. What they are not demanding is for highly interventionist tactics of earlier days to try to artificially create that. Perhaps because they appreciate the consequential impacts. Perhaps because they know it won’t work – NZ doesn’t have the capacity to achieve that artificial manipulation other than by sending the printing presses into overtime. And that little idea of Dr Norman’s would be an absolute disaster (unless, perhaps, you own a few warehouses of wheelbarrows.)
Well Bomber was a toy-thrower Steve. All of us are sometimes. So what?
Ask Slater, he used the term.
If he and anyone else that has used that or similar terms for Bradbury’s leaving Truth are not intending it in any way critically of Bomber, then fine. However, I have a suspicion that it was intended somewhat critically – and so the reminder of Slater’s own toy toss is apposite.
Well who cares Steve. I saw that not as a diversion but a progression on the same subject for Cam was saying how he would differentiate the paper into an uncovered segment
Slater was downplaying the ‘left/right’ thing at times during the discussion, trying to pitch his editorship role as being a bit of a Kiwi battler for the everybloke. Yet here he gets this question that wasn’t particularly presented as a left v right question, and he turns it into a dig at “left” media sales/success. So it’s an example of what I was saying: defensiveness rather than discussion. He should have had a positive vision for his new venture, and this early question should have been his opportunity to launch into it.
Josie Pagani doesn’t seem to struggle with the idea of working for an editor with very different political views to hers.
Yeah that’s fine. I just found the hypocrisy in the implied criticism of Bradbury’s decision amusing. I don’t otherwise care much one way or other about Bradbury dropping his Truth opinion piece. I thought Trotter made an interesting point in the comments to Bradbury’s Tumeke post.
The working classes in this country are very poorly served by Labour and the media who parrot their lines.
Time to wake up people. Labour is not Labour any more. They are not the party for the average Joe and stopped being that after Norm Kirk went.
Since the 70’s it has steadily become an organisation with two aims.
To serve and protect its top table of special interest nutters and weirdos.
To enslave the working man, turn him into a client of the state who is completely beholden to Labour for the very air he breathes.
It truly is the Party Workers Party.
Most in the media have come through a system completely dominated by left wing doctrine. School, university and beyond.
There is room for a tabloid that speaks directly to the working man without the PC nonsense and “its not my fault” cult that successive governments have allowed to fester within our country.
Working class winners are consumers. The advertisers will come and with the Sunday News being put down the time is right.
I am confident that Cam has what it takes to steer the team at Truth through the rebuilding phase and to produce a “viewspaper” that will have most of us nodding in agreement when we read it.
I have heard a whisper that there is a new commentator already in place to pick up the burden that Bomber carried on his mighty shoulders.
Apparently Barton Madbury will be writing a regular article on a wide range of topics including Auckland real estate, dealing with IRD for child support payments and how to get taken seriously by screaming hysterically at everybody while blaming it on whitey.
Looking forward to the changes. Congrats again to Cam and David Garrett as well. Now if they could get Rodney Hide and Bob Jones to jump ship from the Herald it’d make for a great weekend read! I think losing the skin ads will need to be a priority if they want to expand readership though.
This is a massive challenge for Cameron. A newspaper that has a circulation of 15,000, relies heavily on the sex industry for its advertising revenue, whose current market is in all probability labour voting, league supporters not to mention the section of society looking for pay as you go sex. Now you have a right wing blogger is going to take the paper and try to make it into a leading political commentator from the right.
Cameron is also coming from an internet medium to a print medium.
This is a massive task for anyone but it will be bloody interesting to watch as his influence starts to mould itself into the paper and its culture. It may well be that the truth will start to head back to the more hard hitting journalism it was better known for in the 1970’s than the crap it spouts these days.
Hopefully he can also wean the paper off the sex industry as its major source of advertising revenue to that you can buy the paper without people considering you are scouring the advertisements for a cheap trick in K Road or Vivien Street..
The challenge for Slater is to get the readership up over the 15000 it currently has which means that he will have to court controversy to be successful. No doubt the paper will lurch to the right with exposes’ of any left leaning politician high on the agenda, therefore Slater will have to be careful because he could be sued for libel if he gets his facts wrong.
However having Slater at the helm is not sufficient a reason to attract me to reading the Truth, it always has been a slighty smutty rag and will possibly get worse under Slater’s tutelage.