Will it be the battle of the broadcasters for Labour’s nomination?

April 29th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

has extended its deadline for the seat for the third time as it waits for a TVNZ report into the actions of potential candidate .

I think this tells us who Head Office wants for the seat, considering they keep extending the deadline so Taurima can stand.

If he does stand he is likely to face a challenge from Maori TV’s . Mr Wilcox did not return calls, but sources in Labour expected him to announce he would contest the seat soon.

The head of news for Maori TV vs the head of Maori for TVNZ.

I’m uneasy with active broadcasters going straight into politics, as it does make you question how they have managed the conflict between being in charge of news and current affairs for their broadcasters while also being a member of a political party.

I’m not saying no one should go from the media into politics. Far from it. Many good MPs have backgrounds in broadcasting such as Lockwood Smith and Maggie Barry. But Maggie Barry didn’t go directly from hosting a news and current affairs show for Radio NZ into being a National candidate – it was over a decade later.

 

Tags: , , ,

68 Responses to “Will it be the battle of the broadcasters for Labour’s nomination?”

  1. Urban_Redneck (86 comments) says:

    Like Coffey, Taurima has a tiki around his neck and is a homosexual. I’m actually astonished that the matter was even brought up for discussion within the Labour Party organization.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    All the more reason for the government not to own or fund any TV or Radio networks or stations. The tax payer should not be funding the Labour party, or any other political party for that matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    I’m uneasy with active broadcasters going straight into politics, as it does make you question how they have managed the conflict between being in charge of news and current affairs for their broadcasters while also being a member of a political party.

    Maybe the same way that you handle the conflict between being a pollster and an active member in a political party? In other words, you have a professional code that you apply in your day job (making sure questions aren’t biased in their framing of issues, etc) that you apply irrespective of your political preferences. If you can do it, why can’t they?

    Also, why does it matter that “Maggie Barry didn’t go directly from hosting a news and current affairs show for Radio NZ into being a National candidate – it was over a decade later”? Do you mean that when she worked for RNZ, she wasn’t actually a supporter of National? That her political beliefs are something that she just stumbled over in the last decade? That seems … unlikely.

    [DPF: I'm not sure when Maggie developed her political beliefs. But the point I'm making there is a difference between having political beliefs and being at a stage where you are actively planning to run for Parliament for a political party.]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    “Maybe the same way that you handle the conflict between being a pollster and an active member in a political party?” Except DPF does alot of commissioned polling for paying clients, and they would not appreciate it if the polls came with a blue tint rather than being objective. Admittedly things are not perfect – look at:
    http://crookedtimber.org/2003/09/12/yes-prime-minister/

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ShawnLH (4,998 comments) says:

    Emails reportedly show close coordination between CNN team, Emanuel on ‘Chicagoland’

    “Producers behind a CNN documentary series on Rahm Emanuel — a series billed as unscripted — coordinated closely with the Chicago mayor’s staff on everything from camera shots to storylines, according to a new report based on hundreds of internal emails.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/28/emails-reportedly-show-close-coordination-between-cnn-team-emanuel-on/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. All_on_Red (1,581 comments) says:

    AG
    I don’t recall Taurima publishing a disclosure statement on the TVNZ website like DPF does on his.
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/disclosure_statement

    Perhaps David’s clients respect his honesty and trust him because of it. This may come as a surprise to you but integrity is important in business relationships.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. stigie (1,172 comments) says:

    “Like Coffey, Taurima has a tiki around his neck and is a homosexual.”

    Can someone confirm that Taurima is gay ? Thought he was straight.
    Then what the fuck would i know about that !~

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. James Stephenson (2,173 comments) says:

    Also, why does it matter that “Maggie Barry didn’t go directly from hosting a news and current affairs show for Radio NZ into being a National candidate – it was over a decade later”?

    It matters because someone who jumps straight from news media to politics was obviously harbouring political ambitions rather than just political beliefs and that changes the perception factor significantly.

    The direct step is obviously irrelevant in the case of people who stand in front of weather maps and present “talent” shows.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. mikemikemikemike (324 comments) says:

    “I’m uneasy with active broadcasters going straight into politics,” – Much better to give them a cushy job for a few years before leaping straight into politics like National are doing with Shane Jones right?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Except DPF does alot of commissioned polling for paying clients, and they would not appreciate it if the polls came with a blue tint rather than being objective.

    Oh, agreed. He works within a profession that requires those working in it to set aside their personal political views and instead stick to the rules of that game (such as, you don’t ask the questions in a way that will get people to answer them how you’d like). If you don’t do that, you don’t progress in it. Which is the same for journalism … if you are constantly (or even occasionally) slanting your work in favour of the party you like, then you aren’t going to rise to the level that Taurima and Wilcox (or Barry) did. I mean, I know there’s some deluded notion that the broadcasting companies are all a hotbed of Marxist lefties out to get Labour elected, but in the real world partisan journalism just isn’t allowed (let alone rewarded with rapid promotion).

    Also, have any of these politically interested candidates ever had any Broadcasting Standards complaints upheld against their work on the basis of a breach of balance or fairness? Ever?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    What big bruv said. The state should not own or fund, in part or whole, any “news” media.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Increasing the circle of rainbow room members no doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    @All on Red,

    I don’t recall Taurima publishing a disclosure statement on the TVNZ website like DPF does on his.

    That’s because Taurima is a journalist, not a blogger. DPF doesn’t make any pretensions that what he puts on Kiwiblog is governed by the same sort of professional standards as is TVNZ or Maori TV’s work. By comparison, look at the “about us” section on Curia’s webpage: http://curia.co.nz/.

    @ James Stephenson

    It matters because someone who jumps straight from news media to politics was obviously harbouring political ambitions rather than just political beliefs and that changes the perception factor significantly.

    Why? Is anyone seriously suggesting Taurima/Wilcox have been skewing their news-related work to improve their personal chances of getting into Parliament? Or isn’t the issue that we now know they really, really support Labour (to the extent of wanting to be elected for the party) … just as we now know that Maggie Barry felt the same back when she was doing the same sort of job … unless, as I say, there’s some evidence that in those intervening years her political beliefs somehow became much, much stronger. And is there any such evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    ag – “but in the real world partisan journalism just isn’t allowed (let alone rewarded with rapid promotion).”

    You are joking, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    AG – “Is anyone seriously suggesting Taurima have been skewing their news-related work …”

    Yes. I am. He was obviously biased in his interviews.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Don’t worry. They’ll pick the poofter.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    AG:

    I know there’s some deluded notion that the broadcasting companies are all a hotbed of Marxist lefties out to get Labour elected, but in the real world partisan journalism just isn’t allowed (let alone rewarded with rapid promotion).

    Meanwhile on another blog:

    “And of course running that circle of parroting between Cameron being paid, Whaleoil laying a smear, Farrar rebleating it, then their cronies in the herald commenting in it, topped with the jonolists at TV3 like Gower then being able to say it is a story because it is getting media attention.”

    “The Herald has chosen to put this non-story at the top, above the monetary policy changes, specifically to push a ‘David Cunliffe stuffs up again’ agenda. There’s no excuses for them. They’re just buoyed by the success of spending a week and a bit tearing Labour to bits over Shane Jones and want to continue the trend”

    “And Stuff as well.

    The bastards are running this in front of Parker’s policy release this morning.

    The corporate media is a tough beast”

    “Good lord the pettiness is unbelievable. Good to know that Mr Cunliffe has courageous ancestors. Hopefully it is hereditary.He sure needs that quality when up against an increasingly hostile and tabloid media! Even RNZ has worsened. Guyon Espiner is really disappointing. I actually gave him more credit as he seems intelligent and well informed.”

    “If the herald ran a story each time John Key made a minute mistake they wouldn’t be able to fit any other news.”

    Not much different to a hotbed of Conservative righties.

    Bias is in the left or right eye of the beholder.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Bias is in the left or right eye of the beholder.

    Oh, absolutely. Someone needs to tell OneTrack, and point him here: http://bsa.govt.nz/.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    I’m uneasy with active broadcasters going straight into politics.

    And then their is the appointment of Philip Morris spinmiesters in to National positions.

    Is there really a difference?

    I guess it matters who pays the wages.

    The intent is the same.

    Distorted political values.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Than (472 comments) says:

    Which is the same for journalism … if you are constantly (or even occasionally) slanting your work in favour of the party you like, then you aren’t going to rise to the level that Taurima and Wilcox (or Barry) did.

    Not true. John Campbell is blatantly biased, but that hasn’t hurt his career in the least. American examples, John Stewart and Bill O’Reilly are both extremely successful despite being biased. Impartiality is not a requirement for success in journalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Geddis: The comparison between news journos needing to keep their personal politics out of their work and our host’s need to do the same is a very poor one – although to be fair you have tacitly acknowledged that in your 12.04.

    If you want an example of a reporter being influenced by his or her personal politics you need look no further than Guyon Espiner, recently appointed to Morning Report, arguably RNZ’s most important programme.

    Espiner was the journo who outed my being brought before the Court in 2005 for a historic passport offence. In doing so he blatantly breached suppression orders, and then told the public I was “hiding behind” those orders, when his legal advice must have been that I could not breach the orders without the Court varying them. I took advice from an eminent QC and that was the advice I received.

    Fast forward about two months to a naked young man running down the street in terror at what Darren Hughes had been attempting to do to him. Hughes promptly “goes into hiding” – at Paul Henry’s beach house FFS – but neither Espiner nor any other of the pack of hounds doorstopped him there…This at a time when they were still trying to find more shit on me. Why might that have been? Well, perhaps the fact that Hughes was MC at Espiner’s wedding a few months later might give a clue?

    Unless they are desparate, Noone has as a member of the Bridal Party someone who they don’t know very well. In fact MC is a job you njormally give your “second besty”. It follows that Espiner and Hughes had socialized together and become friends. Does anyone seriously think that relationship didnt affect what Espiner said – or rather didnt say – about “the Hughes affair” and how vigorously he pursued it? Or rather didnt pursue it?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    [DPF: I'm not sure when Maggie developed her political beliefs. But the point I'm making there is a difference between having political beliefs and being at a stage where you are actively planning to run for Parliament for a political party.]

    What is that difference? It seems to be one of intensity of belief … if you commit to running for Parliament, then this shows very clearly how strongly you believe in that party’s policies/principles/etc. So what we know is:

    (1) Wilcox and Taurima feel this for Labour now.
    (2) Barry feels this for National now.

    The only difference, therefore, would be if Barry didn’t feel that strongly about National when doing her job for Radio NZ/TV2/Prime, but developed that level of political commitment in the decade since. Because if not, then I see the cases as basically the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Garret,

    I’m not saying that no journalist will ever fall short of the professional ethics of their job – just as, for example, some polling companies (not DPF’s) may happily take money to construct and run “push polls” for political clients. But … so what? That doesn’t prove that there are now journalists who have strong personal political beliefs but set these aside and “report the story” irrespective of how it impacts on the party they like.

    Now, DPF’s post essentially asks “how can we know that Taurima/Wilcox aren’t the former sort of journalist?” My response is, “why do we think that they aren’t the latter sort?” That is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    I know there’s some deluded notion that the broadcasting companies are all a hotbed of Marxist lefties out to get Labour elected, but in the real world partisan journalism just isn’t allowed (let alone rewarded with rapid promotion).

    :lol: Comedy gold, thanks for posting!

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Not true. John Campbell is blatantly biased, but that hasn’t hurt his career in the least.

    And yet, the biggest slap over Campbell’s wrist by the BSA was for the “unbalanced and unfair” “Corngate” interview he conducted with Helen Clark, which arguably played a part in Labour not getting an outright majority at the 2002 election. Do we just ignore that when weighing up whether he is “biased”?

    American examples, John Stewart and Bill O’Reilly are both extremely successful despite being biased.

    The US does not have the same legal obligations on broadcasters as does NZ. And Jon Stewart is not a journalist, he’s a comedian. As is, in a different way, Bill O’Reilly.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Than (472 comments) says:

    My response is, “why do we think that they aren’t the latter sort?”

    AG, you answered that question in your 12:35 post – intensity of political belief.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    Little wonder that Julian Wilcox’s phone is off the hook; he’s probably explaining to his bosses how he can continue in his role at Maori TV whilst there is even speculation over him entering politics.

    And what’s taking TVNZ so long? Are the lawyers involved in trying to water down or sanitise adverse findings against Shane Taurima and his staff?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    AG, you answered that question in your 12:35 post – intensity of political belief.

    So … if evidence emerges that back in the early 1990s, Maggie Barry was a strong supporter of National who had ambitions to one day (maybe) enter Parliament, your automatic assumption will be that the work she did as a journalist for RNZ/TVNZ/Prime was biased and untrustworthy?

    Or, the fact that Paul Henry is such a strong supporter of National that he, too, stood as a candidate for Parliament under its banner makes his current work biased and untrustworthy?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. loonybonkersmad (27 comments) says:

    Previous new reports have reported that Shane is gay, but he won’t talk about his partner. Interesting that he led interviews around gay marriage with no declaration of a conflict of interest …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    :-) I think any intelligent viewer could tell by Paul Henry’s frequent references to “This country is going to hell in a hand-cart” every time a Labour or Green Party policy or talking point was in the news, that he was blue to the core!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    loonybonkersmad:
    Previous new reports have reported that Shane is gay, but he won’t talk about his partner. Interesting that he led interviews around gay marriage with no declaration of a conflict of interest

    The cool thing about interviews is, you can let what people actually say do the talking ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Than (472 comments) says:

    So … if evidence emerges that back in the early 1990s, Maggie Barry was a strong supporter of National who had ambitions to one day (maybe) enter Parliament, your automatic assumption will be that the work she did as a journalist for RNZ/TVNZ/Prime was biased and untrustworthy?

    If there was evidence that Henry or Barry held (or holds) strongly pro-National views at the time they were/are working as a journalist, then yes, it would be completely reasonable to view their work with a cynical eye.

    But political views can change with time – just because Barry is strongly pro-National now doesn’t mean she was then, and just because Henry was pro-National then doesn’t automatically mean he still is. The smaller the time gap the more cynically we should view their work. And in the case of these recent Labour appointments there is no gap, they have jumped straight from journalism to politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    I’m stunned that anyone would ponder whether there is left wing bias in our media…. because to deny it, is to assume the ostrich position.

    Wind the clock back a week and Shane Jones jumps from Labour. The story breaks on TV1 and TV3 just after 6pm. On TV1, Bernadine Oliver-Kirby was clearly not a happy camper when she read the ‘breaking news’ item and Corin Dann looked as if he had just swallowed a dead rat when he confirmed the story during his cross.

    Impartial? Hardly… the reaction of two of the TV1 presenters to that particular story, should put any doubts to rest.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Professor: the answer to your question “how do we know….” lies in what particular journos do and say…I think you might be a little young to remember Perigo in his prime…he was the consummate professional: he asked the righties the kind of questions the left would want answered and vice versa…He was so good at it that when he resigned – after famously declaring TVNZ “braindead” – I was astounded to learn that he was in fact a hard right winger…there is no way you could have known that from his interviews – either their content or their style.

    I am no fan either of Espiner or of Henry – the latter, while being on the right, clearly has something wrong with him…he certainly is no journalist. Espiner on the other hand IS a journalist….a heavily biased one. And he is not even the worse on RNZ. That title must go to the sreeching Mary Wilson…have a listen sometime to how she interviews – say – a Cabinet Minister as compared to some prat from the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. YesWeDid (1,048 comments) says:

    Is everyone forgetting that Maggie Barry was the Radio Live drive time host in 2009 & 2010 and then entered parliament for National in 2011?

    DPF implies that there was a 10 year gap between her broadcast career and her political career which is not the case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Barry

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Yes we did: Educate this Nat Rad listener…is “Drive time” on Radio Live a political show? It cant be talkback at that time of the day?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. YesWeDid (1,048 comments) says:

    @David Garrett – It is very much a political show, it is currently hosted by Duncan Garner.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    OK, then you have a point…my recollection of Ms Barry is on Nat Rad many years ago…As I recall, she was very like Perigo, ie you couldnt tell what part of the political spectrum she was on.

    I would like to make it clear that IMO not all Nat Rad journos are tarred with the same brush…During – and particularly at the end of – my brief political career, I always got the fairest shake from the female RNZ journos. I suspect a couple of them were lefties and one was a closet rightie…but you couldnt tell that from any interveiw they did.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. OneTrack (3,089 comments) says:

    DG – “That title must go to the sreeching Mary Wilson…have a listen sometime to how she interviews – say – a Cabinet Minister as compared to some prat from the Greens”

    Rachel Smalley has the same “problem”. Russel Normal comes across as one of her mates. Nek Minit, a National politician is on and its all squawk and bluster. Yes, I really think I know which way she votes.

    Elaycee – Yes, Corin Dann on the night of the Jones announcement was very illustrative. He looked positively ill.

    Others will say that the MSM isn’t biased because they are questioning Labour now. That is simply because Labour have become so toxic, that the MSM simply cannot ignore what’s happening with them anymore. In days of old, before the blogs, they might have got away with it (they probably did). Now people have other ways of finding out what is going on. And even now we see stuff that DPF, Whale, etc., cover that either isn’t mentioned at all, or is only briefly covered, while avoiding inconvenient details which don’t help the “story”.

    Rhetorical question, why cant these lefties leave their politics at the door when they are working, like everybody else? Or is everything, for the cause?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    One Track: I think the reason is the lefties unwavering certainty that they are right…always and on everything…I remember when 3S was going through I tried to avoid predictions on what would happen, and when I did cautiously suggest that this or that might occur, I always tried to add a version of “But I could be wrong, who knows?”

    I remember the socialists always looking a bit uneasy when I said that…at the time I put it down to my saying that making it more difficult for them to rebut me…now I think they just couldnt comprehend a poli who openly admitted that he might not have all the answers.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. simonway (387 comments) says:

    I’m uneasy with active broadcasters going straight into politics, as it does make you question how they have managed the conflict between being in charge of news and current affairs for their broadcasters while also being a member of a political party.

    Would you apply this to public servants, too? Because being overly enthusiastic about supporting a political party can create conflicts for them, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. leftyliberal (651 comments) says:

    Far be it from me to defend Mary Wilson (whose style I’m not really into) but it seems that she’s quite willing to interrogate anyone at all using the same tactics, whether that be Bill English, someone in academia or business, or a witness to a shooting. She’ll grill them all, questioning anything that seems to be a soft point.

    It seems to me that it is a truism that the apparent bias of the media is negatively correlated with the political belief of the viewer. A few can appreciate where there’s bias for “their team” but it’s normally far easier to spot apparent bias for the other team. e.g. Fox News seems so obviously biased from where I sit, though I suspect many of the posters on this site don’t see it the same way (deriding instead, most other US news shows?)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    lefty: Wilson does instead screech at and talk over many of her interviewees, regardless of their political persuasion…but it’s the degree and length of the screeching and talking over that is determined by who she is “interviewing”…and it’s all a net negative for RNZ since many Cabinet Ministers simply won’t be interviewed by her…and it’s not because they are scared of her, but because they know they won’t be allowed to answer fully…

    Back in the day polis could get away with saying “If you speak over me again I will end the interview ” and then doing just that -I would do that, but it’s considered bad form these days, mores the pity…and the audience is the poorer for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Typo there…she does INDEED screech at…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    DG

    Ever come across that prized pratt Wallace Chapman?. He takes bias to an entirely new level. I am not sure if he is a Green or an out and out communist.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    Anyone who reckons that the NZ media are unbiased & ask the questions that need answers should pay more attention when any of the Greens are being interviewed. The tree huggers can say anything, misrepresent anything & lie like flounders yet the wankers of the MSM sit like star struck devotees lapping up the crap.

    It induces nausea.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ nasska (9,627 comments) says:
    April 29th, 2014 at 8:47 pm

    It induces nausea.

    Then you should either stop watching it, for the sake of your health or bottle it and sell it to all those young women desperate to lose weight. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    BB: I have indeed come across Chapman..he used to run the “Backbenchers” show on TV 7…I used to go on it quite a lot…I think he and his producer thought I was going to somehow break down under the abuse I used to get from the audience…he often seemed surprised that I accepted the invite…but it was all a bit of a hoot…these little dickheads dressed like James K Baxter would make for the door just as the programme was ending…happy to shout abuse when I was stuck on the set…not very happy to have a “debate” when I was free to..

    The prick also makes things up…I dont know just what his politics are…he’s certainly not an ACToid!!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    DG

    I often wonder why the likes of Chapman are afraid to openly state their politics, I know you are no fan of Paul Henry but at least he has never tried to hide what side of the fence he sits on. In fact the only left winger I can think of in the media who is honest enough to admit he is a commie is Willie Jackson.

    You are dead right about the left, an honest debate is not something they can handle, it is much easier for them to try and silence those who appose them (the lefts wet dream is to enforce silence on the right as per the electoral finance act)

    I think deep down the left know they cannot win an open and honest debate, when faced with an argument they cannot win they simply start telling bare faced lies (Cuntliffe is great at this) of try and shut down the debate by using their time honoured technique of changing the discussion altogether by labelling their opponents as racist, homophobes, or islamaphobes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    Conservatives always see leftwing bias in the media. It seems to be in their genes.

    Elaycee seems to think two journos are biased because of the looks on their faces. Huh?

    They conveniently forget people like Maggie Barry, Paul Henry and, of course, Richard Long. Chief Parliamentary reporter, then editor of the Dominion. Then appears working for the Nats and Don Brash.

    Some would reckon he worked for National throughout his career.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    BB: I am blessed with very good hearing…I remember one night on that show I was getting a bit of stick from a little dweeb with a goatee beard dressed in an old tweed jacket, and carrying a WW II gas mask bag…I responded to his taunts with “I’ll come over and have a chat after the show”…as the show was ending I heard the little twerp say to his mate “Quick, we have to go…he’s going to come over!”

    Bradbury was there once and also scarpered just before it ended (most of the audience stayed and talked to the polis who also mostly stayed for a beer after..) Bradbury later tried to explain his scarpering on his blog, saying he thought I might assault him!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Andronicus: There are undoubtedly journos like Long who ended up working for the Nats….but name another, or two? I bet you can’t…yet just since my active involvement in politics I can name several: Kris Faafoi (when he wasnt fighting a war or discovering penicillin); Brendan Burns; Fran Mold; Julian Robins…just off the top of my head, all of whom were supposdly unbaised journos who ended up working for the Labour Party…Others will think of other names…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. tom hunter (4,809 comments) says:

    And yet, the biggest slap over Campbell’s wrist by the BSA was for the “unbalanced and unfair” “Corngate” interview he conducted with Helen Clark, which arguably played a part in Labour not getting an outright majority at the 2002 election. Do we just ignore that when weighing up whether he is “biased”?

    I love this line of argument. It’s the same one trotted out in a couple of old KB threads about The Listener, when they defended themselves against the same charges by pointing to how often they had got stuck into the Fourth Labour government. As DPF pointed out, they were ideological not partisan. That government was well to their right so of course they attacked. John Campbell had made no bones about how often Labour disappointed him even after the Rogernomes were banished. He liked the Alliance and when they vanished the Greens were next. In that 2002 election National were out of the hunt so of course Campbell went after Clark on a matter that the Greens had drummed up.

    In any case partisan bias is the easiest to deny and frankly it does not worry me because it’s too obvious.

    No, the thing that gets me about the MSM bias here in NZ and elsewhere are the following four factors.

    First, the ideological bias. For decades now journalists have absorbed the John Pilger view (and Campbell has spoken warmly of him for years) that journalists are here to push the world in a certain direction – and that direction is toward an ever greater role for the State to “solve” the problems of societies.

    Second, that bias mostly clearly shows less in the questions asked of politicians or activists or spokespeople or the manner in which they are asked (although that can happen) than which stories are run and which are ignored. Any moderately competent con artist knows that a half-truth is more powerful than a lie. A story ignored vs one trumpeted 24/7 even more so.

    Third is the mass of news media outlets that can amplify that choice of story, or actually piggy-back on it (“The NYT has published an important story so we’ve got to cover it too” – and vice versa). For all the moaning and bitching about Fox News in the USA the fact is that they’re up against MSNBC, CNN and the old broadcast networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC. Every analysis of major stories on those networks has shown that minutes of coverage for stories that were bad for the US Right were far greater than stories that were bad for the US Left (just one example was the difference in coverage between the Gosnell and Zimmerman murder trials)

    Fourth is this:

    Well, perhaps the fact that Hughes was MC at Espiner’s wedding a few months later might give a clue?

    And it’s even worse in foreign capitals, with Washington D.C. being perhaps the worst now. I don’t think any US story in the last few months has best exemplified all these factors as the Washington Post going after the Koch Brothers about the XL pipeline, and I’ll link to this Powerline article just to address that last point by David Garrett:

    And yet, a still deeper level of corruption is on display here. Juliet Eilperin is a reporter for the Washington Post who covers, among other things, environmental politics. As I wrote in my prior post, she is married to Andrew Light. Light writes on climate policy for the Center for American Progress, a far-left organization that has carried on a years-long vendetta against Charles and David Koch on its web site, Think Progress. Light is also a member of the Obama administration, as Senior Adviser to the Special Envoy on Climate Change in the Department of State. The Center for American Progress is headed by John Podesta, who chaired Barack Obama’s transition team and is now listed as a “special advisor” to the Obama administration. Note that Ms. Eilperin quoted Podesta, her husband’s boss, in her puff piece on Tom Steyer.

    Oh, yes–one more thing. Guess who sits on the board of the Center for American Progress? Yup. Tom Steyer.

    This kind of incest is common in Washington. You can’t separate the reporters from the activists from the Obama administration officials from the billionaire cronies. Often, as in this instance, the same people wear two or more of those hats simultaneously. However bad you think the corruption and cronyism in Washington are, they are worse than you imagine. And if you think the Washington Post is part of a free and independent press, think again.

    I’m glad the MSM are dying but it’s even better that it’s effectively by their own hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Andronicus: Elaycee seems to think two journos are biased because of the looks on their faces. Huh?

    Clearly you didn’t watch it. The reactions of both Oliver-Kirby and Corin Dann to the news Shane Jones had jumped, were hardly those of ‘balanced’ journalists. They were both spewing. But I suppose you had to see it… Huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    The thing that gets me the most about our media is the way they let the stinking Greens get away with murder.

    I used to think that this is because they were either supporters of the Greens or did not take them seriously, as time goes on I think it is actually more to do with the media wanting the Greens to be part of the government because it will mean they have a lot more to report on as the stinking greens drive the NZ economy into the dust.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (12,803 comments) says:

    And yet, the biggest slap over Campbell’s wrist by the BSA was for the “unbalanced and unfair” “Corngate” interview he conducted with Helen Clark,

    AG, yes because he made one of their own look bad. Further to that; Clark is deeply corrupt and would have influenced the BSA.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Still waiting for Andronicus to add to the list of “journos who have gone to work for the right”…Richard Long left journalism during Bolger’s time IIRC…So in recent times that’s Maggie Barry and the demented Paul Henry…in your own time Andro…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (12,803 comments) says:

    There is another type of bias often over looked. The bias is not about what is reported or said, but about what is not reported or said. Lies by omission.

    As an example, most NZ media will simply refuse to publish anything that makes Obama look bad. Even if it is widely reported in the global media. They know most people are too apathetic to look beyond the local paper or the bimbo at 6 presenting misinformation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. big bruv (13,884 comments) says:

    Speaking of Labour. I see that Septic Sepuloni has been selected as the candidate for the seat of Kelston.

    So much for labour bring in new blood, another victory for the unionists.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    BB: Sepuloni was one of the “nasty femmes” in Labour…a bit of a mystery though why they didnt give her a winnable list spot…IIRC she was “next in” from their list last time? Perhaps they just thought they’d do better in 2011….

    Cosgrove was her mentor…that pretty much says it all…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Reid (16,442 comments) says:

    I often wonder why the likes of Chapman are afraid to openly state their politics

    Answer is in the psychology of the left. The deep dark rat infested swamp of:
    – arrogant self-righteousness – because they hallucinate they’re the only ones who weally care
    – a supercilious smugness – borne of an innate yet false sense of intellectual superiority
    – deep understanding of propaganda principles – because their policies are so lousy they have to put extensive lipstick on them.

    It’s the latter which mostly makes them avoid openly stating their politics for no propaganda specialist announces their bias for to do so is to compromise their effectiveness as the voice of truth. The former two traits also have a lessor effect, because the little bastards think they’re so very clever, the stupid fools out in the public will never ever see through their devious cleverness.

    Of course many of us do see straight through them, but given the ratings of the TV and radio “news” shows in which they practice their evil, many of us don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    BB: Sepuloni was one of the “nasty femmes” in Labour…

    By that do you mean “I never quite got used to women giving it back to me and telling me what to do” or do you mean “she stole my lunch on a regular basis” ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    David, I named three.

    Isn’t that enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    @Garrett,

    Andronicus: There are undoubtedly journos like Long who ended up working for the Nats….but name another, or two? I bet you can’t…

    In the Prime Minister’s Office, Kevin Taylor and Paula Oliver came from the NZ Herald, Jason Ede came from TV3, and Lesley Hamilton came from Radio Live. In the other ministerial offices, Craig Howie and Grant Fleming came from NZPA, Brent Webling and Rachel Bruce are from Radio Live, Jackie Maher from TVNZ, Gillon Carruthers from RNZ, Ben Thomas from NBR, Sia Aston from TV3, and Simon Beattie from the Evening Post.

    Will that do?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    You won’t hear from him again he’s slunk off to be abrasive and know it all elsewhere. But good (two) shots none-the-less considering his wankery “still waiting for Ando etc”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. tom hunter (4,809 comments) says:

    I thought we were talking about journos who become politicians and activists rather than press secretary flacks? I used to know a bunch of Wellington journos and they went where the money was: one was a passionate Lefty who’d voted Labour all her life (at least up until then), but she worked for a National minister during the roughest of the Ruthless Ruth era.

    But look at this piss-take on the latest Obamacare fuckup in the USA. Oregon have finally dumped their State website and are directing people to the Federal website – after pissing away $248 million. In the following YouTube link John Oliver rips into them on his new HBO show, spun off from his years as a support cast member on the Daily Show. It’s brutal, and although I thought it was impossible to parody the original Oregoncare TV advertisement, Oliver’s crew manages to do so.

    But here’s the thing: no doubt your average Oregon Democrat would be spitting at the screen and/or cringing behind the sofa – perhaps even jumping up and down about Oliver’s “bias”. But while Oliver can tear them a new asshole over the waste and stupidity I’ll bet he’d lampoon the hell out of any Republican who proposed trashing the legislation that gave birth to this fuckup.

    That’s the difference between ideological and partisan bias, and it’s the former that’s the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Geddis: Fair call. And you forgot Joanne Black who went to work for one of the Nat Ministers. I guess the question then becomes “How well did they all disguise their own political bents while they were journos?”

    its an idiot: Yep…I “slunk off” to bed at 12.30…

    As for Sepuloni, she never bothered me in the least…She made a complaint about me to the Speaker under Cosgrove’s tutelage…it failed, as did his, alleging I had challenged him to a fight in Select Committee…in fact I said ” Save your insults for somewhere else Mr Cosgrove”. He tried – and failed – to spin that into a challenge to “step outside” and fight

    Sepuloni was easy to shut up…she liked to portray herself as “PI” though she has never lived in Tonga and doesnt speak the language…I have, and I do…at least a bit…I remember one time she was bleating about how some welfare change was impacting on “her people”…I said something about there being NO welfare up in Tonga, and people as a consequence being very entrepreneurial…selling veges and BBQ from roadside stands…she shut up like a clam.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    David how noble of you to come back and respond to Andronicus after nine hours sleep having hassled him/her for an answer after an hour. Other people have lives too.

    I fail to see how any of what you have just written makes Sepuloni “nasty” – it appears to just be more gloating. But I guess that’s what it’s like in the debating chambers, you just become part of it and it’s hard to get out.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote