Kiwiblog

South Australia goes to the polls on 20 March, and for 25 to 55 days before the election it will (arguably – see comments in previous thread) be illegal to comment on their elections without disclosing your name and postcode.

Even worse, blogs and media sites have to collect names and postcodes from all their commenters or risk being be fined.

Hopefully the law will be repealed or clarified before the election. If it is not though, I am happy to offer Kiwiblog as a temporary forum for discussion of the South Australian election if any Australian sites are worried about the new law. I can set up a general debate every day, or even give some Australian bloggers posting rights.

I have no intention of forcing commenters to give me their name and address/postcode.

As a non resident of Australia, they can not enforce their law on me.

As I said hopefully the law will be repealed. If it is not repealed, I suspect many Australians will ignore it anyway. But if it does result in people feeling they are unable to blog and comment on the state elections, I am happy to help host such discussions here. In fact I am sure many NZ blogs would be happy to adopt an Australian blog for a month. It could be a great trans-tasman initiative!

UPDATE: Heh I wrote this post last night and timed it for 9 am. In the interval, the South Australian Government has backed down and promised to repeal the law, as reported by No Right Turn. Excellent. The Government must have worked out how deeply unpopular it was going to be.

Interestingly the law can not be amended before the election, so the Government has said it will not be enforced and will be retrospectively repealed after the election.

I’ve been asked to blog to see if there are many Mainlanders who would be keen to emulate Auckland and have a regular drinks gathering for bloggers and blog readers in and near Christchurch.

If people are keen, can they comment here and/or e-mail Mark.

Mark suggests a initial gathering in late February, while the weather is still good.

If they get off the ground, I’ll try and co-ordinate my travels to coincide where possible.

This is a great move. The Clerk of the House has commissioned a website where Parliament TV segments are viewable. So rather than have to watch entire debates, you can see individual speeches and questions.

The site in In the House. It uses blog technology such as tags, so rather than have to do keyword searches, you can just click on tags etc.

The creators think this is a world first, and it could well be. I’m very impressed.

One request I would have is that they consider adding on the ability to embed videos. They will be far more successful in having people view segments if blogs can embed the videos.

National MPs have set up a blog, joining Labour with Red Alert and the Greens with Frog Blog.

As I understand it, the blog is not focused on politics so much as MPs experiences. So you’ve got Eric Roy talking about water for Southland, Hekia Parata on Armistice Day and Simon Bridges gets to talk about “Hot Milk” Lingerie!

Now this is very cool – the House of Lords has a cross-party blog – Lords of the Blog. There are a dozen peers blogging there from all three parties.

Would be great to have such a blog in New Zealand. You could actually have MPs debating issues in front of us, with us able to contribute. I’ll add it to my list of long-term projects. The challenge of course is to get Government MPs (regardless of party) to participate.

Hat Tip: Red Alert

The Weekly Standard reports on the difference one person can make:

Pamela Key does not work for the Republican National Committee. She has no formal training in journalism. An illustrator of children’s books, she never finished college. And yet, her oppositional research, her investigative journalism, and her philosophical convictions have all come together to shape the national mood, receiving even the attention of the White House. On August 4 of this year, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House, released a video where she instructed the public, “My job is to keep track of all the disinformation that’s out there about health-insurance reform. And there are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there right now, such as this,” she reads the Drudge Report from her computer screen, “‘Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate PRIVATE Insurance.’”

What most don’t know is that Douglass was targeting a video unearthed by Key, first released on her video news website, Naked Emperor News, and then picked up by the Drudge Report. The video, which pieces together various Obama statements, damningly quotes the president at an SEIU forum in 2007 saying, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.”

That is a truly damning quote, and this is why so many people wonder just how left wing is Obama.

Looking through the archives of Chicago’s public radio stations, of C-Span, of YouTube, and various other forums, Key uncovered clips of Obama saying cap and trade will bankrupt coal plants, of Van Jones calling for a revolution against “suicidal, gray capitalism,” and of congressional democrats refusing to regulate and audit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004. In one of her most viewed videos, which received nearly three million hits, Obama advocates for redistribution of wealth. In that 2001 Chicago public radio interview, Obama tells a radio talk show host, “One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was [the] tendency to lose track of political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” To this effect, he criticizes the radical Warren court (1953-1969) as not being radical enough: “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution generally, the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what states can’t do to you, says what federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

Again, this is superb research from one person. Who knew Obama thought the Warren court was not radical enough.

Fran O’Sullivan addressed several dozen people at breakfast this morning on the topic of the Accidental Empire of Political Blogging. Rural Women NZ hosted the breakfast.

Fran was mainly positive about the impact political blogging has had in NZ, saying the diversity is useful, as is the competition for the media to some degree.

She did have some criticisms, such as accuracy and fact checking, and most of all political bloggers who blog anonymously. Her big call was for more political bloggers to post under their names so there is some accountability for what they say – as journalists have.

She was full of praise for Red Alert and said it has obviously replaced The Standard as the most influential and useful blog on the left.

Whale Oil got a mention with praise for his willingness to savage members of his own party (she joked that his father must be glad he has a life membership that can’t be revoked) but said she thought the pre-election scuttlebutt on Damien O’Connor was a serious error of judgement.

Lots of questions and discussion ranging from has a blogger been sued yet, to press gallery membership. Fran nicely refers to the gallery as a cartel

Was a very good breakfast and even better drinks afterwards, finally escaping around 10.30 am!

The Herald reports:

A blogger who came to New Zealand from Britain has been warned to stop giving immigration advice on her blog – or face prosecution under the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act.

The Immigration Advisers Authority says Helen Winterbottom was breaking the law by posting on avalonsguide.com, and has told her she must get a licence if she wants to continue.

Yes Immigration advisers are now licenses, but those enforcing the law should be able to recognise the difference between someone who is in business charging fees for immigration advice, and a blogger talking about their immigration experiences online.

And if no such discretion is possible under the law, it is a damn stupid law that should be repealed.

Sadly it may not be the only one. The new regulating of financial advisers may also capture far more widely than intended, according to Stephen Franks.

But the former pharmacist said she was only “speaking her mind” on her blog, which she started last November, and did not have any intention of becoming an immigration adviser.

Ms Winterbottom said she did not have the written warning, but had been told by the authority that one of her blog entries broke the law.

“I can’t believe that in New Zealand we have a law that makes it a criminal offence to offer advice to someone,” she said. “It really takes away our basic right to freedom of speech.

“My blog is an immigration support forum, so discussing the topic openly is what we do, just like support forums for people who have a specific illness.

That sort of blog should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Mr Smedts said the act was in place to protect migrants from poor advice.

“If someone is giving immigration advice, they must be licensed, unless exempt.

“Helen Winterbottom has suggested in her blog on July 6 that she is exempt, but she does not fit any category of exemption that we are aware of.”

Lawyers, diplomats and MPs are exempt from licensing.

“If bloggers wish to continue writing about immigration issues, they need to consider if they are giving immigration advice as defined by the act,”Mr Smedts said.

“If the answer is yes, are they licensed or exempt, and if not, I recommend they either apply for a licence or invite a licensed adviser or exempt person to contribute to their blogs.”

My suggestion is every blogger in New Zealand starts giving immigration advice on their blogs, and we all appear in court together.

The Act may be well intentioned, but the vast majority of people realise that free advice on a blog or a forum, is just that – free advice. It is not official advice. It is not paid advice. It is not expert advice. It is people sharing experiences. Now the site does have an e-book available for sale but it appears to be a general read about why people should move to NZ etc.

I hope Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman investigates this situation, and if a law change is needed, promotes one. The Government does not want a blogger in court charged with the crime of talking about immigration issues.

I’m not a woman, or rural, but am attending a breakfast meeting of Rural Women New Zealand to hear Fran O’Sullivan talk on “An Accidental Empire: The Rise of Political Blogging and its Effect on Conventional Media.”

Other interested people are welcome to attend:

Speaker: Fran O’Sullivan

Topic:        An Accidental Empire: The Rise of Political Blogging and its Effect on Conventional Media.

RWNZ is delighted to have special guest Fran O’Sullivan – a columnist for the New Zealand Herald – speaking at this month’s breakfast meeting on the rise of political blogging. Fran’s expertise is in politics and business. She was labelled a “right-wing blogger” by Helen Clark – but has yet to launch her own blog.

Date: Tuesday 29 September

Time:        7.15am – 8.15 a.m.

Venue: D4 on Featherston Street
Level 1, 143 Featherston St
Wellington

Breakfast:  There is no charge for attending RWNZ breakfast meetings. A D4 Breakfast Special costing $12 has been arranged for this occasion. The Special includes bacon, a choice of eggs on toast, and tea or coffee and juice. Or, you can order a continental breakfast with jam and marmalade served with juice, tea or coffee for $12. If you have a little more time, you may wish to order from any of the full range of dishes available on D4’s superb breakfast menu which can be viewed at www.d4.co.nz/menu

Please RSVP to Noeline Holt: noeline.holt@ruralwomen.org.nz

or Tracy Galland: tracygalland@xtra.co.nz

As reported on M&M, I’m up in Auckland Thursday and Friday, and conveniently understand there will be blogger drinks (all welcome) starting 5.30 pm on Thursday at Galbraiths in Mt Eden.

Regulars PC and Annie will be there, and many more I am sure.

Denis Welch talks about the NZ political blogs and the Tumeke ratings on Nine to Noon. Ten minutes of audio.

He covers the new Red Alert blog, and how “experts” such as Paul Buchanan and David Beatson (former Listener editor) are now blogging.

John Small from Covec is now blogging at Progressive Turmoil. NZ is fortunate to have a number of dedicated economist blogs.

Bill Ralston writes in the HoS that Goff must watch his back:

It is occurring in the blogosphere, and not on the traditional centre-right sites that love to lampoon Goff and Labour but on centre-left sites.

Ralston gves four examples:

The Left’s curmudgeonly commentator Chris Trotter fired the first shots on his site, Bowalley Road. Incensed at Goff’s statements regarding socialism as a 19th-century doctrine rejected by modern Labour, Trotter blew a fuse. “If this is your view, Phil, that the quest for democratic socialism should be dismissed as something belonging to ‘19th-century history’, then I say ‘The hell with you’.” Trotter tells Labour Party members: “Find yourselves a new leader.”

 Russell Brown’s liberal-left Hard News offered Goff the pained advice, that if he “wants to float ideas, could he please ensure they don’t have any holes in them when he pushes them out from the jetty”.

The staunchly pro-Labour site called The Standard picked up on the Burgess fiasco saying: “Phil, get your shit together”. And left blog Against the Current complained “Goff just doesn’t get it”.

I don’t think any of those left blogs (except Trotter) are saying they want Goff to go. They are saying they want Goff to improve his performance. But there is a sub-text about what could happen if he doesn’t.

The blogosphere means we now hear what party supporters once said in private discussions over a beer. That the whingeing about Goff has started after a couple of small mistakes means there is a deep enmity to him on the left of the party and his opponents are beginning to gather steam.

Blogs have increased transparency.

Ralston concludes:

Goff was an intelligent and able Cabinet minister but now I hear Labour supporters wondering if that is enough to make him an Opposition leader capable of winning an election. Frankly, at this stage, there is no one better to lead the party.

Nevertheless, the knives are being sharpened and over the coming year the destabilisation of Goff is likely to intensify. This may not lead to his overthrow but it will ruin Labour’s chances of presenting itself as a stable alternative government.

The most interesting part will be seeing who on the left will first raise their head to make a push for the leadership. As a great New Zealand thinker once said: “It won’t happen overnight but it will happen.”

The danger periods are at the very end and very beginning of a year. But having said that, I do not believe Goff is (yet) at risk. Of the pre-2008 intake only Cunliffe, Street and Jones are seen as potential leaders and all are seen as risky to some degree.

The 2008 intake has some considerable talent, but there is no way any of them will take up a leadership role in their first term.

The Netguide Awards were last night. I was surprised to get an e-mail saying I was a finalist on Monday as I didn’t mention, link or promote the Awards on the blog – unlike most sites.

The major winners are:

• Best Site – Trade Me
• Best Blog – Blogger Bites Back (NZ Herald celebrity gossip blog)
• Best Financial Site – Raboplus
• Best Homepage – Stuff
• Best ISP – Telstra Clear
• Best Media – Stuff
• Best Govt – IRD
• Best Social Networking – Facebook

Congrats to the winners. Fairfax will be pretty happy.

National Business Review Owner Barry Colman has announced a subscriber only content service, and caused a big stir online with the comments he made in his letter announcing it.

Now I write for NBR online (today’s column is here – on the shape of Auckland) so Barry is my eventual overlord, so I risk biting the hand that feeds with my comments, but hope it will be a useful contribution. Barry said:

I expect about 20 per cent of our web news to be Subscriber Only Content. The exact ratio will vary as we will be using the category for only the best news stories, scoops and commentary pieces that we post on any one day. Besides the serious issues of the moment the content will include large doses of satire and goings on uncovered by our nosey Private Bin reporters.

As you know, there has been endless discussion for a number of years about the crazy model adopted by newspapers in most parts of the free world in which they pay the enormous costs of running professional newsrooms only to give their content away free – while at the same time slashing newsroom numbers to save money as circulation and advertising revenues fall.

I’m not sure they see it as giving it away free, as some make considerable money from the advertising on their sites. But it is a choice for each media outlet as to whether or not they provide 0%, 80% or 100% of their content online.

And to add to the madness it has been the aggregators that have profited the most from the supply of that free news copy. Worse still the model has spawned a huge band of amateur, untrained, unqualified bloggers who have swarmed over the internet pouring out columns of unsubstantiated “facts” and hysterical opinion.

Most of these “citizen journalists” don’t have access to decision makers and are infamous for their biased and inaccurate reporting on almost any subject under the sun (while invariably criticising professional news coverage whose original material they depend on to base their diatribes).

Now I have a healthy enough ego that I take no offence from the above, as I automatically assume Barry is speaking about everyone else, but not me

But I do think Barry is overstating the case. Of course there are many many blogs that are rubbish. But they accordingly have littler readership and little influence.

There are however many blogs that provide analysis that can be as good as that you find anywhere.  Paul Walker provides a list of blogs that feature some of the most respected and influential economists in the world as a counter example.

I think the climate for traditional media is very tough, and there is no easy answer. There has been and continues to be a massive change in the role of the traditional media.

Historically, people read newspapers for two reasons – for information/news and for analysis. Th first of those reasons is fading.

15 years ago if you wanted to know what was happening in US politics, your only easy way to know was to read the local newspaper, and browse whatever story they have run in world news from AP. The entire world almost relied on what AP said about US politics. Today you can get information on US political news from hundreds or thousands of sites online.

You used to get a newspaper for the weather. Not I get hourly updates through my browser and/or blackberry – all for free.

I used to get newspapers for cartoons. Now I get Dilbert every day direct.

We used to read what happened in the House the next morning. Now you can read a transcript online by 5.30 pm. If you invest in shares, you no longer need a newspaper to find out the share prices.

We still rely on newspapers for crime reporting, but within a few years we may have live Internet streaming of every courthouse, and may get better information from a few dedicated court bloggers who spend their days and nights following trials.

So as a provider of information, the media monopoly is seriously weakened.

This leaves the other side – the analysis. Now I do think people will pay for good analysis, but in certain areas there is significant competition from online sources.

I rarely buy newspapers any more. The exception is Monday’s Dominion Post. I primarily buy this to see how the Dom Post political team scored the previous week. I value their analysis enough to do so. Hence Barry Colman is not necessarily wrong – some people will pay for good analysis.

But as Paul Walker pointed out, there is some remarkably good free analysis already out there. The best economic debates are now found online. Bernard Hickey and interest.co.nz provide some very good financial analysis. Some bloggers (not all) have as good access to decision makers as journalists.

In my view quality analysis is what people will pay for – either in hard copy, or electronically. Over the next few years fewer and fewer people will pay just for reporting information.

Trans-tasman is a good example of a subscription model that works. People don’t get it for their reporting, but for their analysis and insights.

Cactus Kate blogs at length on the Colman e-mail and concludes:

Colman is charging $89 for the content or “The cost is a little more than 80c a day and I promise you it will be one investment you won’t regret”. Well I wouldn’t if NBR updated it’s content on a daily basis with real content but it doesn’t. So good luck on that, but to blame bloggers for contributing to the model that is forcing him to have to go pay-per-view? A tad silly. For the pay-per-view am I to be reading low paid first-jobbed twenty-something children repeating the news, or will I read serious senior business journos actually breaking stories that matter?

Fortunately Colman has one of the better entrepreneurial brains in the country and is well equipped to come up with something more original and “out there” than this email whinge to justify making 20% of online content “locked” to make his publication profitable and more widely read. After all he’s really, really rich so has proven he knows more about business and turning profits than all bloggers do combined.

We look forward to it.

And that is what it will come down to. People will pay for good analysis, for original breaking of stories, but not for merely repeating of information from primary sources – now that others have access to those primary sources.

Blaise Drinkwater’s blog is becoming a daily read. He does lots of good fisking.

Excellent initiative by Labour – they have set up a Labour MPs blog.

National should look at a parliamentary blog – I would do it like the Greens. MPs posting under their own names, and staffers posting under a generic name (Frog for the Greens).

There has been quite a bit of chatter about the role of blogs in the Mt Albert by-election, so I thought it would be useful to put them in perspective as I think people are over-reaching.

Matt McCarten wrote on Sunday (and Laila Harre also said much the same on radio yesterday):

What is disheartening is that Labour’s action wasn’t from a place of principled strategy but the result of hysteria generated by their political opponents.

I salute the right-wing bloggers, who mischievously instigated a destabilising campaign against Labour by writing that National could win Mt Albert if Twyford was the Labour Party nominee. Twyford is a current list MP. Their genius was in pointing out that if Twyford won – as was widely assumed – then Judith Tizard, as the next-highest place list candidate, would be entitled to return to Parliament to replace Twyford’s vacant list spot.

The bloggers claimed that Twyford’s campaign would be overshadowed by the furore of the supposedly unpopular Tizard slipping back into Parliament.

Privately, none of the bloggers believed that their strategy would amount to much, but were incredulous when certain media players started taking it seriously.

What gobsmacked the bloggers particularly – and fatally for Twyford – was that the Labour Party panicked.

Poneke goes even further and credits me with all sorts of “machinations”.

While I think the blogs have played a role in Mt Albert to date, I think people over-state that role. I’ll start from the beginning.

When I first blogged on the Tizard timebomb in December, I didn’t invent it out of thin air. I did hear from someone in Labour that it was an issue they were looking at. Back then, to be fair, I don’t think they were overly concerned, it was more “We need to work out how to deal with this so Twyford can stand”.

I then went away did a bit of research, and blogged on this issue, also pointing out the next four on the list after Tizard were almost as problematic also. Incidentially during this time I have never attacked Judith personally – I’ve just pointed out she didn’t have a positive public appeal.

Now there is debate about whether the Tizard timebomb was real or not. Did Labour panic over nothing, or was it a real threat? Actually it as a bit of both – it is all about probabilities.

Other bloggers like Danyl M make the case that as 45% of NZers don’t even know Phil Goff is the Leader of the Labour Party, then it is ridicolous to think that many residents in Mt Albert would know who is next in line on the Labour list, let alone have it affect their vote. And he may be right.

But what Danyl can’t dismiss is there was a chance that in the absence of major policy issues, there could be a lot of media focus on the Tizard timebomb, especially with coverage from the bloggers.

Let us say there was a 90% chance that Tizard being next List MP in would not be an issue, only a 10% chance it would be. Labour may have decided that is an acceptable risk.

What bloggers did do, is increase that risk. They didn’t invent it out of thin air. It only works, because it has some credibility. But by highlighting the issue, we may have increased the risk of it becoming a major issue from say 10% to 20% – and that 20% may have exceeded Labour’s comfort level.

The other role the bloggers played, is that rather than allow Labour to work out a quiet behind the scenes compromise with Judith, we made sure it played out in public to some degree.

So yes the bloggers did have some influence over Labour’s decision regarding Mt Albert, it is considerably less than McCarten, Harre and Poneke ascribe. At the end of the day, it was a real risk.

Likewise over the selection of Norman as a candidate. Yes I did push that concept, but I dont think one should confuse correlation with causation.And the advice is generally what is best for the Greens – they do need to be less of a lapdog for Labour, they do need an electorate seat. It is not at all impossible Norman could win the seat, if they push strategic voting such as happened in Epsom in 2005 and Wellington Central in 1996.

My advice is not necessarily beneficial to National. A strong Green candidacy could push National into third place. Also National probably would have preferred that nothing be said about the Tizard issue until after Twyford was selected. They would have loved having Tizard back in the House to torment Goff over as an example of rejuvenation.

Even if National somehow win the by-election (something I regard as very unlikely – it is Labour’s safest seat, we are in a recession, and a Government has not won a by-election off an Opposition in at least 70 years) then it would finish Goff off before the 2011 election, and if you did a poll of National MPs they would prefer Goff remain Leader.

So yes blogs are having a bit of influence, but it is over-stated generally. And no it is not some sort of master campaign plan – more livign true to the motto of Fomenting Happy Mischief.

In line with that, I have this banner from a reader:

I spoke to the Young Labour conference on Sunday about blogging, and whether it is entertainment or citizen journalism (I say both). I was on a panel with Keith Ng and Robyn Gallagher and I thought the session went well. There was some great questions and discussion with the audience. I quipped at the beginning that I wanted to swap water glasses with Keith in case of poison but had nothing to worry about – it was a very good natured session.

That leads me to this blog entry a blog I read had linked to, about ten journalism rules you can and should break on your blog:

1. Use partial or fake names
2. Tell part of the story
3. Insert opinion
4. Link to a report rather than rewrite it
5. Link to background rather than repeat it
6. Link to the enemy
7. Use second person or even first person
8. Get personal
9. Answer your critics or supporters
10. Fix your mistakes rather than just publish a correction

At the conference I did a comparison of NZ blogs to UK newspapers. The UK is lucky enough to have ten or so daily newspapers, and each has their own niche. They are best summed up in this Yes Minister scene (which I played at the conference).

So my local comparisons were:

• Daily Telegraph – Kiwiblog
• Financial Times – Bernard Hickey
• The Times – Public Address
• The Guardian – No Right Turn
• The Independent – Tumeke!
• Daily Express – No Minister
• Daily Mail – Winston Peters
• Daily Mirror – The Standard
• The Sun – Whale Oil

People can make their own additional suggestions I am sure!

Sandra Dickson has done a very good article on blogging in NZ, covering the full range of views from “trite and trivial” to “influential”. It interviews a dozen or so people and does a really good job of covering the issues.

Dear Stuff,

I used to enjoy reading your blogs. Then you deleted all the RSS feeds for them. Now I have no way of knowing easily when they have been updated.

Please can you give them all their own RSS feeds back.

UPDATE: It seems they are there but you have to go looking for them, rather than automatically suvscriing from their main pages

This press release has gone out on Scoop:

NZ Political Bloggers To Blackout Websites 23 Feb. In S92a Protest

“On Monday morning bloggers from across the political spectrum will be taking their blogs down in a “blog out” to protest the coming into force on the 28th of S92A of the Copyright Act.

Scores and scores of bloggers will be taking part, including Public Address, Scoop, Kiwiblog, The Standard, No Right Turn, Frog Blog, Whale Oil, Not PC, No Minister, Just Left, The Hand Mirror, Roar Prawn, Policy Net, Kiwi Politico etc etc. Supporters of almost every political party are taking part – National, Labour, Greens, ACT, Alliance, and Libertarianz, as well as non political blogs like the popular Television blog Throng, and the Scoop news site and NZ’s leading technology news community Geekzone.

To say we represent a diverse range of views is putting it mildly. Normally we disagree on everything. Even e=mc^2 can be regarded as a highly debatable proposition on our blogs.

So for us to all unite together, from across the political spectrum, to condemn S92A of the Copyright Act should send a signal as to how bad the law is. A law which can see people lose their Internet access on the basis of unproven allegations should have no place in the New Zealand statute books.

We don’t care who voted for the law in the first place. We just want it stopped. We call on either Parliament to repeal that section or for the Government to delay it from coming into force on 28 February.

The normal content on our blogs will be made inaccessible on Monday morning, and our blogs will refer people to the online petition organized by the Creative Freedom Foundation. “

ENDS

Details on how to blackout your website are here. We’ll have some further info on how to make the rest of your site inaccessible, if you wish to, over the weekend.

If your blog will be joining the blackout on Monday, go to this page and register.

The Dom Post have replaced their former group blog for their gallery team, with a dedicated one for their political editor Tracy Watkins, called Tracy Watkins on Politics.

After I had a little whine, joined by Steve Pierson, it is pleasing to see the Herald this morning both credit No Right Turn for a story, but even link to his blog. Yay.

We welcome Agriculture Minister David Carter to the blogosphere. Great to see a Minister blogging. He also has twitter updates on his blog.

Also welcome to former Green MP Nandor Tanczos.