Kiwiblog

The latest stats from Nielsen are interesting.

The South Island is doing well, with the ODt up 8% and the Press 2%.

The Dom Post is constant, the Waikato Times down 2% and the NZ Herald down 5%.

Both the SST and HoS have small increases, while Sunday News down 8%.

The huge drop is the National Business Review, whose readership dropped 16%.

APNZ report at NZ Herald:

A reporter from the website Scoop will resign from Parliament’s press gallery after being caught photographing documents in Labour leader David Shearer’s office.

Lyndon Hood was among a number of journalists waiting in the office for an interview with Mr Shearer yesterday afternoon, and was spotted taking photos of documents on the leader’s desk by a Labour Party press secretary.

That is a real shame – both for Lyndon whose better judgement deserted him, but also for media/politican relations generally.

Just as MPs should be able to have a conversation without worrying if someone has a concealed recorder at their table, MPs should be able to have media come into their office and not worry about if they may photograph any documents on their desk.

I understand Labour have recently removed access for journalists to enter their corridors in Parliament. If this is correct, you can’t criticise them for that.

I could not believe One News the night before last, when during an (un-necessary) live cross, one of their reporters said how they were hoping to get live footage of the hearse going by (after the ballooning tragedy). I actually yelled at the television – which I do not do often. That was silly and tacky.

I’m not alone it seems. Throng blogged yesterday:

Sarah Batley’s live cross on One News tonight was utterly disgraceful and disrespectful to the 11 people who died tragically yesterday in the hot air balloon crash in Carterton, their families and their friends.

Desperately hoping to be live while a hearse drives past with bodies of the victims is incredibly distasteful, offensive and unnecessary.

Whale has blogged on this also. When Whale says it is distasteful, you know it definitely is

The Law Commission has publicly released today its report on legal and other issues around new media such as blogs. I was one of those interviewed by them in initial consultation phase in formulating this issues paper. It is open for public comment until 12 March 2012.

I think the report is an excellent one, and I am enthusiastically supportive of their proposed model of media regulation in the digital age. There are some risks around the model proposed, but these can be mitigated. Balanced against those risks are considerable opportunities for “new media”.

News media have special protections under the law. The Law Commission recommends “news media” be defined as a publisher in any medium who

1. has a significant proportion of their publishing activities being the generation and/or aggregation of news, information and opinion of current value
2. disseminates this information to a public audience
3. regularly publishes
4. is accountable to a code of ethics and a complaints process

Kiwiblog (not that this is my main concern) would clearly qualify under points 1 to 3, so would need the accountability and complaints process to qualify. Whether or not this is worthwhile, will depend on the details.

A key point made by the Law Commission is:

It is important to note this definition is not intended to exclude others from reporting or commenting on the news. It simply proposes a set of statutory criteria to resolve the current uncertainty as to which groups and individuals qualify for the legal privileges and exemptions assigned to the media.

This is quite crucial, and one of the risk areas of a new definition. At present bloggers are allowed to report on court proceedings, attend Treasury lockups etc. This should continue to occur, even if a blogger does not qualify under the proposed definition. The definition is for qualifying for legal privileges, and should not be used to block genuine access for online publishers.

The key aspect of the Law Commission paper is an independent regulator for all news media regardless of format or delivery platform. This would replace the Govt appointed BSA for broadcasters and the Press Council for print media. There are significant anomalies in the current system, with an example being:

• A video broadcast by a broadcaster is subject to the BSA
• A video placed on a broadcaster’s website is not subject to any regulation
• A video placed on a newspaper’s website is subject to the Press Council

The Commission proposes the following features for a new regulator

1. Independent of both government and the news industry
2. Appointments to the regulator would be by an independent panel
3. Regulator would work with industry on different codes, so bloggers might have their own code (for example accuracy required, but possibly not fairness)
4. Recognised by statute and part-funded by industry and subsidised by the state

I think the independence from Government is crucial. Without that it becomes a path through which the Government could censor the media and I would be against. The details in these areas will be vital.

The subsidy is also a necessary evil. Bloggers are generally non-commercial and you can’t charge a blogger $10,000 a year to come under such a regulator. Likewise, I can’t see APN and Fairfax wanting to pay on behalf of bloggers. The Commission says:

It is in the public interest that as many news publishers, including small startups, belong to such a standards body and a lack of financial resources should not be an impediment to joining. The state and wider public have a strong interest in a robust and ethical news media and we see no reason why this body should not receive state support, provided there are no strings attached to the appropriation.

One of the issues in the paper would be whether membership of the regulator would be entirely voluntary for everyone, or whether commercial media should be required to join.

I believe it should be voluntary for everyone. The incentive to gain the legal protections of being news media should be enough. A key issue will also be what are the powers of the regulator. If they have the power to (for example) suspend a newspaper, then newspapers would not want to join. If the power is to require publication of a finding, and low level fines, then perhaps less of an issue. The print media are the ones who potentially lose a wee bit of freedom in this model, while broadcasters would end up with greater freedom. In a converged world, all media should be on the same level, and so long as the regulator is not Govt controlled I think that is a good model.

The Commission notes:

The large majority of New Zealanders publishing on the internet would not come within the ambit of the new regulatory system we propose. In essence they will be able to exercise complete freedom of speech. They can, without fear of any regulator, be inaccurate in their facts, unbalanced in their coverage and extreme in their opinions. The public can rely on them, or not, as they see fit. They would not be recognised as “news media” for the purposes of the statutory privileges.

They also note that such publishers are still liable to the laws of defamation, copyright, contempt of court etc.

There are other interesting issues the Commission looks at in its paper

• consider introducing a new offence of maliciously impersonating another person
• amend the Harassment Act 1997 to explicitly include cyber-bullying

But rather than have these go to court, which would be over-kill, they float a model of a Communications Tribunal “which could administer speedy, efficient and relatively cheap justice to those who have been significantly damaged by unlawful communications”

I think this aspect is more problematic, while well-intentioned. They do say:

The Tribunal would only deal with cases which it judges would have met the threshold of a breach of the law. It should not be a port of call for those with insubstantial complaints.

My suspicion is it would become exactly that. For such a model to work, it will need considerable safeguards against malicious and trivial complaints designed to (ironically) harass the person complained about.

The Tribunal would not have the ability to impose any criminal sanction they say:

Sanctions and remedies available to the Tribunal would include the ability to award monetary compensation up to a prescribed level; to order publication of an apology or correction; to order that a right of reply be granted; to order that the defendant cease the conduct in question (a type of injunction); and to make takedown orders against either the perpetrator or an innocent avenue of communication such as an ISP. It might also make a declaration that statements made about the victim are untrue. Failure to comply with an order would be an offence.

I do like the notion of the Tribunal being able to make a declaration that statements about a victim are untrue. Defamation is rarely viable for those who have false things said about them online. And victims of lies and slander often just want the truth affirmed, not damages. I do see considerable merit in the concept of the Tribunal. My concerns are around the small number of nutters out there would would try to use it as a form of harassment in itself.

Two safeguards against this might simply be requiring complainants to use their real names to complain. Those who post under an alias can not claim they have been harmed by speech against them when no one knows who they are. A further safeguard would be a requirement to pay a filing fee. This is the most effective way to stop serial complainers.

An alternate option they put forward is a Communications Commissioner as part of the Human Rights Commission. I don’t think this would be a good fit for the HRC, and in fact could distract them from their primary focus.

The paper is (as expected) very well researched, and shows great understanding of the online environment. I encourage people to read it, or at least the summary paper, and give your feedback. It is my understanding that there are likely to be some sort of forums organised where people can attend and discuss and debate the issues and proposals. I’ll blog details of these as they are known.

Finally it is worth noting this is an issues paper, not a final paper recommending action to the Government. That means this is the best time to influence it.

Karl du Fresne blogs on TV3:

In a post on this blog site yesterday I mentioned my reluctance to accuse media organisations of political bias. I have seen those allegations hurled about far too often and far too loosely, invariably by politically aligned people frustrated that their side wasn’t the only one getting newspaper space or air time. But in the past couple of weeks I have begun to wonder seriously whether TV3 is running some sort of political agenda.

Karl gives several examples of what he sees as a political agenda:

• Scare-mongering over the PM meeting the boss of a global oil company
• Making a meeting with Lord Ashcroft sound sinister
• Coverage of Labour’s welfare policy
• General commentary on the election
• The TV3 debate where every issue chosen was a negative one for National
• The Inside Child Poverty Documentary, being the last straw

For my 2c I don’t think TV3, or its political staff, are deliberately biased against National.

The criticism I would make is more the tendency to sensationalise stuff such as the Ashcroft meeting. The impact of the tendency to sensationalism tends to end up as more anti-Government stories because most events are about the Government. This applies no matter which party is in Government.

I agree with Karl on the so called documentary that had no balance at all and was propaganda. Showing this in election week was an appalling decision.

On the topics for the TV3 debate, I think that is also a valid point. In fact the TV3 commentators even acknowledged that after the debate. Why was there no topic on the health system? National has a great story to tell there, so naturally not chosen. Why now law & order? Labour is pledging to repeal the three strikes law. Let’s hear Phil Goff explain why someone who rapes for a third time should be eligible for parole after just a few years? But no that wasn’t chosen either. Last night’s TVNZ debate was far better balanced with topics.

Now again this may not be bias. It is probably more that they don’t see any ratings in having the Government able to talk about areas where it has been a real success story. But in terms of balanced coverage and a balanced debate, I don’t think it qualifies.

The panel/studio worm has been pretty consistent all night. If Phil Goff says anything it goes up. I joked on Twitter that Goff could confess to the Crewe murders and the panel worm would go up.

I wondered why, as this was meant to be a panel of undecided voters.

Then I saw this tweet from John Kingi, about being a worm panelist. A couple of friends of his seem to be there also.

Now John Kingi is a vocal Labour Party activist. He is about as undecided a voter as Phil Goff is.

TV3 have had their panel infiltrated by one or more Labour activists. Either TV3 failed to ask people if they were genuinely undecided voters, or they were lied to. I hope the media investigate this thorougly before reporting on the results of the worm.

UPDATE: And looks like a second panelist is a Labour voter – see here.

UPDATE2: I have a report of a third panel member (and remember there were only 65 and they are meant to all be undecided) who tutors at Auck Uni politics and has publicly declared she is a Green voter and supporter.

UPDATE3: And we have a third Labour person identified. There may be a fourth.

So also Nive Sharat there, and if we check her out.

This is a major credibility blow to the panel/studio worm.

UPDATE: John Kingi phoned and e-mailed me to say that he in no way misrepresented himself to those selecting the panel, and I take him at his word. His e-mail:

In regards to your post on Kiwiblog, it is implied that myself, amongst others, somehow “inflitrated” the TV3 panel. This is simply not true. I have not been a Labour Party member for some time, and the page you linked from Grassroots Labour was one I haven’t seen or used in over two years. The picture you paint is not an accurate reflection of my current political position. The questions raised in the selection of the panel included:

Who did you vote for at the last election? My answer: Labour

Who do you plan to vote for at this election? My answer: Undecided, but definitely on the centre left. 

Amongst other gender/age/electorate questions. I at no point lied about my political positions or intentions and I gave Key and Goff equal treatment in my response to the debate. In fact I even voted that Key actually won the debate in my view at the end! I hope that with the full facts established, you can clarify on your blog.

I chatted with John and he also confirmed to me that he was not undecided between a centre-right and centre-left party, but between parties of the centre-left. I do not believe this is how the panel was sold. As I said before the debate even begun they would have been better to use “swinging” voters, ie those who have previously voted both CL and CR.

I understand Clint Woolly has also said he is undecided, however it is his own tweet where he describes himself as a Labour voter.

Back to John, I stand my my point that I don’t think someone who was so passionate about their political beliefs that until recently they were an activist for political party, is suitable to be a panelists of “undecided voters”. Take the photo below of John:

This is obviously taken since the last election, and I suspect since Jacinda moved to Auckland which makes it even more recent. I don’t think having once been a political activist for a political party means you can never be seen as “undecided”, even decades later. But at a minimum I don’t regard such activism (and membership) within the same parliamentary term as being compatible with being on a panel which is portrayed to the public as “undecided voters”. I once voted Labour, but that doesn’t make me a swinging voter.

Most New Zealanders will know Kevin Milne. He was the front for Fair Go for 20 years. In dealing with the various crroks etc they exposed, Fair Go would push right to the edge of what they could do, in order to tell a story.

Kevin Milne spoke on ZB today about the secret tape. When a journalist of his standing decries the media behaviour, that surely is a sign that collectively they got it wrong. A rough transcript:

“I’ve been surprised (to say the least) that speculation over what was recorded in the so-called “teacups” conversation this week has taken precedence over questions about the way the recording was obtained and how its been subsequently used.

The freelance cameraman is reported as saying he didn’t intentionally record the conversation. Perhaps that is correct. Perhaps. I don’t believe it, but perhaps. But my knowledge of the filming process is that while you might unintentionally leave a microphone in the proximity of where a private conversation is about to be held, as you continue to video from outside you would be aware that sound was also being recorded.

But lets say I’m even wrong about that and the cameraman didn’t intentionally record that private conversation, doesn’t his innocence in the matter evaporate when he passes on the tapes to the Herald on Sunday and TV3 presumably for money?

I think its a gross breach of privacy to record a conversation between two people who are unaware they’re being recorded and then release the contents of it. It makes me embarrassed Paul to have been once part of the same line of work. If its allowed to go unchecked where does it end? For example, camera operators and sound recordists sometimes use extremely sophisticated and powerful directional microphones. You can pick up conversations from about 100 metres away. 

Are we soon to see these freelance guys drifting around parliament grounds seeing what they can pick up on tape – conversations between politicians standing on the steps of parliament for example? And while they’re at it such freelance cameramen could randomly listen in on private conversations between press gallery journalists and their partners lunching on the chairs in the sun.

I’m not soft, Paul, when it comes to investigative journalism. On “Fair Go” we often took our filming right to the edge in an attempt to show a scam was taking place and not everyone would agree with the tactics that we used. But never would we record a couple of public figures in private conversation then use knowledge of what was on those recordings to put pressure on them to publicly reveal details of what they’d been talking about. In my mind that’s appalling. I don’t care whether the victims are politicians, whether its election time, whether the “cup of tea” meeting was a staged piece of political nonsense or whether in the course of that conversation one or both parties said something they wouldn’t want made public.

The whole thing remains a gross breach of privacy in my mind. The heat ought to be on the media involved here not John Key or John Banks.” …

“I think that the media have misunderstood the public” …

“I’m surprised that there have been no other journalists who have taken the position that I have. I’m embarrassed.”

Whale has the audio also, embedded below.

NewstalkZb – Paul Holmes and Kevin Milne talk about the tea tapes by whaleoil

Winston Peters on the tea tape by whaleoil

Whale has this audio of a party leader on Monday condemning the secret taping.

In response to whether the media should publish the tapes, he called the behaviour in taping the conversation illegal, said it was “News of the World” stuff.

Who was this party leader? It was Winston Peters. The man who since he has discovered a favourable angle for himself in this, has spent the week expressing mock outrage. Do the media spend all day demanding Peters reconcile his position on Monday with his reading out transcripts of what Peters himself says is an illegal recording? Of course they do not.

I’ve just been asked to meet a group of civil society leaders from Afghanistan who are coming to NZ to observe the election.

I hate to think what impressions they will go away with, based on the media coverage of the election. They will think New Zealand is such a perfect country with no crime, no poverty, no unemployment, no trade issues, no defence issues, no economic challenges, no debt as the major focus of the media has been on whether the Prime Minister said that NZ First support is dying off – something that has been said hundreds of times before by political reporters and commentators.

How will I explain to them that this gets more coverage than any other issue of the campaign?

When they refer to the debt crisis in Europe, and ask what did the party leaders say about the fact that France is hovering on the brink of a credit downgrade also, and what impact could this have on NZ, I’ll have to say I’m sorry but that wasn’t deemed worth talking about.

Thanks to TV3 everyone knows more or less what was said in the chat. There was obviously a reference to it being hard work to manage Don Brash at times, and to NZ First support base dying off. Neither of these statements are remarkable. The language used was not as delicate as one would use in public, but that is the difference between a private conversation, and a private chat. when you are chatting to someone one on one with no (known) recording devices in front of you, you don’t carefully consider every vowel you utter. This is not hypocrisy or inconsistency – it is human behaviour.

I do heaps of media work now. How I talk on air is quite different to how I talk one on one to people. I never say anything I don’t believe, but I carefully weigh up my words on air. The same goes for every journalist in the land, except maybe Colin James whose columns and conversations are near identical

So yes John Key said the NZ First support base is dying off. Wow wee. Does this mean he hates pensioners and wants them all to drop dead so they can’t vote for Winston? Of course not. He simply told John Banks why he didn’t think NZ First were likely to make it back.

UPDATE: For my 2c worth, if I was the PM I would go on Close Up tonight and give Sainsbury permission to quote from the transcript and have PM answer questions on it. Then everyone sees what a beat up it is, and the election can focus on the important issues.

Steven Joyce has just put out a statement:

The Herald on Sunday has many questions to answer about the illegal taping of the conversation between National Leader and Prime Minister John Key and Act candidate John Banks on Friday, says National Party campaign chair Steven Joyce.

“There are a number of inconsistencies in the story which together suggest an attempt to conceal a deliberate News of the World-type covert operation,” says Mr Joyce.

“Firstly, the radio transmission device was concealed inside a pouch and placed next to the Prime Minister.  Any camera operator knows that if you are seeking to obtain legitimate audio, you don’t muffle it by leaving the microphone in a pouch. This was an experienced cameraman, and the only possible conclusion is that the concealment was deliberate.

“Secondly, the Herald on Sunday article states the cameraman approached the Prime Minister’s staff to retrieve the microphone during the meeting and was rebuffed. The problem is that no approach was made until after the meeting was over. If the approach had been made during the meeting to inform staff that a recording or transmitting device was left on the table, it would have been retrieved immediately.

“Thirdly, the Herald on Sunday article states that the taping was discovered on the cameraman’s return to his office. That is untrue. When the cameraman approached the Prime Minister’s staff member for the return of the microphone, the cameraman acknowledged he was aware the conversation had been recorded.

“Fourthly, the Herald on Sunday article describes the cameraman as a ‘freelance cameraman’, and makes no attempt to disclose his working relationship with the Herald on Sunday. However in an email to the Prime Minister’s office last night chief reporter David Fisher seeks the return of the wireless microphone, which he says was ‘taken from our staff member’. 

“The conclusion one is left with is that the Herald on Sunday deliberately arranged the taping, in an unwelcome introduction of UK-style News of the World tabloid tactics into the New Zealand media environment, and is now deliberately seeking to distance themselves publicly.

In related news, Whale reveals who the cameraman probably was.

Also a must read comment by Niggly:

2. Whilst it isn’t unusual to leave a wireless microphone transmitter “on” (prior to use), it is actually unusual to leave a wireless microphone transmitter “on” and inside a bag, because that indicates it isn’t about to be used and is using up battery power. Not unless the freelancer was intending to use it ….

3. Even if the wireless microphone transmitter was unintentionally “on” and left inside a bag (and thus unintentionally transmitting) and this was all “innocent” …. then the “freelance cameraman’s” story doesn’t stack up at all after this point because his videocamera’s wireless microphone receiver device would have to have been on and the videocamera (or recording equipment) turned “on” and “recording”. To make this clearer, this last aspect here indicates the recording could not have been made (even with the wireless microphone switched on and transmitting) because for the recording to be made as said here, a receiving device then needs to be deliberately turned on and the “camera operator’s equipment” also had to be on and recording.

Is there anyone out there who thinks it really was an accident?

The Herald reports:

Nikki Kaye and Jacinda Ardern are leading a “sexiest politician” poll – but poor old Bill English has no admirers.

But the popularity of the online survey by a Whitireia New Zealand journalism class has some asking if anyone has been stuffing the ballot box.

At 9pm yesterday the “babes” of Parliament led the survey titled “Which politician would you go to bed with?”, with Paula Bennett and Melissa Lee following close behind. …

Sigh, I’m to blame for this story. The poll at Newswire had a total of five responses until I tweeted and facebooked the question “Hmmn, should a journalism school be running a poll on which MP you would like to fuck?”

I do think the poll is inappropriate for two reasons.

The first is there is a difference between a poll asking someone to rate hotness, and explicitly asking “Which politician would you go to bed with”. A fine line maybe, but one that got crossed.

The second is that the annual hotness survey of MPs is done by Durex. I can totally understand why they run such a survey, as it fits their products and brand.

But this poll is run by the Whitireia School of Journalism. I think that is a bad look.

Jim Tucker, who runs the journalism course, wrote on Facebook: “Some people are actually taking it seriously – especially a lot of politicians who appear to have ordered their staff and friends to vote for them.”

He then told the Herald the poll started as a “p*ss take”.

“We had a long discussion in class about putting up some sort of poll, our first of the election.

“The usual discussions were – will you vote, who are you going to vote for and so on. But the class decided to do something different, and see what people would actually vote about.

“It actually grew from ‘which politician would you spend time on a desert island with’.”

Interesting there is a different version of how the poll came about on Facebook, from one of the students:

Haha. I would like to go on the record as opposing, vehemently, this idea when it was pitched to the class by Jim. He wants us to be ‘different’. …

Yeah. I have no idea what he was … thinking. Trying to sex it up perhaps? I don’t find it funny or compelling at all. Yes. Jim’s idea entirely. Most of the class told him it was lame.

I tried to redirect it but failed. There is little point fighting these things

Again, I think it is a bad look. Is this going to raise confidence in the values being taught to aspiring journalists?

I blogged last week on how Labour’s policy was to look at bringing the self-regulatory Press Council under Government control (and to tax Internet users).

Well the Herald reports the Greens are also keen on the idea:

The Green Party wants to make independent media watchdog the Press Council answerable to the Government.

So if there is a centre-left Government of Labour, Greens and Winston, the Government looks likely to bring in Government censorship of print media. I mean can anyone imagine Winston thinking it is a bad idea?

If print media lose their independence by a Labour/Greens Government, then the possible penalties they could face from a Government appointed BSA regulator include:

• Compulsory publication of a statement from the BSA
• an order to refrain from publishing for a set period of time
• an order to refuse any advertisements for a set period of time
• $100,000 fines for non-compliance
• Pay costs (which can be huge)

The Minister of Broadcasting appoints all four members of the BSA. I have no criticism of the current BSA members and their decision to date. But extending their reach to include all media would be a huge step backwards for press freedom, and would inevitably lead to more politicised appointments.

Go to 3 News and read this story:

Labour leader Phil Goff will be clinging to the unexpected results of a new poll in which his party has picked up twice as much support as National.

But he is well behind John Key in the preferred prime minister stakes, according to the TVNZ Marae Investigates Digipoll, released today.

Labour’s on 38.4 percent support in the poll, followed by the Maori Party on 22.2 percent, while National’s on just 16.4 percent.

That is in stark contrast to other media polls, which put National above 50 percent support, with Labour rating at 30 percent or less, and the Maori Party on around one percent support.

Chris Trotter, in a thread at Red Alert, proposes a media policy for Labour, being:

1) Establishes an hypothocated Broadcasting Fund large enough to sustain an independent, publicly-owned, free-to-air television and radio network, with statutory obligations to deliver quality, locally-produced content to all New Zealanders.

I actually am reasonably supportive of this aim. We currently pour $230 million a year into public broadcasting, and a BBC-style broadcaster could be affordable with that money. However the challenge is to stop it becoming a mouth-piece for the left, as so many public broadcasters do. As they are taxpayer funded, they have an incentive to support parties that wish to increase taxes.

The idea of a dedicated fund, so it is not directly taxpayer funded has some merit. What I would do is sell off TVNZ entirely, and use the proceeds from it to establish such a fund.

2) Prohibits the cross-ownership of media platforms (i.e. a newspaper cannot also own a radio station, or a television network – and vice-versa).

3) Restricts the private ownership of the news media to New Zealand citizens – who will be barred from owning more than a single media outlet (i.e. one newspaper, one radio station, one TV station).

When you take these two together, it would kill off almost every newspaper in NZ. Making money out of a newspaper is getting very difficult. Fairfax and APN manage it because they can share resources and copy. If you implemented Comrade Trotter’s manifesto then I’d say the number of newspapers in New Zealand would shrink to around three or four.

Chris would have every single radio station, newspaper and TV station owned by a different New Zealander. My rough count is we have close to 100 newspapers and 200 radio stations. I suspect many of those would disappear lacking owners willing to risk hundreds of thousands of dollars on them.

4) Creates a Media Complaints Tribunal with wide powers to ensure fairness, balance and accuracy in all forms of media.

Good God. I hate to think. Will it have the power to actually take over news-rooms to ensure “fairness” or just to imprison journalists who do not do what the state tells them is fair?

Whale Oil has a great scoop.

The Waikato Times had a big article on a family struggling to make ends meet in Hamilton. The mother is quoted as saying she could never vote National, used to vote Labour but this time thinks the best option for her is to vote Greens.

Nowhere in the article do they mention her partner, and father of her child, is the Green Party candidate for Hamilton East – Max Dillon.

This is not a trivial oversight. It undermines the entire article.  It means either the Waikato Times never asked if they had a political affiliation, or they knew and didn’t care.

I think the fault lies not only with the newspaper though. To agree to be interviewed as a typical struggling family, who have decided to vote Green, without disclosing the father/partner is the Green Party candidate is rather unethical.

UPDATE: This appeared today:

This is very interesting. First it tells us that this was pretty much a Green Party sting. Even worse according to the Waikato Times they say they specifically asked Ms Campbell if she had any links to the Greens.

It is interesting that they used Twitter to obtain interview subjects. It makes it far more likely those with a political agenda will be interviewed as they are more likely to volunteer. Once upon a time media would have used networks to hunt out a family to profile. Better to profile someone who does not volunteer but somewhat grudgingly consents. They are more likely to be genuine.

If the Waikato Times did ask Ms Campbell for any links to the Green Party, then one can’t hold them responsible for being lied to. However we don’t know exactly what they asked and exactly what the answer was. I think there is still a lesson here – they could have searched Twitter or used Google and discovered the link quite easily.

Has the Herald on Sunday sacked all their staff and now just sit there reading social media? Probably too harsh a call, but look at just today’s stories:

• The Raybon Kan story – based on a tweet by him
• The Labour wife story – based on her blog
• A “glass of wine” story – based on a tweet by Cameron Brewer
• A “English rugby” story – based on a tweet by Rachel Smalley

I’m all for reporting on news-worthy stuff found in social media, but there is a balance.

I initially got excited when I saw the headline that a “Labour wife” was predicting National would win some marginal seats against Labour. I wondered which “high ranked” candidate’s wife it was – maybe Mrs Cunliffe or Mrs Jones.

But alas the story turned out to be very much a non-story, as the wife was Julie Fairey who is married to Michael Wood. Michael is ranked No 32 on the list.

Julie is a long-time political activist in her own right. She was highly active in the Alliance and is also a political blogger. To categorise her views as a “Labour wife” is somewhat demeaning to her.

Would the HoS report what Matt McCarten says as “partner of Cathy Casey”?

Julie Fairey, who is married to Michael Wood – number 32 on Labour’s list – wrote on the Hand Mirror feminist blog that National would probably retain Auckland Central, Maungakiekie and Hamilton West. Labour lost all three seats in 2008 and was keen to get them back in November’s general election.

If it was Michael himself saying this, then I could understand the media interest. Incidentally Julie blogged her views some weeks ago. Obviously someone has just suddenly made the connection.

Fairey, a former Alliance Party candidate, did not think her predictions were damaging to Labour’s brand because she was not part of its “message machine”, despite being married to Wood.

Exactly.

Elizabeth Binning at NZ Herald reports:

Kindergartens have increased fees, put playgrounds on hold and made staff redundant because of Government funding cuts – but many have large sums of money in the bank.

A search of the charities register reveals many kindergarten associations have shown surpluses in their annual returns.

An excellent story, and piece of investigative journalism.

It is of course pure coincidence that on Monday, Whale Oil blogged the bank balances of the major kindergarten associations.

Last week the release of a report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy made news around the world as it declared the war on drugs a costly failure. Part of the reason it got so much publicity was that the Commissioners included:

• Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil
• César Gaviria, former President of Colombia
• Ernesto Zedillo, former President of México
• George Shultz, former Secretary of State
• Richard Branson, entrepreneur
• Kofi Annan, former Un Secretary-General

Now I don’t necessairly disagree with the conclusion that the war on drugs has been a failure. Having said that, I’m not sure better alternatives have been articulated.

Anyway I got curious about this Global Commission that made headlines around the world. I wondered who actually established the group? Was it the UN? Was it a country? An NGO?

And then I wondered who selected the Commissioners? Did they select people known to share a common view that the war on drugs has failed? Did they advertise for Commissioners?

And finally I wondered who was paying the bills?

The interesting thing is that none of these questions can be found on the Commission’s website, or in their report. They seems to have had a virgin birth, just declaring their own existence.

So who can find out answers to the questions – who established the commission, who appointed the commissioners and who is paying the bills?

As far as I can tell no mainstream media outlet has asked these questions, or more importantly included them in their reporting. If this was a group hand picked for their known opposition to current drug policy, that is a relevant piece of information.

Been meaning to comment on this post by Danyl at Dim Post for a while, as I would hate anyone to think Danyl is actually correct with his assertion than I regularly con and play journalists – something insulting to me as much as to them. First of all let’s take the article which prompted his post – a profile of Grant Robertson in the Herald quoting me saying:

Kiwiblogger and right-wing commentator David Farrar believes Robertson will be at the forefront of a leadership challenge within the next two terms . . .

Now in Danyl’s world, my comments were part of a cunning plot by National to undermine Phil Goff, and not my honest belief. He should have checked the timing of when I made the comments, and what I actually said.

When Phil Goff did his reshuffle in early Feb I said:

The Robertson move is the best part of the reshuffle. Tony Ryall will have a more challenging time with Grant against him. Health is traditionally a strong area for Labour, and the fact they have performed so dismally in this area has to change, for them to be competitive. It also marks the high regard Robertson is held in, to get it in just two years. He is a future Labour Prime Minister in my opinion.

The next day I blogged:

I’ve long said that I think Grant will become Labour Leader, and indeed probably even a Labour Prime Minister.

I don’t think he will be the next leader, but the one after that. He is young enough to be able to wait his time.

So my initial blogs were praising Goff for Robertson’s promotion, and explicitly saying that I do not think he will be the next leader but maybe the one after that.  Several times I have said that I do not think Grant would be a contender until after 2014 election.

It was shortly after that the Herald rang me as they were doing a profile on Grant, and wanted my comments on why I rate him. Now this was in early to mid February – weeks before the Darren Hughes affair occured and before there was any talk at all of a challenge to Goff.

So Danyl has it 100% wrong when he insinuates that my comments were designed to undermine Goff, and that I conned Derek into running them. Goff’s leadership was not an issue when I made my comments and further more I explicitly said that Grant would not be the next leader.

This is unless Danyl thinks I knew in advance that Darren Hughes would go home with an 18 year old who would flee naked from his home, and that Goff would take no action over it, hence creating leadership speculation.

The other thing Danyl doesn’t realise is that far from my praise of Grant being a cunning National Party plot, it generally results in a flurry of angry phone calls and e-mails from National Party people. I am a member of Wellington Central National Party, a former campaign chair for the seat, and a mate of the just selected candidate. Let me assure you that local Nats get very unhappy when I say good things about Grant. And so do a few Nats at 1 Molesworth Street.

Danyl’s fantasy of this all being some cunning plan of the 9th floor is hilarious, if he could tap my phone. I get some seriously pissed off people calling.

The only thing that makes up for the hostility my comments on Grant’s abilities generate for me from Nats, is the knowledge that they probably generate equally hostile comments to Grant from his Labour activists

So having dealt with the specific, let’s turn to the more general:

Describing DPF as  ‘Kiwiblogger and right-wing commentator’ is an improvement on outlets like TV3 and NewsTalkZB that just describe him as ‘blogger and commentator’ but it does elide his most significant role in the political process namely that he’s THE NATIONAL PARTY POLLSTER. Quoting him in a story about an opposition MP is a little like citing ‘former TVNZ journalist Fran Mold’ or ‘astute political observer Kevin Taylor’. (There is a slight difference, in that they’re directly employed by their parties, while DPF is the director of a company that the National Party contracts.)

I have disclosed on my blog my extensive background with National, and this is pretty well known. But that does not mean I am an uncritical supporter or obliged to say things only helpful to National. I compare it to sports. National is the team I support, and I want my team to win. But that doesn’t mean I won’t criticise the coach, captan and players when they stuff up. And it doesn’t mean I won’t praise other teams when they perform well.

As for the fact that National may have a relationship with Curia. Well off hand I would say that most of the organisations Curia has done work for, I have also criticised at some stage on my blog. Any relationship Curia has with National didn’t stop me doing the post the week before last criticising the Government on use of urgency. That post resulted in numerous critical news stories, and a NZ Herald editorial. I also did around five radio and one TV interview repeating my views.

Yes it is difficult criticising people or organisations you have relationships with. But it is hardly something new to me. In my roles with InternetNZ I had a good working relationship with David Cunliffe who was ICT Minister. And in the last few weeks I’ve actually had a number of meetings with Labour, Green and ACT MPs, where I’ve encouraged them to pressure the Government to make some changes to its telecommunications legislation. Again, it doesn’t always generate undying gratitude from within National.

DPF is the most successful at getting journalists to accept him as an independent and trustworthy commentator, presumably because he’s so genial and likeable and, unassuming.

I don’t believe journalists ask me for comment because I am genial or likeable (and many would dispute that). I assume it it because I give intelligent analysis, and am willing to praise the “other team” and criticise my own team.

Danyl seems to think my blog was invented by National as a cunning social media tool. In fact I’ve been debating politics online since 1996 – because I enjoy it. I did this through Usenet from 1996 to 2003 and then discovered blogs and after gettign addicted to reading them set up my own. This was not done at the request of National, or even with their support, permission or knowledge. I just did it. And in fact in its first year of operations, there was at least one caucus meeting where a number of National MPs complained about things I said on it and asked if the then leadership could stop me blogging.

No one likes to think they’ve been played by the penguin, even though he repeatedly plays many political journalists for suckers on a regular basis.

Again I find this really insulting (apart from Danyl trying to emulate Trevor Mallard with use of an insulting nickname) - to both sides. He presumably think all the journalists except his wife are really stupid, and that I  not only know they are stupid but take advantage of their stupidity to con and play them. That is not how I regard journalists, and Danyl is attributing motives quite maliciously.

It is very very rarely that I will ring a journalist up to push a story – maybe once every six months if even that. And if journalists ring me up, I give them my opinion. Absolutely that is from someone with a pro-National world-view, but that is known.

At the risk of being immodest, I would suggest the reason some journalists do call me and ask for my views and analysis, is because I used to talk candidly to them in the days before blogging. I was never a press secretary but during my eight years in Parliament I had strong relationships with many in the gallery – and I often chatted off the record to them on my take of how things are going. I wouldn’t betray professional confidences, but I would happily admit over a beer that National had terribly fucked up that week. I was rather proud of the fact that when then TVNZ Political Editor Linda Clark retired from the gallery, that I was the only 9th floor staffer to attend her farewell (as she was under a fatwa from the then PM). That was not because I was genial or likeable, but because I would never ever bullshit her and would always talk to her (even if sometimes all I could say is I can’t comment).

This seems a very lengthy and some would say “thou protest too much” response to Danyl’s blog post. And it possibly is. But Danyl is now the most read and I would say powerful left wing blog, so I respond to stuff he says which I wouldn’t on other blogs. Also it is useful to get this out there, so it can be referred to in future.

Just been reading the latest circulation figures for our major newspapers. The changes in the last year are quite stark. They are:

1. Herald on Sunday up 5,801 (+6.4%) to 96,069
2. NZ Herald up 240 (+0.1%) to 170,677
3. The Press down 1,988 (-2.4%) to 81,017
4. ODT down 1,458 (-3.6%) to 39,097
5. Sunday Star-Times down 6,939 (-4.1%) to 160,592
6. Dominion Post down 4,053 (-4.6%) to 84,047
7. NBR down 473 (-4.9%) to 9,093
8. Sunday News down 11,287 (-17.9%) to 51,740

Fairfax has to be worried by these results. The two major APN titles have increased or held steady and the main Fairfax newspaper titles are all dropping.

Sunday News especially is in freefall. Over two years it has lost 31,385 subscribers which is a massive 38% fall. It won’t remain viable if those trends continue.

Stuff and NZPA report:

Filming of The Hobbit will be delayed after director Sir Peter Jackson was hospitalised with a perforated stomach ulcer.

 Jackson was admitted to Wellington Hospital last night with acute stomach pains.

A statement said he had undergone surgery for a perforated ulcer.

“Sir Peter is currently resting comfortably and his doctors expect him to make a full recovery.”

Sir Peter’s surgery is not expected to impact on his directing commitment to The Hobbit beyond a slight delay to the start of filming, the statement said.

The Hobbit author JRR Tolkien suffered from a perforated ulcer before dying in 1973.

That last line (bolded by me) is just tacky. What relevance is it to the story, except to suggest Sir Peter may die from the ulcer. Note Tolkien was around 82 when he died.

NBR carry an NZPA story on Winston’s latest claim:

Overseas ownership of New Zealand news media outlets is in the political spotlight, with New Zealand First leader Winston Peters saying it has eroded journalism standards.

A traditional opponent of overseas ownership, Mr Peters told NZPA he was concerned about the profits of domestic media, banking and forestry companies going off shore.

“It has also led to serious erosion of media standards and journalism reporting because people are given no time to do any work properly, instant sound bites have become the name of the game, and that is sliding its way into tabloid journalism,” Mr Peters said.

International companies that owned New Zealand media outlets had failed to support investigative journalism and had “squeezed the professional capacity” out of the industry, he said.

“I’m the last one in the world that should be making a sympathetic argument for the journalists of this country, but I’m telling you that’s exactly what happened.”

Proper investigative journalism was essential for the democracy of a nation, Mr Peters said.

Now normally I ignore what Winston says, but the irony here is too great. I actually agree we need more investigative journalism, but we do have some sterling examples of good investigative journalism by Fairfax and APN journalists. Namely the superb work done by reports Phil Kitchin, David Fisher, Audrey Young and others in exposing the tissue of lies Winston told about the funding of NZ First and himself by various wealthy businesspeople. It was investigative journalism at its finest and exposed Peters as a charlatan whose reality was the direct opposite of what he railed again.

The comments thread on the NBR story has some superb contributions, such as Phil Kitchin:

At the #openlabournz conference earlier today, there was a good discussion about how social media can help improve interactions with Government, and we focused specifically on getting a culture in the public service where staff can engage in social media.

I made the point that the problem is the media can take a flippant comment online, and treat it as a press release, and demand the CEO comment on it or respond to it. My suggestion was that a good CEO should tell anyone who comes to them with a media inquiry about a flippant comment on Facebook or Twitter, that the person needs a life and the CEO is too busy with real issues.

In the few hours since the conference, we’ve had a perfect example of this play out – but with MPs not public servants.

In the House on Thursday, Melissa Lee embellished her question to Judith Collins of “Can she explain the reasons behind the record low number of escapes” by adding on “except for the fact she is such a fantastic minister”.

Nikki Kaye promptly facebooked that Melissa’s effort should win her “brown nosing backbencher of the year”.

Now Nikki and Melissa are good mates. Melissa actually responds to “Blondie” in the facebook thread. It is very obviously two mates having a friendly hassle.

Then early this morning on Red Alert Trevor Mallard posted a screenshot of the Facebook thread. It is bloody obvious that it is a friendly exchange. They even have Melissa doing a lol on it.

So far so good. But then someone at NewstalkZB thinks this is somehow a newsworthy story. They actually dispatch a reporter to phone Nikki Kaye up and ask her why she called a colleague a brown noser, and does she think John Key would approve of it.

For fuck’s sake. This was the exact point I was making at the Labour conference. An idiot media outlet thinking that a piece of friendly banter is somehow a news story, let alone some sort of scandal that the Prime Minister might need to be informed about.

The Prime Minister, I am confident to predict, would find the exchange as funny as most people would.

What really annoys me is that the consequences of such media stupidity is to encourage our MPs to become automatons – never showing any personality or humour – playing everything safe, just to avoid a potentially bad media story.

Stuff reports:

Liquor companies lobbied the Government furiously in the weeks before a reform package was announced.

They pressed Justice Minister Simon Power with claims he was being served up biased and flawed recommendations by the Law Commission.

Documents obtained under the Official Information Act show a procession of companies and industry groups wrote directly to Mr Power, but he insists they had no influence over his recommendations to the Cabinet.

On Monday, Mr Power announced changes that will affect bar hours, off-licence trading, liquor advertising and the purchase age. He declared a moratorium on meeting advocates on either side of the debate after the Law Commission tabled its report on alcohol law reform in April.

I’m sorry, but what is the purpose of this story?

The Minister refused to meet with lobbyists from either side. How could criticise him for that? So the story is about the fact is about that some industry groups wrote him a letter? Even worse, they wrote “directly” to him. Well how else do you write? Should they have sent letters to Mrs Smith of Taihape and asked her to pass them onto the Minister?

But that did not stop more than 150 people writing with concerns about liquor and a further six industry groups or companies sending their views.

As people and groups should. In fact it would be unthinkable for such groups to not write to the Minister with their views.

If there is a proposal to regulate the medical profession, would one expect the Medical Association to not offer its views? Of course not. So why is it newsworthy in this case? Because certain lobby groups are trying to push a theme that the “liquor industry” has too much influence. I can only imagine they wish them to be banned from writing letters.

On May 10, Hospitality Association chief executive Bruce Robertson wrote to Mr Power expressing “real concerns with the interpretation of some of the data … and inconsistencies with the [Law] Commission’s advocacy”.

The Law Commission seemed to have chosen data which supported the advocacy of the public health sector, he wrote. Then, on June 14, Mr Robertson wrote to Mr Power with a full commentary on 146 of the Law Commission’s 153 recommendations.

Bruce would be sacked if he did not offer a commentary on the recommendations. That is his job. Again – why is this a new story?

Where are the stories about how Alcohol Action is funded, and the massive amount of lobbying they have done?