Kiwiblog

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?

My God. One News had a segment yesterday in the 6 pm bulletin on the Australian election, and they decided to explain how the system worked. What a pity they got it so wrong. Simon Dallow, who fronted it, should send an angry-gram to whomever produced that item.

They correctly described the House of Representatives as having 150 seats, and you need 76 to form a Government.

But then Simon went on to say Australia uses the Single Transferable Vote, or STV, electoral system. No, they don’t – well not for the House of Representatives which the item was on.

They use the preferential voting (often called Alternative Vote) system.

Even worse Simon went on to say they get two votes, and showed a mock ballot paper.

That has no resemblance to an Australian ballot paper.

This sample ballot, taken from Wikipedia, shows that you rank the candidates in order. You do not tick them, there is no second column.

This is basic stuff. Someone at TVNZ should have checked the story.

I am curious as to why the media think it is their job to try and help Winston Peters back into Parliament, just because it means that they get more interesting stories.

What I mean, is the media overkill that reports almost every utterance from Winston. Every speech to a room of oldies or students results in stories. An off the cuff comment about how he is not ruling out Helensville gets reported breathlessly on TV as a major story. Hello – what is news worthy about a guy who had a 30 year old beat him by 10,000 votes in his own former seat, speculate he may stand in a seat where the majority is 20,000 and he would be lucky to get his deposit back.

I do not advocate that the media should never report Winston. Of course not. If there is genuine judgement that something significant is said, they should consider it on the merits. But they give Winston free publicity massively in excess of what they give any other politician in his situation. I suspect they give him more publicity for one of his speeches to Grey Power, than they do to the Leaders of parties in Parliament such as the Maori Party.

On the average of the last polls by the three main public pollsters, NZ First is at 1.9% average. So he leads a party that is polling at under 2%, and got 4% at the last election.

I’ve tried to think of other party leaders in such situations, to compare the massively publicity Peters gets, against what they got. Perhaps a comparison could be the Alliance post 2002. But to be fair they only got 1.3% in the 2002 election.

The best comparison is the Christian Coalition post 1996. In 1996 they got 4.3% – a bit more than Winston’s 4.1% in 2008. So one would expect Winston to get as much coverage as they gave Graham Capill when he made a speech or press release, in 1997.

The Herald has a story from the UK Independent:

Earlier this month Oxfordshire council switched off every speed camera in the county and, judging by their speeds and the fanfare which accompanied the news, the drivers know it.

What they did not know, however, is that the film was left inside two of the speed cameras for a five-day test period. During that time the cameras secretly recorded the speed of passing cars.

And, while the drivers will face no prosecution, the results of the experiment proved what road safety groups feared: with the Gatso cameras out of action, drivers simply ignored the speed limit.

On Woodstock Road, 110 drivers were caught travelling at more than 35mph along the 30mph road in the five-day test period. That’s 18 per cent more than the number of drivers who used to be caught speeding in an average week.

It is a law-breaking trend which, owing to Government budget cuts, could soon be replicated across the country. And it is a situation which has provoked anger from road safety groups and senior police officers who say lives are being put at risk.

Sounds awful doesn’t it. Life without speed cameras. But let us look at what the numbers mean. The 110 drivers speeding was 18% more than normal. SO normal is 93 drivers speeding. That means over five days 17 more drivers sped, or basically three drivers a day – one every three hours.

Now we don’t know how many cars drive down Woodstock Road, so we can’t work out what the prevalence of speeding was, but let us assume a car every 30 seconds, which is around 1,000 cars during the working day.

With speed cameras there were 19 cars speeding, which is a 1.9% prevalance rate. Now it is a 2.2% rate. So the speed cameras slow down say three cars in 1,000.

So hardly the disaster the Independent reports – whose reporter obviously didn’t think to apply a critical eye to the claims of lobby groups.

Note I am not necessarily saying it was a good idea to turn speed cameras off. I am just pointing out that the effect has been minor.

The Herald reports:

Police Minister Judith Collins has urged Gisborne police and media to sit down and work out a solution to a dispute in over local law enforcement’s decision to stop giving reporters details of crimes in the area.

Media groups have criticised a move to restrict information on crime available to journalists and the public in Gisborne,

But police boss Inspector Sam Aberahama says the move is intended to make the community feel safer.

So Inspector Plod think his job is to make the community feel safer by concealing news on crime from the news media and the public.

Can I make the radical suggestion that the community would feel safer if the Police prevented crime from occurring, rather than merely preventing the reporting of said crime.

UPDATE: I am informed the original story didn’t cover the salient fact of exactly what change the Police have made. They are still releasing news to the media, they just no longer have a journalist attend their daily staff briefing – a practice that was unique to Gisborne. While I still think the comments of the Inspector are stupid and deserve clobbering, I do think it is reasonable to not have media present at staff meetings.

Note that when I highlight these, it is generally not the journalist who writes the headline.

The headline:

Brash blows fees budget

The substance:

The controversial 2025 Task Force – which recommended slashing government spending – blew its entire three-year budget for chairman Don Brash’s meeting fees in just one year.

Dr Brash was paid $1200 a day to chair the commission, and the Government expected to pay him for eight full days of meetings and preparation in 2009-10 and four days for the following two years.

But documents made public by Treasury show Dr Brash received $39,450 in the first year – four times the amount earmarked for his first year on the taskforce.

Other members, who were paid $1000 a day, received $34,000 – $2000 above the estimated budget for 10 meetings.

The task force came in under budget, however, because it did not spend as much as anticipated on outside experts – out of a $100,000 budget just $18,913 was spent.

Dr Brash said the cost of his fees reflected the fact that he was working “close to fulltime” on the 2025 report. “I certainly worked a lot more than 10 days … working with the author, working through drafts etc.”

So in fact the taskforce under-spent by around $50,000 but that isn’t as good a headline. Neither is a headline about how Don saved the taxpayer money by doing more of the work himself, rather than engaging external parties.

Incidentally an hourly rate of $150 is massively cheap for a former Reserve Bank Governor. Hell junior lawyers get charged out at more than that.

The Dom Post has a headline and lead para of:

PM still backs Aussie plan of asylum seeker centre

Prime Minister John Key is still backing a proposed international detention centre for asylum seekers, despite Australian plans to base it in East Timor being in tatters.

Wow that sounds like the PM has come out strongly in favour of it, even after East Timor said “not here”. So what exactly did  he say:

A spokesman for Mr Key, who was sounded out about the plan in a 10-minute phone call from Ms Gillard while on an official trip to Asia, said he would continue discussions despite the East Timor vote.

“As we said last week, we are happy to have discussions with the Australians on the idea of a regional processing centre, but Mr Key has not spoken further with Julia Gillard on this issue.”

So in fact he said well nothing at all. His spokesperson merely said his position remains he is happy to have discussions, but in fact none have occurred since the initial call.