Public Address - Cracker (Home)

Mr Transparent | Aug 05, 2008 18:14

I don't know what I find more ironic: National's big push to the future essentially being Think Big 2.0, or Helen Clark referring to someone else as 'Muldoonist'?

By appointing a Minister of Infrastructure, and spending (and borrowing) billions to spend on such projects, is there really any other way to look at Key's announcements from the weekend's party conference? And is it possible anyone other than a New Zealand First supporter would fall for the ridiculous semantics found within National's "we're not borrowing for tax cuts, we're borrowing for other stuff" line?

Speaking of Winston Peters, the attacks continue, within the House at least, and with the privileges committee (does anyone else get sick of the media always requiring the subtitle the most powerful committee in Parliament?) deciding to 'probe' Peters.

They say Winston only wakes up every three years and I'm wondering if at the moment he wishes he was still in hibernation? Sure, he's continuing to deflect the attacks, using his "best defence is a good offence" adage, but I wonder whether it's starting to sound even more hollow than it always has? Last week in the House he tried to deflect Rodney Hide's attacks by claiming Hide had been telling people he had a girlfriend, when really that wasn't true.

Even if this were the case, then Rodney's guilty of something most 15 year old boys have done at some stage in their life ("Yes I've got a girlfriend, dick, it's just that um, you haven't met her because she, um, lives in Hamilton. Yes, we've had it off and everything. What's that? Nah she doesn't have a phone eh…") What Winston is being accused of seems a lot more serious. Maybe not against the law either, but for someone who's been campaigning on a platform of transparency, Winston's denials are looking increasingly see-through.

On the other hand, for the old and/or afflicted, simply seeing Winston on the television every night these days, grinning and accusing the media of their usual tricks could be exactly what he wants. These people don't listen to substance.

I remember years ago, proudly showing my grandmother (old, not necessarily afflicted) the cover of a magazine for whom I was writing. We'd slammed Winston on the front cover, a bold headline accusing him of selling his soul to Satan, or perhaps being Satan, or something. She looked at it longingly and said "there's my Winston."

And it's not just the OAP's either. Both a close relative and a former girlfriend (these are two separate people, you understand) told me they voted for Winston last election, "because someone needs to keep them honest." My response remains, "what, by comparison?"

Winston's dishonesty might not be the big kind, the kind that will get him in trouble with the law, or turfed out of Parliament. It might not be the kind that will see him censured, made to repay money he shouldn't have taken. But, in my honest opinion, he's dishonest every day. Every day he opens his mouth to deny saying something previously. To deny having done something. To fail to take responsibility for years of casting incendiary statements into a crowd, and walking away.

I'm sure most of you agree. I just wish my Nan would.

On a related note, I went around polling people on the street for work today, asking whether if, as the Nats have suggested, there's a binding referendum on MMP, we should dump it. I'm not claiming statistical accuracy here – it was the first dozen or so people who agreed to speak to me on camera outside the West Lynn shops (that's Harvest Wholefoods and so on, so I'd have thought a liberal bias), but 70% said yeah, let's kick it to the curb.

"It was better the way it was before", said one man who didn't seem old enough to have ever voted under FPP, and I wonder what it is people are yearning for, according to my shite science at least? A move away from the farce of having people like Peters and Dunne being Ministers outside of the Government. A move back to the good old days of unbridled power, supposedly benevolent dictatorships and one party running the country, unchallenged, with only thirty-odd percent of the vote?

There's obviously some mood for change, otherwise I can't see why the Nats would offer a binding referendum, but has MMP failed us? We've had stable minority governments, cross-party support on a wide range of issues, parties outside of Government being able to negotiate their policies onto the table. Isn't that sort of what we want in a democracy? Or is it just a bit too hard? Or, is it more a case of –as one middle-aged, seemingly-educated woman put it– "what's MMP?"

In other news, a big Metro piece (the longest I've ever written for non academic purposes, some 4700 words) on nzherald.co.nz and its trials, tribulations and developments over the years has just gone off sale and onto the archive site if you've got some time on your hands.

The current on-sale issue of Metro ("Auckland's Best Lawyers") also has a piece of mine, an interview with, ahem, Labour's next leader, Phil Goff. Go and buy it and keep me in the manner to which I'm accustomed.

(46 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

How about You You You? | Jul 25, 2008 09:44

Has anyone else started to worry about what we're going to call the next decade? I know it's a couple of years away yet but can we get in early with the suggestions please? I don't want another 'noughties' debacle. 'Teens' works for me, although it's not entirely accurate until 2013. 'Tweens' until then?

Unlike David's daughter, during the school holidays I didn't quite feel my niece Morgan was up for experiencing the joys of an allegedly methamphetamine-addled psycho allegedly cutting up two of his victims and allegedly killing another. (I do need to put in all those allegedly's, right?)

Yes, despite having a sharp mind, and an inquisitive nature, Morgan has only recently turned two, so I figured a trip to the zoo might be more appropriate. I have to admit selfish reasons for the trip – I really wanted to see the look of delight on Morgan's face as she saw these animals for the first time.

"It's lucky you get in for free" I muttered, as she continually failed to be impressed, or in many cases even acknowledge the great lumbering beasts with which she was presented. "Dirt" she noted, pointing at the ground between her and the enormous rhinocerous. "Water!" she exclaimed, staring at the moat separating her from the elephants.

But there were moments that made it all worthwhile. Even though it stubbornly refused to speak (I've heard it do so before), for a few minutes there was nothing funnier in her world than repeatedly yelling "Hello!" at the Macaw. She squealed and clapped with delight each time the sealion glided past the underwater viewing window. The great apes and big cats might not have had any impact, but her constant repetition of the word 'tortoise' suggested that it might have.

My previous trip I had taken my girlfriend, Lisa, and it was her first time too (no, not because she's criminally young or anything). That day was sunny; the lions wandered right up to the glass and posed for photos. The hippos were out and about, rather than just two sets of nostrils floating in the water. The elephants were going for a walk, the orangutan was wandering around looking cute with a blanket on her head, the tigers were being fed. Even the kiwi and tuatara, normally invisible, were practically flinging themselves at the glass.

Lisa is now ruined – she now has a completely unrealistic idea of what zoos are about. My visit before that one (I'm not a zooholic, but I tend to get along every so often) the zoo had been like the Marie Celeste – faux savannahs, miniature rainforests, cages, enclosures, but barely an animal in sight. Not even a giraffe, and those fuckers must be hard to hide.

Something to note. The News Wrap, which I do each week for BackBenches (on TVNZ7, before Russell's show, you know the one) is now available online each week. Check it out.

(43 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

I don't just read the newspaper. I get it. | Jul 08, 2008 21:30

...Usually down at the dairy, although sometimes I nick one from work. Actually often I don't read it, I just get it. Then I leave it on the table, unopened, and throw it away a couple of days later. Into the recycling bin, natch.

The lads at Pulp Sport obviously find the new TV3 news promos (sorry can't find a link to those) a bit naff too, and have put together these parodies, which I like.

I'm not being partisan here, I find most news promos a bit naff. Usually because they're created by marketing and advertising people, and require reporters, presenters and journalists to do things they don't normally do. Running alongside a tank in Pukekohe, pretending it's the Gaza strip; a high-profile presenter going to cover certain stories because an upcoming promo is scheduled and the footage is needed. Or, in one of the more ridiculous tales I've heard, an ad agency using a production crew of about twenty people (focus puller, DOP, director, clapper loader and so forth) to show presenters doing natural-looking vox pops, which are done all day, every day in the real world, by a reporter and a single camera op.

It's just not real.

But we kinda know that about advertising don't we? Even if the thing that's being advertised is the news?

As a result I've been a bit surprised by the amount of chatter not just on the blogs (including a big discussion over at Spareroom) , but stories on telly and everything, about Telecom's new McCallum & Partners ad.

Maybe I lost all my principles somewhere between being a lawyer and a journalist, but I can't quite get worked up about an advert creating a fictional company (or in this case, a partnership).

Adverts are, by definition, fake, aren't they? Otherwise they'd be short documentaries and no-one would buy anything. Beer just isn't that much fun, nor are cars, shampoo, cereal or chocolate bars. Imagine if ads certainly used real people telling the truth:

Scene: Local dairy.

Woman: I'd like a Mars Bar please.

Dairy owner: That will be $1.80 thank you.

Woman: (eating bar) Mmm. That was quite tasty, although now I feel a little sick.

I don't think this 'fake ads' scandal is entirely new, either.

Thinking back as far as my little memory will allow, there was a guy allegedly called Brucie, who probably wasn't. Vince Martin has never really worked at Beaurepaires, not in any sense that he needs to turn up in that uniform. That Fernleaf Butter family that had everyone entranced in the early 90s? Fake. Those two Mainland Cheese old guys don't make cheese. In fact, I'm pretty sure even Ches and Dale didn't use their real names.

Even just a month ago, the brain-damaged woman in the LTSA ads simply turns out to be Australian…

So why is McCallum & Partners coming in for such criticism? Because it's Telecom? Because its AmCam feel means some people were fooled into thinking it was real, then were annoyed to find out it wasn't? Does it matter?

If there's any reason to be disappointed, it should be because Saatchi & Saatchi simply ripped off a good internet viral video of real people doing this for real, and charged Telecom a shitload to remake it for them. But that's hardly unique in advertising either, those NZI ads ironically entitled "someone's always stealing your stuff" always seemed to me to be ripped from the 42 Below virals.

Anyway, fake or not, it's still done in one take, with a whole lot of locals (I recognise at least three people in that ad, and they're not actors, dancers or otherwise gifted with abilities that would make them more able to perform such a feat than an ordinary worker at say, McCallum & Partners), it's got a catchy tune courtesy of Elemeno P, and it's a bit of fun, isn't it?

Or maybe I don't actually get it.

(131 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!