Elegant and mellifluous writing Jolisa. Democracy on toast. Now democracy roast, blackened at the edges but rescuable with a sharp knife, a steady hand and a soupcon of Mickey Savagery.
David Slack’s righteous indignation about Farrar, Williams and Franks appearing on The Panel was quite breathtaking. Amazing shit and I would wager he will not be invited back for such clarity and unashamed critique.
This. David Slack now on the Dirty Politics Roll of Honour.
The Snowdon-Greenwald-Assange link-up and the case they were putting forward was astounding. So many layers there to dissect.
The two topics of mass surveillance and Kim DotCom's case never hung together easily. They may have done so if a bridge could have been built between the two. I gained the impression from Greenwald's pre-interviews that he was still working on the reporting after arriving here: maybe he was trying to tie the packages into a coherent whole?
The presentation was flawed and full of holes. I had expected little apart from puffs of smoke and good times.
What I heard was a coherent explanation of how democracy in New Zealand has been systemically undermined by a world-wide intelligence network answerable to no-one but the intelligence and political elites and which abets global corporations in their quest for dominance.
I salute all of them: Greenwald, Snowden, Assange, Amsterdam and especially Kim Dotcom for bringing all this to national -- and international -- prominence.
If not them, who else would have? We owe Kim Dotcom -- in a good way -- for staging the reveal. Yeah he's excitable, and complex, and in some ways dodgy.
And yeah some journalists had a scrap with him at the presser. Get over yourselves, that's part of the job.
What is important is do you follow up all of the issues raised, or do you let Key and his cohort deflect you from helping pull out country out of the cesspit we have slid into?
BTW: Robert Amsterdam's comments about the protections afforded New Zealanders by being part of the Commonwealth (eg Harare) were intriguing. Key has over the last few years increasingly been softening up the electorate with asides about becoming a republic. I will re-examine my ideas on that.
It’s that kind of level of “but nobody really cares” blather that concerns me.
And that is the essence of Dirty Politics.
Yes, I think we’re talking about the wrong thing here. I’d be looking at the undeclared interests of one or two guests on The Panel, or Charles Finny “reviewing” Dirty Politics as a lobbyist clsely connected with the networks the book is about.
Agree: these things are not like the other. When the person pronouncing in public may be perceived as a disinterested commentator if their interest is not declared.
The shows are presented as journalistic examinations of issues. Viewers are entitled to know the participants' interests and leanings, and the effects those may have on the arguments presented. Basic ethical journalism practice.
Q&A should be doing the disclosing - and researching their participants.
[My question was to Sara re her original statement.So that's irrelevant too. ]
Thanks Paul. We can but hope you are correct.
Yet a few minutes ago on Twitter Fran O'Sullivan derides as "purist" someone asking for Q&A panelists' PR posts or interests to be disclosed. A leading business journalist dismissing calls for disclosure of interest. What would she say about the prospect of independent voices being required?
When the ethical rot is so endemic, how can it be excised?
...Nicky Hager was engaging in some post hoc rationalisation on the impact of his unguided missile.
You may be right about Hager. I don't know his motives. I have always read the election somewhat differently to the "Labour is a shoo-in" theory -- NZ First was always going to be a danger and to an extent the Conservatives if they cross over into the born-again-type churches' voters.
Maybe that thinking is because Christchurch is its own bubble with perceptions and conditions unique to the rest of NZ (for example, the jobless rate is below 3%), and a clear pool of disenchanted small-c conservative people looking for an alternative to National and Labour.
However, your comments still summarise the deflection strategy for Dirty Politics nicely.
Governments of whatever hue cannot change attitudes through legislation. That takes far more complex and long-term awareness strategies.
I hold no candles for Labour’s record on climate change, the environment or water.
National plans to gut the RMA and remove protections; Labour does not. End of.
For a country full of supposedly smart agribusiness-people, the stupidity of degrading a profitable brand perception - 100% pure NZ - for short-term corporate-farming gain is unbelievable.
Surely the timing of the release of Nicky Hager’s book …Or is he spinning … His rhetorical gymnastics and holier than thou stance…
All the main lines in one there Tinakori. Nice.
What about the very serious allegations of a Justice Minister undermining the head of an arm of law enforcement – the Serious Fraud Office? What about the subversion of democracy? What about the hounding of people who have different professional or political viewpoints? What about the allegations connecting the Prime Minister’s Office?
That those named in Dirty Politics have not slapped any form of defamation or legal proceedings against the book itself or Hager is the most telling reaction of all. Why not if it is so false?