Bridges For Everyone
You mean Simon has a few bridges for sale?
Sorry if this gets under your skin, Jeremy, but I am not looking for a conspiracy. I was looking for a reasonable explanation in the questions I asked and which you have ignored.
Perhaps I was thinking more of current affairs, but as st ephen pointed out that was left out of the analysis.
So, do you have any explanation as to why the national media are so Auckland-centric?
My association with the maligned Auckland-based media prompts my replies.....not a lack of sympathy for Christchurch.
Then perhaps you would comment on the information presented in Gerard's post:
Over these three months Christchurch appeared on national screens on average for 33 minutes a week. Aucklanders saw themselves for 659 minutes – twenty times Christchurch’s lot. And this was after we had had an earthquake.
I am disturbed by the apparent discrepancy, and at a loss to see why this has occurred. It's not because of relative population size. Is it because of relative financial clout? Was there something nationally more important happening in Auckland over those 3 months?
In the absence of evidence one way or another, perhaps it is not surprising that people at least consider that possibly the reason is that Auckland-based national media just aren't interested in Christchurch unless there is some controversy.
Now who is touchy? Suppose away ...
I tried to write a reasoned response to your nit-picking post and your supremely patronising response to someone who is living through the Christchurch mess, but words failed me ...
The quiet voice in all this has been outrage within the National Party.
What evidence is there that points to any outrage in the National Party? Matthew Hooton? Others?
There do not appear to be any speaking up. Perhaps we need to assume that they all accept the behaviour. After all it is looking good for winning the election.
Perhaps part of the problem is indicated by the Fairfax papers this morning responding to the Stuff poll. Headlines subtly indicating that people need not get out to vote because, as Tracy Watkins item on the Stuff website states, it is "All over bar the shouting".
We know who is favoured by low turnout, don't we. Don't we?
There couldn't/wouldn't be implicit support for a particular party from the MSM could there?
John Armstrong has written a surprisingly well-balanced piece in today’s Herald.
Somebody must be dosing his feed...
No, No. Someone is too busy claiming "Nothing to see here. Move along" to continue dosing his feed!
I suspect it is Mike Moreu
Has to be, but without the conclusive signature I wondered if he had a new ID. Any idea where his editorial stuff appears now? I believe that the Nelson Mail used to be his home base.
That cartoon did appear in the Nelson Mail where the editorial page normally has a cartoon titled Moreu's View.
It may be of interest that 'red-stickered' is currently being increasingly used in Nelson.