When Frank Haden used to edit and write for publications I worked on I'd often quiz him on his Sunday Star Times columns. He was a nice man and could tackle topics like the launch of Kiwibank in a positive style and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill with no obvious bias. As an editor occasionally I was often surprised at how closely he'd followed a brief.
He explained that his role as an SST columnist was to report with a hard-edged non-PC bias - a brief he more than fulfilled. His KPI seemed to centre around the number of letters to the editor received following publication.
Hosking isn't a shadow to this great news-man, patron of the Press Club and editor of the Dominion Post among others. Frank would have been uncomfortable airing his views 65-hours-a-week. Thank goodness he never got that opportunity but, if he had, the result would have been much more eloquent and engaging than any prose Hosking ever summoned. Hosking writes multiple published short-length "journals" - doesn't that make him a journalist?
The main prime-time TV current affairs analysis programme showing on the government-owned TV network should report for the people, not the government.
For years I could change channels between CloseUp and Campbell Live and see them running exactly the same stories. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that this situation changed and Campbell Live focused on stories the government would be less happy with. And we all know how that ended.
The main unbroken story currently is as follows - and who do you think is actually investigating it? There seems nowhere left on the spectrum beyond Bryan Bruce or internet-only media now Maori TV has also been saddled with government-friendly managers who respond immediately to the Minister when asked to dump stories.
What is Mike Sabin charged with? Did the PM really know of the allegations in June, yet allowed him to stand in an August election, costing millions in the subsequent by-election when he was charged?
This is the big story that will affect the next election - but you'd never hear it mentioned anywhere for fear of breaking the law. Background should still be given to it.
The ozone layer depletion was also greeted with much scepticism from many quarters, until we all started suffering from extreme sunburn.
Opus were originally the Consultancy Division of the Ministry of Works. Since working of the Local Authority Engineering magazine in 1987, then NZ Local Government magazine in the early 90's and the Assn of Consulting Enginers of NZ media in the late 90's, I can confirm that most of our rates head overseas, whereas BITD these companies were owned by kiwis balancing whether succession to family was possible or whether immediate gains should be taken. The latter won and future generations and we lost.
Did anyone else notice John Key's dog-whistle on Q+A when he said that under the TPPA we'd have no power to ban foreigners from buying NZ property, but that was okay because China isn't a signatory to the agreement? He seems to think that if most of our land is owned by non-Chinese foreigners, that would be fine. The financial colonisation of our country is the logical conclusion if we sign the TPPA - but apparently that's fine. The Chinese will still have to apply for a rubber stamp from the Overseas Investment Commission.
As per my previous post we have reason to distrust the motivations and actions of many foreign governments and their backers.
The fact is that the Chinese government's appalling human rights record can only engender distrust among citizens of a free country. I don't blame those who want to leave but there is no way that anyone that backs regimes like this should be allowed to buy land here. If they buy enough of our land they will assert themselves politically, as the Chinese business leaders put pressure on Bill English on his visit this week. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/21/human-rights-lawyers-china-missing-clampdown
And I should have pre-faced all of the above with, in my experience as a tenant. I have forged friendships with people from almost every country on the planet, but it doesn't mean I would trust their governments. At all.
The facts driving this conversation include our distrust of the human-rights-abusing Chinese government and the inability to buy Chinese property. China is ruled by a capitalist autocratic dictatorship, as is the USA ruled by a similarly corporation-ruled political duopoly. Our problem stems from the fact many of us distrust these countries’ political leanings. 20,000 locals murdered by the state last year in China’s case and more people imprisoned on the planet per capita in America’s, for example. Why would someone who believes in Chinese cultural supremacy treat us any different than Tibet? Who would trust someone who sincerely believes in the authoritarian actions of the Chinese government to be an empathetic absent-landlord neighbour? You watch Fox News and live in Texas but somehow I can trust you to step up when needed?
And let’s not go there about the Aussies, a few of whom are related to me. Did you see the anti and pro-racism debates that played out as riots today? Your new landlord could be either flavour, but it is quite likely that your Aussie landlord is a racist. That is the disconnect. Foreign landlords who don’t live here judge tenants within foreign parameters. There is a problem. My next landlord could be Donald Trump. I imagine he wouldn’t care about our property or understand our situation as well as even a John Key-fan would. They’d have a lot in common, but at least there’s a chance the kiwi landlord would be embarrassed if you pointed this out. Btw I haven’t mentioned the poms, because the Queen officially owns the country anyway, because no NZ government has had the balls to secede. UK landlords are born-to-rule.
There is an issue.
This story replicates my experience dealing with foreign owners who are non-resident as a tenant. No interest. No recourse. http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/70288726/Flood-victim-picks-up-pieces-after-hard-night