Hard News: Dirty Politics
2403 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 37 38 39 40 41 … 97 Newer→ Last
-
Moz, in reply to
What's frankly unfathomable to me is that Australia seems to oscillate between a few significant of high points, Mabo, Keating's Redfern speech and Rudd's apology, and extended periods of indifference or punitive interventions.
The key difference is that almost all the positives are symbolic, but the negatives are practical, hands-on stuff. Keating and Kevin both talked a fine talk then struggled to follow through. Howard, on the other hand, talked about "a few small improvements to the legislation" then sent in the army to make sure that his rules were obeyed to the letter.
The "Foreshore and Seabed" controversy could never happen in Australia, because the whole idea that aboriginal groups can collectively own land has been diverted into "native title", a special type of "title" that doesn't mean what a naive kiwi might assume. Decisions like Mabo sound great to us because we operate in the context of Waitangi where "native land rights" equals owning the land. In Australia, though, "native title" can and must co-exist with pastoral and mining leases on the same land.
So your blackfella, he has his "native title", and that means that if the pastoralist agrees, and the mining company agrees, he can use the land for things that don't interfere with the mining and farming, if he asks first every time. Thing is, if anything is damaged while he's on "his" land, he's liable for that. And sure, if the mining company "accidentally" bulldozes a sacred site that they've agreed to protect, the court might find that they have to pay compensation. But that means the blackfella has to take them to court first, and that's expensive. And if the blackfella loses, he has to pay costs, and mining company QC's are not cheap. But still, legally there's a degree of equality.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Wasn't my idea.
Steven? -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I don’t read Craig quite so clean. Steve, ask Craig if he votes National every election.
Oh, let's just cut out the middle man and go straight to the source. I turned 18 in 1990, so I've voted in two FPP and six MMP elections. Twelve out of fourteen times I've party voted National and/or for National Party candidates. (I cast no party vote in 1996, and you should have no problem guessing why if I say I was living in Wellington Central at the time.) Getting into TMI land, I've been a financial member of National for twenty two years and was an office holder in the Wellington/LNI Young Nats for a period in the 90's, before I turned into an old fogey.
Last time I looked, none of that has precluded me from criticizing National when I think it's warranted.
In two and a half weeks, I'm perfectly happy voting for Maggie Barry's re-election as my constituency MP. My party vote -- well that's for me to decide on the 20th, and you to never find out because it might (note I say might) offend your delicate sense of smell. The secret ballot is a much under-rated preserver of the public peace, don't you think?
-
Whaledump Update:
Today’s target is Katherine Rich[edit] seems to be more about Carrick Graham than Katherine Rich, who seems tangential to the emails, though implicated.
-
Sacha, in reply to
not if she is convicted..
-
nzlemming, in reply to
not if she is convicted..
Not going to happen before the election, though, so she'll still slide in on the list even if her electorate revolts.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
My party vote – well that’s for me to decide
Thanks Craig. This line of questioning makes me queasy. I'm likely as anyone to call you on fact, interpretation or opinion. But the idea anyone's voting choice needs to be 'outed' (why? to 'validate' or 'invalidate' their opinions and ideas? think about how that plays!) is ghastly.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Entirely agreed. I can calibrate the views expressed here without people declaring their voting record.
-
Paul & Rob:
You're too kind, but while we have the benefit of the secret ballot I don't actually find my voting history some disgraceful secret or that it compels me to never criticize anyone on the right. Anyone who has known me longer than thirty seconds should know how absurd that is.
That said, if the National Party, or anyone else, wants my services as a spin thing they better bring the cheque book and an acceptable disclosure statement. Because I've been called many many things in my life, but a downlow queen isn't one of them. Right, wrong, or a couple of crackers short of a full cheeseboard I speak entirely on my own account and I do at least try to extend others the same presumption.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Whaledump Update:
Today’s target is Katherine Rich
[edit] seems to be more about Carrick Graham than Katherine Rich, who seems tangential to the emails, though implicated.Reading the Stuff item on this, Graham and Simich and Brewer sound like the kind of dickheads who never quite managed to leave student politics behind... sadly, there appears to be a market for undergraduate petty conspiracy.
-
stephen clover, in reply to
I cast no party vote in 1996, and you should have no problem guessing why if I say I was living in Wellington Central at the time.
Hah!... I was just reminiscing with someone about those heady days. Fun times :)
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Hah!... I was just reminiscing with someone about those heady days. Fun times :)
There's always the movie too. A near unique election experience. Poor Mark Thomas, the first ever MMP victim. Pity. Though he wasn't the candidate I wanted to win, he was/is a thoroughly decent bloke who'd have been a good addition to Parliament.
-
Meanwhile, John Bishop - ACToid, PR flack and chairman of the right wing astro-turf taxpayers union is on Mora's show as a panelist, where he gets to sound off with right wing talking points on politics. The taxpayers union has form in the dirty politics scandal -
“[Jordan Williams] sent [a piece quoting his own NZTU attack on Labour] to Slater, saying, ‘Just emailed you a blog post (assuming you’re no fan of David Clark). I’m happy to do more over the break if you’re wanting them.’ Slater replied, ‘Sure, chuck them thru.’ The post appeared under Cameron Slater’s name a couple of hours later.”
Now, I don't care if John Bishop is on the panel if everyone is up-front about who they are and their politics. But Mora's on-going refusal to do so with his panel guests - in an election campaign no less - is disgraceful, and the sort of nod nod wink wink enabling of sneaky right wing political agendas that ends up with the complicit cooperation with Slater that has got the Herald's journalists into trouble.
Jim Mora seems to think he can get away with business as usual. I hope an incoming government cleans up his shows casual little lies in the general wash up.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
But Mora's on-going refusal to do so with his panel guests - in an election campaign no less - is disgraceful, and the sort of nod nod wink wink enabling of sneaky right wing political agendas that ends up with the complicit cooperation with Slater that has got the Herald's journalists into trouble.
It's rare for RNZ to be accused of being right-wing... However, doesn't Scott Yorke regularly appear on this show too? He's open about his political persuasions.
-
Rob S, in reply to
Graham and Simich and Brewer sound like the kind of dickheads who never quite managed
Add Slater and Odgers too.
My presumption that these children of Tory Grandees seem to be lacking in the ability to earn an honest living.
Perhaps the parents could go back to whatever value based school they sent them to and ask for a refund or remedial morality lessons. Not a good recommendation for nepotism.
Where's Mr Ede, enquiring minds want to know. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Where’s Mr Ede, enquiring minds want to know.
Hiding in John Keys closet.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Jason and the AggroNaughts
Where’s Mr Ede, enquiring minds want to know.
He's on a quest,
or maybe as Tom Waits puts it:
... and someone will head south
until this whole thing cools off... -
stephen clover, in reply to
However, doesn’t Scott Yorke regularly appear on this show too? He’s open about his political persuasions.
(a) Martyn Bradbury -- for criticising the PM -- was shown the door years ago and not invited back. Also (b) look, to balance having Bishop and Williams (not to mention Boag, McLaughlan, Farrar, Hooton, Franks et al) on with the frequency that they appear you'd have to have regular appearances from the leadership of the local branch of the Communist party!
tl;dr Mora is a disgrace.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
tl;dr Mora is a disgrace.
Word.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Jason and the AggroNaughts
FIFY
JK and the Agro Noughts
All wind and fury with little substance, or policy. -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I hope an incoming government cleans up his shows casual little lies in the general wash up.
I hope an incoming government wouldn't be so stupid as to engage in blatant political utu that compromises the basic editorial independence of public broadcasters, no matter how entertaining (and richly deserved) the resulting shit storm would be. Politicians have the same recourse as everyone else to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. If they don't like it, they should at least try to change the relevant legislation.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
The last Hurrah of the Golden Fleecers!
All wind and fury with little substance
...lured by the Sirens of the TPPA
on to the rocks of dissolution! -
It’s rare for RNZ to be accused of being right-wing…
That isn't really my point. Rather, that Jim Mora allows people with hidden agendas to appear on his panel as if they are disinterested observers, and his little lies on this matter has turned out to be the thin of the wedge in what has become a general decline in ethical standards in the media. From failing to acknowledge John Bishop as a hard right activist it is a ethically lazy short step to using Farrar and Slater as a news source, and we now know that leads directly to collusion and collaboration with National's two tier PR agenda.
-
I hope an incoming government wouldn’t be so stupid as to engage in blatant political utu that compromises the basic editorial independence of public broadcasters
Graham Bell frequently appears on the panel, and is introduced as what he is – a retired ex-police detective who hosted a popular crime reality TV show. As it turns out, Graham Bell has views you’d largely expect an aging white male ex-cop to have. I have no problem with that, his cards are on the table and knowing what I know of his background, I find some of what he has to say the wisdom of age and experience, some of it the prejudice of age and experience and some of it born from pure Pakeha social conservatism.
John Bishop is a neo-liberal (ex?)ACT party member, a PR flack and chairman of the astro-turf taxpayers union. As it turns out, he has views you’d largely expect from an aging white male right winger. I would have no problem with that, if his cards were also on the table.
I don’t regard it as “utu” to expect high standards of transparency and disclosure from our public broadcaster. I don't think it is "utu" for an experienced public broadcaster like Jim Mora to be reminded of his obligation to ensure his listeners are in full possession of relevant information regarding those offering opinions on his panel, particularly when they are currently active in a high profile right wing ginger group like the Taxpayers Union and we are in an election campaign. If Jim Mora doesn’t like being reminded of these common sense and basic ethical standards for a brodcaster, I am sure he can find a slot for himself on ZB or Radio Live.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
I don’t regard it as “utu” to expect high standards of transparency and disclosure from our public broadcaster.
Totally. Disclosure of people's interest in a matter is basic journalism. A key tactic for getting a message out is to invent organisations that sound impartial, and then start spewing out press releases. The Maxim Institute for example, called itself 'a social policy thinktank'. This was uncritically echoed by our media when they reported on the press releases and interviewed Maxim people.
In truth it was a christianist organisation espousing old testament religious values combined with neoliberal economics. It was bad faith for them to pretend otherwise (and they got what they deserved.)
The Taxpayers 'Union' is the same. It's a far-right National/Act propaganda unit/ginger group. More bad faith, from a bunch whose bad faith has been amply demonstrated.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.