Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Never mind the quality ...

329 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 7 8 9 10 11 14 Newer→ Last

  • CJM, in reply to nzlemming,

    5 minutes and 51 seconds in should spare you Jim and clarify Susi's position...

    Auckland • Since Aug 2014 • 107 posts Report Reply

  • Pete George, in reply to SteveH,

    I don’t think the idea that “everyone is doing it” is valid – if it is then please provide some examples from the left

    Phil Goff has revived his history of leaking and using people in his office to leak to leak to try and damage opponents and lying about it.

    Not as bad as Whale Oil but not dissimilar to some of the things Slater and National are accused of.

    Helen Clark was a well known leaker, even using this to dump on her own MPs.

    See http://www.radiolive.co.nz/My-story-about-the-real-Dirty-Politics/tabid/506/articleID/52158/Default.aspx

    And Garner has posted today:

    Voters are looking for something else to talk about. I’ve been in David Cunliffe’s electorate today. So many voters told me they think all politics is dirty and all politicians don’t tell the truth. A number of people told me they don’t care for the Dirty Politics book or care for dirt at all. They are sick of it.

    Many and probably most people just see all parties and politicians generally as dirty players and liars. The degree of dirt and the number of lies matters little to them.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2011 • 139 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to CJM,

    5 minutes and 51 seconds in should spare you Jim and clarify Susi’s position…

    My ears thank you.

    [edit] That's enough. Susi, you're too glib for your own good. If Hager was a "grassy knoll conspiracist", he would have been taken to court every time he's published and would have lost massively. He hasn't been. You, madam, are guilty of the same smear tactics as John Key. If that's the sort of rubbish RNZ have hired you on for, then my decision not to listen is more than justified.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2891 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Pete George,

    Many and probably most people just see all parties and politicians generally as dirty players and liars. The degree of dirt and the number of lies matters little to them.

    And that doesn't worry you? Fine. That makes you part of the problem.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2071 posts Report Reply

  • Angela Hart, in reply to Pete George,

    Many and probably most people just see all parties and politicians generally as dirty players and liars. The degree of dirt and the number of lies matters little to them.

    What? Speak for yourself. Without integrity and honesty in politics we don't have democracy. I for one do not want NZ to be democratic in name only, like the U.S. Heaven help us all if we can't arrest this slide and prevent the greed/power driven manipulation.

    Christchurch • Since Apr 2014 • 614 posts Report Reply

  • SteveH, in reply to Pete George,

    Phil Goff has revived his history of leaking and using people in his office to leak to leak to try and damage opponents and lying about it.

    Not as bad as Whale Oil but not dissimilar to some of the things Slater and National are accused of.

    Helen Clark was a well known leaker, even using this to dump on her own MPs.

    I'm not talking about leaking politically relevant material. I'm talking about publication of personal information and personal attacks. You can argue the degree doesn't matter, I can assure you that it matters to some people (I'm one).

    Since Sep 2009 • 444 posts Report Reply

  • Dismal Soyanz, in reply to Angela Hart,

    +1

    Wellington • Since Nov 2010 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Susi Maclean,

    Please don’t read any more into my perspective than that. I supposed I could be flattered that people would think I have that close a connection to ctrl govt. Plain truth, I don’t. My life is a heck of a lot simpler and cleaner than all that muck, thank God.

    or not

    Whether it’s a full on political advocacy campaign or a government relations strategy for an organisation, lobbying or engaging across Parliament – strategic government relations is a speciality we know and are really good at.

    Glass Tower moved determinedly into the government relations space after running the successful political advocacy campaign for the New Zealand Principals’ Federation.

    Developing and implementing political advocacy campaigns in contentious policy areas, particularly with member organisations or not for profits, is our particular forte.

    We also have significant experience in strategic government engagement strategies for CEOs or senior executive members new to organisations or a particular sector.

    Whatever we do in the political sphere, we always work with experienced government relations consultants and political junkies to help you understand and speak the language.

    Don't make the mistake of thinking we're stupid. We're not, regardless which end of the political spectrum we come from, and we have little respect for those who think that we are. (That's a royal 'we', folks, based on experience here, not on presuming the right to speak for anyone else).

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2891 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to nzlemming,

    (That’s a royal ‘we’, folks, based on experience here, not on presuming the right to speak for anyone else).

    Still waiting for the obvious 'trickle down' joke, Sacha...

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2891 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    That’s just lazy rubbish. Two of the three are serial professional liars while the third is an internationally-respected investigative journalist who has never had a single fact in any of his books successfully challenged.

    Why else do you think people like the PM go straight to personal attacks on Hager (which when repeated often enough may result in people who do not do their homework forming an impression of a ‘controversial reputation’, exactly as intended)? You’ve been cheated.

    +1

    (That’s a royal ‘we’, folks, based on experience here, not on presuming the right to speak for anyone else).

    I'm ok with that. I agree with everyone on this page except Pete George's waffle.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Pete George, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    And that doesn’t worry you? Fine. That makes you part of the problem.

    Don't answer your own question for me.

    It's obviously a problem that more and more people get turned off by dirty politics. That's why I try to address the problems across the board, not selecting one side or the other.

    Most parties are relatively clean, coincidentally (or not) Greens, Conservatives, Maori Party, ACT and UF all increased in today's NZH poll.

    National, Labour and NZ First all have histories of running dirty, smearing, lying campaigns. Being selective about who is worse or not diverts from the issue - they all need to be challenged to leave last century politics behind.

    It's very disappointing Key hasn't stepped up and condemned what has come out over the past couple of weeks.

    It appears that Cunliffe and Labour are trying to rise above it with their Vote Positive approach, as long as they walk the walk. It doesn't help when Goff stirs up historical dirty stuff when his own hands aren't clean, and Grant Robertson can't help dabbling still either, he learnt too much from working with Helen Clark.

    I don't think Peters will change but probably won't last much longer.

    How about building a campaign to pressure all parties and MPs to improve behaviour? I know many MPs hate the current levels of dirt and disrespect but obviously have difficulty confronting and containing the entrenched habits of a few.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2011 • 139 posts Report Reply

  • Pete George, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    while the third is an internationally-respected investigative journalist.

    Yes Hager is "an internationally-respected investigative journalist" to some degree. There's a number of claims this is not his best work by a long shot. He doesn't seem to have checked out any of his claims with those he has effectively accused, not a good practice for a supposed journalist.

    who has never had a single fact in any of his books successfully challenged.

    Really? Hager admitted he got the moving prisoner claim wrong in his current book and that he shouldn't have included it. That caused a flurry of accusations for a day or two.

    Mostly he has just quoted selected parts of conversations with insinuations - that's a common form of dirty politics where it's difficult for those targeted to prove they haven't done something.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2011 • 139 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Pete George,

    Hager admitted he got the moving prisoner claim wrong in his current book and that he shouldn’t have included it.

    Got a link?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    I now know why John Key smiles a lot. He smiles when he is lying.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    we always work .... and political junkies

    Whoever gave you that buzzword should have explained that they didn't literally mean drug-dependent sociopaths?

    (see also "helicopter view")

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    I keep saying he reads like every marketting guy I ever worked with which means you can easily tell when he's lying ... it's when he opens his mouth

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2575 posts Report Reply

  • linger,

    What Hager actually said was that he initially believed the prisoner moving instruction came from <str>Bennett</str>Collins, but the evidence didn’t positively support it, and so he dropped it from the main text, but left the supposition – marked as a supposition, not as a factual claim – in a footnote.
    This all sounds absolutely in keeping with standards of academic writing.
    But can somebody with the actual book confirm the actual wording?

    ETA: Collins. (Ta nzlemming.)

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1790 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Pete George,

    He doesn't seem to have checked out any of his claims with those he has effectively accused, not a good practice for a supposed journalist.

    It would have been injuncted as soon as any of them were told about the book. Don't be a fool.

    to some degree

    beige

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19481 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to linger,

    that's precisely how he described it on Media Take.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19481 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to linger,

    What Hager actually said was that he initially believed the prisoner moving instruction came from Bennett

    Collins, but otherwise correct.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2891 posts Report Reply

  • SteveH, in reply to linger,

    What Hager actually said was that he initially believed the prisoner moving instruction came from Bennett, but the evidence didn’t positively support it, and so he dropped it from the main text, but left the supposition – marked as a supposition, not as a factual claim – in a footnote.

    Wasn't it was Collins he initially thought was responsible? Has anything come to light about who did get the prisoner transferred?

    Since Sep 2009 • 444 posts Report Reply

  • chinashop, in reply to linger,

    The books says:

    in this period when Collins was also minister of corrections, [Slater] appears to have used a prison officer in the department to move a prisoner between prisons on his instructions.

    (That's in the text in chapter 4, not the footnote.)

    Wellington • Since Aug 2014 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Pete George,

    Rodney Hide has emphatically disputed what Hager said about him being blackmailed.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/election-2014/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503581&objectid=11309981

    David Farrar has just posted:

    I was not the organiser of the party, and was not a party to the conversation. Yet Hager published this as fact. It is reasonably defamatory as various people have smeared me over it.

    Now this e-mail is presumably why Hager thought I was the organiser. But he gets it totally wrong. They are laughing at the fact that someone thinks I am the organiser. This is the problem where you write a book on stolen e-mails, and don’t verify, fact check, or interview a single person for it.

    If Mr Hager is doing reprints of his book, I would appreciate it if he could make the appropriate corrections.

    And perhaps this is a lesson to everyone out there, not to take everything in the book at face value. If he has got this wrong, what else has he got wrong? Again this is what happens when you don’t verify anything or give people a chance to respond.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/08/how_hager_got_it_wrong_on_the_princess_party.html

    There are a number of insinuations that are not based on facts.

    A journalist would do their job thoroughly and factually enough that they wouldn't be concerned about injunctions.

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2011 • 139 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Pete George,

    Mostly he has just quoted selected parts of conversations with insinuations

    What exactly are you insinuating?

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1790 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Pete George,

    Sorry if I've missed it Pete, but have you at any point devoted any of your unending outrage towards the actual hideous content of that rape conversation? Or expressed sympathy for the young women being targeted by these creeps?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22403 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 7 8 9 10 11 14 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.