Southerly by David Haywood

Read Post

Southerly: Sign this Petition

114 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Stephen R, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I see it more as a mad scramble by the railway children, through dense bracken and against the clock, to alert the Honeytown Express driver that the Mad Meccano Mob have been tampering with the supports of the upcoming viaduct, bridging the vast chasm of disbelief and ennui.
    A structure already strained by prevailing winds, and non-Euclidean geometry.

    That was a quote from "Five go mad on Mescalin", right?

    Wellington • Since Jul 2009 • 259 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __,

    I don’t give a flying fuck why Dirty Politics was written or when it was released. I care about whether its content is true. None of its allegations have been disproved.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Stephen R,

    lettuce spray...

    That was a quote from “Five go mad on Mescalin”, right?

    Hmmmm, more a collection of childhood cliches (that included) strung into a trope ladder, macrame memes for the masses, 'Mesclun Salad Days', with just a little radish, maybe?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • tussock, in reply to Tinakori,

    the impact appears to have been an unintended one of strengthening the Conservatives and NZ First

    There's always a spike for some random authoritarian "common sense", "listen to the people", "won't someone think of the children" minor parties around election time. There's a bunch of people have a history that makes them distrust both Labour and National intensely and they vote for anyone who's going to make 5% to keep them in check.

    The combined swing from Labour+National to various Minors hovering around around the margin is about 6%. Most of that is "undecided" voters that don't show up in the previous 3 years of polls who finally get a look at who's going to get in and won't be a wasted vote (and also hits one of their pet issues).

    In the past, if a major party looks like they can't win, their vote collapses and goes into the leading minors instead, to drag the other major closer. Labour-Green is probably high enough to avoid that this time. But there's a lot of propaganda about who "can't win".

    Not that the polls will tell you either. The swing from National to Labour on the day, against the polling trends, was 5% last time (about 3% of that moving from National to NZF), and polling this time is even more variable.

    Since Nov 2006 • 607 posts Report Reply

  • stephen walker, in reply to Lilith __,

    i completely agree.

    the fact that the major media outlets are not focusing on investigating the substance of the allegations in the book speaks volumes about how those media organization see their own role in a democratic society. accountability of both the politicians and the media seems to be about nil.

    nagano • Since Nov 2006 • 645 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Lilith __,

    I care about whether its content is true. None of its allegations have been disproved.



    That's very important to remember.

    Also, this from the Guardian about the influence of corporate donations in Oz. Important point: corporate donations swing away from parties that annoy them.

    I suspect that in NZ this is costing Labour a lot of money because they can't govern without The Greens, and a great majority of corporates are not going to pay to have The Greens elected.

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1193 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Lilith __,

    I don’t give a flying fuck why Dirty Politics was written or when it was released

    Nor do I. I just think it's silly to say that the intention was not to try and stop the train wreck that is about to ensue.

    That is may have an ongoing effect might also be nice but given that our MSM appear to have uniformly turned their back on the embarrassing incident (wherein they got their "news" from a scumbag work for one of the major political parties) I suspect that in three years time we will still be mysteriously getting lots of stories in the news that discredit those opposed to National.

    We will still be asking Cunliffe why he is 1 billion out in his number while cheerfully ignoring Key being 1.4 billion out - sigh.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4450 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to tussock,

    Labour-Green is probably high enough to avoid that this time.

    Though relentless First-Past-Post media coverage hides that nicely.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19680 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Public Address gets results. When I looked at this petition last night, it had ~200 signatures. Now it has 1100. They're raised ~$2500 to pay for the ad. Now they've got $4400. Good on you all.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1711 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Wow. In response to queries of NBR, Stephen Franks has posted an astonishing work of sophistrythat seems to add up to “Yeah, we pay Whaleoil to do stuff for our clients – what of it?”

    Apparently, his “free” version is missing some parts of what NBR published, but I’m not sure what they might be because theirs is paywalled.

    EDIT: I gather that the arrangement may have been a contra for legal services, rather than cash transaction.

    Some extracts:

    Negative information – MSM hypocrisy

    You ask about a ‘blog practice of smearing individuals and organisations for commercial consideration’. I set aside for the moment the irony of that characterisation from an employee of a business which (in my opinion quite properly) survives commercially by beating its competitors to publicise for private profit, accounts of scandal, failure, embarrassment, and other dismaying circumstances for individual and organisations. If you are doing your job properly you will frequently be exposing information that the subjects would dearly prefer to remain secret. Your ethics and morality will constantly be attacked (wrongly) by embarrassed or angry targets. Your stories will be incomplete, and sometimes one-sided, however hard you might try to avoid that. We share a common public interest in your prompt publication despite the risks of unfairness even though from the target’s perspective you have no interest other than to sell your services, and your publication. Many targets do not see that as morally legitimate.

    Translation: us paying Slater to run unattributed smears is just the same as your silly “journalism”.

    Negative information vital to the public interest, and the main purpose of freedom of speech

    Fostering engagement in public debate over matters that may affect the reputation (positively or negatively) of people in public life is among the most vital purposes of freedom of expression. Reputation mechanisms are critical to healthy operation of civil society. Without effective and continual testing of reputation including by sincere challenges that may prove to be baseless after full exploration, society would be left to rely for good behaviour sanctions and incentives on constipated official processes. That in turn subordinates society to lawyers and officials (and their political masters).

    The proper boundaries to public discourse are set by defamation law. The fact that modern courts have allowed many of our civil remedies to become hideously expensive and slow, and beyond the reach of most people, does not invalidate the traditional standards set by the courts in more efficient days. Procedural reform of defamation law was a cause I advanced while in Parliament, and since.

    Unless someone sues us, why should we care?

    Our practice

    That said, I cannot recall any occasion when we have been involved in public advocacy designed only to discredit an individual, and we would be loathe to do it, whatever the instructions. I cannot recall us paying for any form of media exposure (including blog) that even someone who might have been on the other side would have properly characterised as vilification of an individual.

    I cannot recall many things.

    Slater’s effectiveness

    As to Mr Slater, we’ve seen his blog as a very effective medium for breaking public interest stories that MSM were not prepared to investigate or run.

    Slater runs anything we pay him to.

    We do not like the bombast or the offensive language that has been disclosed in his private communication, but there are many effective people in all walks of life whose private communication would shock us all were it to be public. The black humour that research shows to be a common coping mechanism for people in stressful occupations like policing, and emergency medicine, and probably journalism, is never meant to see the light of day. That does not mean we favour responding in kind to boastful and vainglorious expression, but we focus on our clients’ reasons for communicating through the medium that reaches the target recipients, not our reaction to the backroom culture.

    We’re very much ignoring all the vile shit that Slater has aired in public and pretending its only about his private correspondence.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22747 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    actually I thought the key word was

    That said, I cannot recall any occasion when we have been involved in public advocacy designed only to discredit an individual, and we would be loathe to do it, whatever the instructions

    which I construe to mean he is not denying discrediting individuals in order to discredit what they are saying, he is only saying they don't discredit people as an end in itself.

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1443 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __,

    Fostering engagement in public debate over matters that may affect the reputation (positively or negatively) of people in public life is among the most vital purposes of freedom of expression.

    We do not like the bombast or the offensive language that has been disclosed in his private communication, but there are many effective people in all walks of life whose private communication would shock us all were it to be public.

    Firstly, ewwww!

    Secondly, the second statement wildly contradicts the first. He can't have it both ways.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • SHG,

    I just assume as a matter of course that all journalists are bottom-feeding amoral News of the World scum until proven otherwise.

    nup • Since Oct 2010 • 77 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Dirty Politics was obviously timed to influence this election and comments otherwise are disingenuous.

    Even if Dirty Politics doesn't alter the outcome much, it's still probably be the beginning of the end for Key & Co. Especially if the guilty parties get nabbed for perverting justice... and if the last of the Whaledumps have dirt on Jason Ede.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5415 posts Report Reply

  • Matt Crawford,

    Stephen Franks.

    I'm actually speechless. What a vile and foul human being.

    Wellington • Since Dec 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Dismal Soyanz, in reply to Russell Brown,

    From a pretty quick look at both versions, I don't think there is anything significant missing from Frank's writing. What is different is that the NBR story was written by Nick Grant and starts off talking about Jordan Williams, who then apparently referred the NBR back to Franks & Ogilvie

    on the basis that the alleged emails appeared to be sent from hos old law firm and involve one of its clients.

    Perhaps most amusing are the comments posted by Jordan Williams arguing about whether he hung up on Nick Grant or not. Poor thing.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2010 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to SHG,

    I just assume as a matter of course that all journalists are bottom-feeding amoral News of the World scum until proven otherwise.

    Um, our gracious PA host excepted, I hope?

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3887 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Lilith __,

    Um, our gracious PA host excepted, I hope?

    You just need to read the blog titled ‘feed’. He once ate a duck from out of a tin.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4304 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to steven crawford,

    But that was from the top of the tin, hence not bottom-feeding.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1886 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand, in reply to Matt Crawford,

    He was spouting off on Jim Mora's The Panel this afternoon but I didn't hear what he had to say as I can't stand him,

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2537 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to steven crawford,

    ...that old canned canard

    He once ate a duck from out of a tin.

    tray mallard or tres malade?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Geoff Lealand,

    lip service...

    He was spouting off ...

    ...the bigot spigot?
    the faucet is strong in this one.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • Josh Petyt,

    Can someone help out this ignorant fool. What does the abbreviation, MSM stand for?

    Japan • Since Apr 2014 • 44 posts Report Reply

  • Dismal Soyanz, in reply to Josh Petyt,

    Wellington • Since Nov 2010 • 310 posts Report Reply

  • Tinakori, in reply to tussock,

    "but for the most part and certainly today and in the near future: being clean, open, and honest, playing the ball and not the player, is a left wing idea for government."

    You must have had no contact with the Labour Governments between 1999-2008 to believe that. Think of Trevor Mallard's heavying of a low level contractor in favour of a future Labour MP, Jim Anderton's veto of the appointment of a comms person in the Ministry of Agriculture because they lived with John Key's press sec and Phil Goff's unilateral release of what was supposed to be a confidential conversation between the leader of the Opposition and a US Sec of State or Dep Sec of State. Then there is the ample evidence supplied by journalists of Helen Clark's leaking of information on a Police commissioner. Or the honey trap for Richard Worth. Then there was the left wing attack blog, the Standard many of whose authors were employed in the Beehive. Those are just the obvious ones. All power to those who attack political trickery but it is more credible when they do so without wearing a political eyepatch.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2013 • 118 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.