Posts by simon g
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The Radio Live broadcasters "do not condone" the actions of the Roast Busters. Give me strength.
That's the language of the PR hack when some sports celeb has called the ref a wanker, and been caught on camera. "With the benefit of hindsight ... not well-chosen ... any offence caused" etc.
You "do not condone" silly things people say. Not crimes people commit. That requires a whole different lexicon.
In short, it's all too clear they don't get it.
-
I'm not giving the links (can't afford the lawyers), but this afternoon Radio Live provided a platform for Slater to chuck more dirt at Brown. No affidavits or any evidence or details whatsoever, just - Slater has a blokey yarn with Jackson and Tamihere, having a laugh, make stuff up, no harm done eh lads?
So naturally Radio Live decides this is worth a headline.
News: no longer "man bites dog", just "man says stuff".
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Alan Moore,
“Are there any ethics left in modern politics?”
As opposed to old politics ... when? Can you suggest an era?
There are certainly fewer secrets in modern politics, and overall that's probably a good thing. Judging by the past week, the public seem able to distinguish between sin and crime, between shaking their heads or waving their fists. Despite - or perhaps because of - the media frenzy.
-
In Guyon's response he says:
It's worth noting that Don Brash, Helen Clark and John Key have all done these pieces. In fact former Labour leader Phil Goff was forever trying to tell the public more about his life (his wife, his parents, his sons, his love of motorbikes) in order to humanise him.
Well, yes. Memorable highlights that I'd rather forget include Holmes asking Peter Davis about the couple's sex life, and Don Brash's wife gazing adoringly into his eyes, shortly before leaving him. As for Goff, he finally became "humanised" in the last election campaign, when he showed some passion for politics that seemed sincere, as opposed to the earlier PR stunts that didn't.
Now, I would rather lose several limbs and organs than ever vote for John Key, but one thing he (or maybe Bronagh) gets my grudging respect for is the invisibility of his family. Until his daughter did something racey in Paris (no I haven't seen the pics, they were "Most Popular Topic" on Stuff, which is all the info you need to ignore them) I couldn't have picked her or her brother out in an ID parade, and I'm betting most voters couldn't. We know more about the Obama offspring than the Keys'. Of course Key does heaps of fake-bloke nonsense by himself, but that's him being a dick, not his family being dragged along to bolster his "humanity".
Guyon Espiner has done some good stories on 3rd degree (Ureweras, fracking) but this wasn't one of them.
-
Name of the Year: Kim (from Kardashian to Dotcom via Pyongyang).
Interview Word of the Year: Look ...
New Zealand Word of the Year: Australia
-
OK, apologies in advance for using PA as therapy, but believe me, it's going to save neighbours and colleagues from being collateral damage from my rage (and me from a coronary).
I've just been listening to Brent Edwards on Morning Report telling us about Cunliffe undermining Labour, and the need for unity, etc. He also told us that Cunliffe could make it all go away by issuing a statement to his supporters, calling off his dogs (paraphrase, but in essence correct). There is similar coverage elsewhere.
Now, I suppose by commenting here I immediately become a Cunliffe Henchman, but what the hell. I vote Labour, even last time when I was very unhappy with them, and I desperately want them to be united, and not "undermined".
But for four years I have been "undermined". By Labour. I can instantly recall incidents of ill-discipline and idiocy in media, social or mainstream, by ...
Mallard, Jones, Curran, O'Connor, Fenton, Nash, Sio, Mahuta, and ... well, let's call them the Labour caucus. That took ten seconds to recall. No doubt there are more. I didn't need Google, I just needed to touch my bruised forehead, from years of banging it on the wall, and it's very generous of me to only mention Mallard once. Copy and paste him for a page if you want a truer picture.
Included on that list would be Cunliffe (e.g. his pre-election comments about Judith Collins, though at least he was quick to apologise). But if anybody thinks that Labour's problems stem from Not Being Tough with one particular MP, and that Peace and Unity will prevail once he is gone, they must have spent the last four years in a sensory-deprivation chamber (I wish I had).
And I'm only talking here about blatant failures - never mind basics like the inability to ask a competent follow-up question in Parliament, or issue a press release some time before the publication arrives in the dentist's waiting room. The Greens somehow manage this every week - it must be because they don't have David Cunliffe.
That's just the caucus. The current leader's obvious limitations would turn this comment into one of those e-book thingies.
I know that David v David is today's story, and it's all terribly exciting for journos bored with Home and Away , but can we please get some perspective? Can we dispense with this absurd fantasy that Labour would be doing just fine if David Cunliffe was poet-in-residence at Harvard? And that WE (the dumb voters) only get pissed off at Labour's leadership (leadership?) and rant about them on blogs because DC tells us to?
Let's stipulate that Cunliffe's behaviour was/is a "problem" (in some conveniently unspecified way). Now, how about sorting out the rest of them?
-
Just want to add my thanks and support for Keith and his source. You have done the whole country a huge favour, and I hope that knowledge will sustain you as things turn nasty.
Time to watch Homeland ... taking a break from the unbelievable reality to the more believable fiction.
-
Good discussion. I don't know anything about all these peoplemeters and demographics and that, so I'll just say this:
Like many New Zealanders I have to deal with the jokes from friends overseas (well, they're mostly jokes) about living in the past, "turn your watch back 30 years", etc. And of course I either joke back, or if I'm in the mood, I rant about how outdated and unfair that view is. You know how it goes - mentioning the Conchords is obligatory at some point.
And then, astride my high horse (or moa), I turn to our national broadcaster (you know, the one with those flag-waving, heart-warming promos) and discover ...
Are You Being Served?
and a little piece of New Zealand dies. Sob.
-
I think you showed up a lot of slackness here, both in government and the rest of the media.
Yes. The transcript *was* a story. If the journalists had heard the Prime Minister's actual words, and could confirm that he had not said "conflicts", then the correct response was to report that.
To say (in effect) that the State Dept had made a serious error, and therefore it wasn't a story, would be a failure of journalism. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories ("MSM = Key's PR"!1!!) but I would like to know why the gallery reporters didn't immediately see this as news. Because it clearly was.
-
Official rules for describing unelected activists:
When Sue Bradford or John Minto turn up at a protest, they shall be called "rentamob". Even if no money has been paid to rent anyone.
When Colin Craig pays a lot of money to distribute pamphlets, he shall be called a "party leader". Not "the man who actually did rent a mob to march down Queen St".