Archive
When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien
.
.
It had to happen, I guess… The media pack-campaign against Labour Leader David Cunliffe has managed to plumb new depths of absurdity.
On TV3, on 24 July, TV3/Tova O’Brien ran this report on their 6PM News bulletin, about Key’s face appearing – photo-shopped – on the cover of the “Rugby News“;
.
.
The print-version on the TV3 website had this to say on the story;
.
Key nestles in with the All Blacks
.
Political Reporter – Thursday 24 Jul 2014 6:32p.m.
.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has labelled the Prime Minister a poser and an imposter after yet another photo opportunity coup.
First it was tea with the Queen, then golf with United States President Barack Obama – now he’s managed to nestle in with some All Blacks on the cover of the Rugby News magazine.
“Some people will love it and some people will hate it,” says Mr Key.
With the All Blacks almost like royalty in New Zealand it could be seen as an endorsement, and Labour leader David Cunliffe is not impressed.
“I was surprised to see it,” he says. “It’s not often you see a major sporting body getting involved in politics.”
The New Zealand Rugby Union was forewarned by the magazine.
It did nothing but request a small disclaimer that Mr Key leading the pack wearing an All Blacks jersey was not an endorsement – it was photoshopped.
“I think I need to accept that I’d more than likely make it as a mascot than a player,” says Mr Key.
“It’s posing and impostering,” says Mr Peters. “You wouldn’t put an All Black jersey on unless you’re an All Black. He looks like an imposter.”
He did not request the cover, the magazine approached him and it does not breach any electoral laws.
3 News
.
References
TV3: Key nestles in with the All Blacks
Previous related blogposts
Mike Hosking as TVNZ’s moderator for political debates?! WTF?!
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
.
.
The recent non-story on David Cunliffe’s three day holiday should be proof-positive that the mainstream media (msm) is fixated on pumping out as many “bad news” reporting as can be generated by a headline-seeking; advertising-driven; lazy corporate-media system.
We’re all aware that whilst Cunliffe took a three day break (I’m surprised he bothered to come back, instead of telling this country to go get f- – – – – !), our illustrious Dear Leader was off on a ten-day holiday, sunning his pale, $55 million arse, on a Maui beach in Hawaii.
Whilst the media did indeed mention that salient fact (albeit in passing), it was taken as a given that the leader of a party polling 50%-plus in the polls is entitled to a holiday.
Meanwhile, the leader of a mid-twenties-polling (?) Party is – it was hinted – not entitled to any such break.
The subtext was blindingly obvious; success breeds reward. In this case, a warm, sunny Hawaiian beach.
And failure means you don’t deserve a single damn thing, so get-back-to-work-peasant!
When you look at the Tale of Two Holidays, it is glaringly obvious how differently the media – and certain ego-driven political commentators who shall remain nameless – reported both events. The public must have been scratching their heads, wondering, What-The-F**k?!
Even right-wing political commentator and National Party cadre, Matthew Hooton, remarked on the apparent contradiction on 21 July, on Radio NZ’s political panel;
“The Prime Minister was away for ten days at his bach or his holiday home. As you say, it seems terribly unfair and Labour people are very angry with the media because they say ‘here’s the Prime Minister goes away for ten days and our leader get’s sick for two days and goes skiing for three days and then get’s criticised’
[…]
… to be completely crass about about this, if the CEO of Coca Cola and there’s the CEO of Pepsi Cola, and one of them’s sale’s are increasing making great profits, and the other one’s got a whole lot of product recalls underway and sales are down and they’re in a shambles, then the first CEO get’s to go on holiday and the other one doesn’t.”
The media’s unhealthy fixation on Cunliffe left me wondering…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:16 PM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Dominion Post.
There has been public disquiet that the mainstream media appears to be unfairly treating the leader of the Labour party, David Cunliffe.This disquiet appears to have been confirmed by the recent attention and disparaging remarks by political reporters and commentators on Cunliffe’s three day holiday in Queenstown.
The same disparaging remarks were not directed at Prime Minister John Key, who himself took a ten day holiday – three times as long! – in Hawaii, at the same time.
Or the recent Donghua Liu “story”, where Mr Liu claimed he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine to Labour – and then had to retract his allegations. No apology to Cunliffe was forthcoming, I noticed.
It appears to be different rules of reporting by the media when it comes to both men.
Of course, the media will respond that Labour is low in the polls and criticism by political commentators reflects that.
The irony is that constant negative stories by the media, including focusing on trivia (Cunliffe’s red scarf!!) and smear campaigns, feeds into Labour’s low poll rating. It is a ever-descending vicious circle.
Wouldn’t it be a fine idea if the media simply reported the news, instead of making it up and generating sensationalistic headlines, just to sell advertising space?
Far be it for me to tell the media how to do their job. I’m just an ordinary citizen who has to hear this kind of garbage day after day.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
There is another reason why it seems bizarre that the media made such a fuss over Cunliffe’s three day break.
It’s common knowledge that Key takes his holidays in Hawaii. Which is an odd way for a Minister of Tourism to show his endorsement of the local tourism industry, and is something I’ve blogged about in the past. As usual, the mainstream media never considered it worthy of consideration.
But it seems to have been a different story when David Cunliffe dared take three days off – supporting local businesses in the process – and all hell broke loose.
The campaign against Cunliffe was no better highlighted than the Herald’s recent Doinghua Liu Affair*, when an immigrant businessman made several allegations against David Cunliffe. Of those allegations, one (about a $100,000 bottle of wine) was retracted; one (about a supposed $15,000 book) remains unproven by any evidence; and the other two appear to have been overt attempts by Mr Liu to “curry favour” with a previous Labour minister.
Yet, the allegations were given wide prominence, even though,
- there was very little (if any) actual evidence presented – it was all hear-say based on one man’s claims,
- the Herald has pointedly refused to make public Mr Liu’s written statements, despite making public a copy of a letter signed by Cunliffe in 2003,
- no apology, for the mis-reporting of the now-discredited $100,000 bottle of wine, has been forthcoming.
Then again, perhaps the purpose of the Donghua Liu Affair was not to report the news – but to manufacture it, and in the process unfairly damage a reputation and undermine a party’s election campaign…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Sunday Star Times.
John Key takes a ten day holiday in Hawaii and David Cunliffe takes a three day break in Queenstown – and the media go nuts over Cunliffe. All because of one unattributed “letter” from an anonymous individual claiming to be a “senior Labour party official”.
For all we know, the letter could have originated from the National Party’s dirty tricks team and hyped by certain TV3 and Herald commentators.
The Donghua Liu Affair was another sensationalised story based on one man’s unsubstantiated allegations – one of which has been retracted through lack of evidence.
Cunliffe addressed a family violence conference in Auckland and one tiny portion of his speech was taken utterly out of context by a headline-seeking media desperate for a sensational story. His full statement – which is rarely reported – “I’m sorry for being a man right now because family and sexual violence perpetrated overwhelmingly by men”
The true meaning of Cunliffe’s speech was lost in the subsequent media-generated hysteria.
Meanwhile, John Key refuses to apologise to crime-victim, Tania Billingsley for the shocking way in which the government botched the apprehension of the alleged perpetrator. Key says, “I don’t make apologies unless there’s a serious reason for me to do that.”
Evidently sexual violence is not a “serious” matter for the PM?
Key feels he can get away with such an outrageous comment because he knows full well that the media is fixated, with pack-like mentality, on David Cunliffe.
The public are not well-served by such poor “news” manufacturing.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
The concerted attacks on Cunliffe do indeed reek of a “pack mentality”; the kind of schoolyard or workplace bullying that takes place when a group recognises someone who, for whatever reason, is constrained in hitting back.
In Cunliffe’s case, he can’t “hit” back at the media. Not without adding fuel to the hysterics from the likes of Garner, Gower, Henry, Armstrong, et al.
In John Armstrong’s case, the man is simply so wedded to his mates in the National Party that, on the same day Donghua Liu made his allegations, the Herald columnist called for David Cunliffe to step down as leader of the Labour Party;
.
.
The fact that there was little actual evidence of wrong-doing was not a matter Armstrong considered. Indeed, if one carefully reads Armstrong’s diatribe, one curious truth becomes apparent; at no point does he mention that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was written in 2003 – eleven years ago;
.
.
Unless one had an eidetic memory, no human being on Earth could possibly recall signing a letter written over a decade ago.
Of course, it suited Armstrong’s purpose to omit the date. To any reader unfamiliar with the full details of the story, taking the letter out of it’s historical context gave Armstrong’s column validity that it barely deserved. It suited the Herald’s agenda to undermine the Labour leader. And it fitted like a hand-in-glove the collective media pack-attack on Cunliffe.
The entire issue became a Monty Pythonesque-style farce when, on 22 July, when Patrick Gower reported on David Cunliffe’s exasperation with a media obsessed with finding fault with him;
.
David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
.
Political Editor
.
And it is a long list – there is his apology for being a man and his apology for taking a holiday. There is even an apology for the scarf he has been wearing.
“I am being straight up – things I could have done better, things that I will do better.”
The Labour Party is in a crisis at just 26.7 percent in the latest 3 News-Reid Research poll.
“So David Cunliffe Cunliffe voluntarily makes multiple ‘mea culpas’ about what can only be described as pretty minor issues…”
Pretty. Minor. Issues.
Those “pretty minor issues” are the “issues” which TV3, NZ Herald, and other media outlets have been fixated upon for the last few months – and now Gower is criticising Cunliffe for raising those very same issues?!
This is what I call manufactured news. Manufactured news made worse when a political figure is boxed into a corner to address them, thereby validating the synthetic nature of said “news”.
No wonder that Cunliffe said in the same video;
“I am determined that I will be extremely careful about the way I put things going forward…”
Just what the public needs; politicians fearful of saying plainly and clearly what’s on their minds because they are wary of their remarks being taken out of context; twisted; and hyper-sensationalised, by an increasingly tabloid-style media in this country.
We have been poorly served by the media which is more interested in ratings and selling advertising rather than reporting events. As matters stand, we may see politicians self-censoring, thereby pressuring political journalists/commentators to generate even more of their own asinine, manufactured ‘stories’, with ever-more lurid headlines.
Fifteen months ago, John Key expressed his frustration at what he perceived as media hounding. He retaliated;
“What I should have done, and what I will be doing in the future, is saying, well, the member needs to put that down to me in writing, and I’ll be doing that to the journalists as well.
‘Cos if you want perfection of everything I have done, two, three, four, five years ago, I will get you all that information for you, but I’ll get you the whole lot and give it to you.”
Perhaps the Labour leader might consider that mainstream media are no longer merely news-gathering and reporting organisations. They are selling advertising to earn revenue to return a dividend to shareholders.
As such, the mainstream media has it’s own agenda and reporting the news is no longer as profitable as it once was. “News” now has to be “packaged” and delivered to “consumers”. The “packaging” is now more important than the content.
Bear that in mind, Mr Cunliffe; you are being “packaged” for media consumers in whatever manner will sell the product (advertising).
My advice to David Cunliffe; refuse to be “packaged”. Develop a strategy for ignoring “pretty minor issues“. Treat the next smear campaign that rises in the same way that Key treats such matters; with casual disdain.
And give the Gowers and Garners and Henrys of the media circus a simple message; “if you want to talk with me, fine. But if it’s about “holidays” or “scarves” or non-existent $100,000 bottles of wine – don’t expect any co-operation from me when you’re vying for information. Because I’m just as likely to give it to your competitors instead.”
So stay aloof and don’t buy into being “packaged” by the media.
It seems to work for Key.
Meanwhile, lest we forget this shameful episode…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:22 PM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor*
NZ Herald
It is now nearly one month since your editorial, “Cries of bias will not stop reporting”, where the NZ Herald tried – to no avail – to justify it’s campaign of lurid allegations and sensationalised headlines against Labour leader, David Cunliffe.
So where are we now with the Donghua Liu Affair?
Claims of a $100,000 bottle of wine – retracted.
Claims of a $15,000 book – still not proven.
Claims of a Yangtze River boat-trip and $2000 donation to a rowing club – shown to be one businessman’s ineffectual efforts to ‘curry favour’ with then-Minister, Rick Barker. (One doubts that a free feed and two grand donated to a rowing club would “buy” much in the way of favours from a Backbencher, much less a Crown Minister.)
Where does that leave your paper which has promised “further revelations”? Where is the “evidence” promised by the Herald?
And why have Donghua Liu’s “signed statements” still not been made public so we may judge for ourselves as to the value of his claims?
This has been a shameful, sordid episode from the Herald and will be long remembered by many as an example why journalists rank low on surveys of trusted professions – just marginally above used-car salesmen, politicians, telemarketers, and prostitutes (no offence intended to the latter two).
Indeed, the public will have every justification in treating with total scepticism any future story involving David Cunliffe (or any other senior Labour politician).
This has not been the Herald’s finest moment.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
* Note: the matter of the Herald’s reporting of the Donghua Liu Affair is now a subject of a Press Council complaint, laid by this blogger, as well as OIA lodgements with the offices of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Immigration.
.
References
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
Radio NZ: Ministers accused of bullying Turei
TV3: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
Previous related blogposts
John Key, Minister for Tourism, MIA
The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Another media gaffe – this time it’s TV3’s Brook Sabin
.
.
Every so often (quite regularly, in fact), a media personality will say something outrageously offensive, or just plain gormless, that results in an uncontrollable *facepalm* reaction. On 19 July, on TV3’s “The Nation“, it was Brook Sabin’s turn.
Brook was one of three panellists on “The Nation“;
.
(L-R) 3News political reporter Brook Sabin, RadioLIVE political editor Jessica Williams, and Metro magazine editor Simon Wilson
.
The discussion centered around coalitions and pre-election deal-making. Colin Craig from the Conservative Party and Jamie Whyte from near-defunct ACT Party, had just been interviewed by a very competant Lisa Owen (unlike the uber differential performance between a very chummy Patrick Gower and NZ First Leader, Winston Peters).
At 1.42 into the panel discussion , there was this extraordinary exchange between Sabin and Wilson;
Sabin: And if John Key says ‘no’ to Colin Craig, he can say why is Labour not saying ‘no’ to doing a deal with Kim Dotcom, and I think that’s quite powerful as well-“
Wilson: Actually, I think that’s, that’s unreasonable. Now, Labour hasn’t done a deal with Kim Dotcom. They are saying maybe they will do some kind of deal after the election, in the same way that National would do a deal with the Conservatives. But right now, Labour’s made it very clear they’re going to do their best to win Te Tai Tokerau. They’re going to do their best to win all the Maori seats. They’re not doing a deal to give Internet-Mana a seat. On the contrary they’re going to fight them. They may need to do a deal later, but it is very different from the Epsom-Ohariu scenario.
Sabin: Yeah, absolutely. But David Cunliffe is leaving that door open…
Wilson: I think… I think they’ve said very clearly Kelvin Davis…[interuption]…
Sabin: …And I think he needs to try to close that door a little bit more…
Wilson: …Kelvin Davis has the party support to win that electorate and they’re going to do that.
Where has Brook Sabin been? Holidaying on Pluto?
The last few weeks have been rife with Labour MPs excoriating Mana-Internet. Simon Wilson was 100% correct that David Cunliffe has made it abundantly clear that Labour is not prepared to do Epsom-Ohario style deals – as the Labour leader pointedly made explicit on “The Nation“, just the previous week;
Patrick Gower: If Internet-Mana get there and you need their numbers will you use them to form a government or will you rule them out?
David Cunliffe: We’re not doing any pre-election deals with anybody.
Evidently it was not clear to Brook Sabin.
Does Sabin not watch his own current affairs show?
The media appears full of political journalists and reporters who simply don’t seem to know what they are talking about and put a ‘spin’ on things that is misleading and damaging to the process of democratic debate. (Note the irony here; even whilst Cunliffe and Labour bend over backwards not to engage in any pre-election deal-making – the media will still portray them as doing precisely that! Labour might as well nut out a full-scale deal with the Greens and Mana-Internet, as media commentators have already convicted them on the charge. All the while, the same media commentators look on in awe at Key’s deft handling of deals with ACT, Peter Dunne, and possibly Colin Craig. My poor little Hypocrisy Meter, which goes *DING!*, has melted down from over-excitement at the double standards of mainstream media commentators.)
If the media cannot be trusted to report what a party leader has said, unequivocally, in black-and-white terms that a five year old can understand – then we are not well served for information.
Brook Sabin tried to ‘lump’ David Cunliffe with John Key when it came to pre-election deal-making. He failed because luckily Simon Wilson was onboard “The Nation’s” panel to correct Sabin’s patently untrue assertions.
Either Sabin was truly ignorant of Labour’s position, or he was indulging in sloppy, lazy “they’re-all-the-same” style of political commentary. If it is the latter, Sabin needs to find a new job.
Are they looking for bar-staff on Pluto?
.
References
The Daily Blog: Message to TV3 execs – Is this really acceptable?
TV3 The Nation: Interview – Jamie Whyte & Colin Craig (video)
TV3 The Nation: Interview – NZ First Leader Winston Peters (video)
TV3 The Nation: Panel – Brook Sabin, Jessica Williams & Simon Wilson (video)
Previous related blogposts
Labour’s collapse in the polls – why?
The secret of National’s success – revealed
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Frankly speaking #2…
.
.
.
= fs =
Frankly speaking…
.
.
.
= fs =
Message to TV3 execs – Is this really acceptable?
.
.
If there is one thing that Tania Billingsley has raised in this country, it is focusing the glare of public scrutiny on New Zealand’s casually sexist and demeaning attitude toward women. Some refer to it as a “rape culture”, where men (and generally speaking, they are men) hold the most repulsive attitudes imaginable toward women.
I’m not even referring to rapists, molesters, and men who beat (and often kill) their partners senseless.
I’m referring to the casual acceptance of views toward women that are more suited to less enlightened societies, than a supposedly advanced, well-educated nation like ours. It is views of some men who – whilst not abusers and rapists themselves – are enablers of attitudes that empower the abusers and rapists by creating an ingrained belief that they are entitled to abuse and rape. Somewhere in the back of what passes for the minds of abusers and rapists are the comments they’ve read and heard elsewhere in society; that it is ok to mistreat and violate women. (Though they have to be over 16 to be abused and violated. Anyone under that, and the abuser/rapist is labelled a paedophile – which is evidently still ‘not ok” for misogynists. Yet. But working on it.)
The vileness of such attitudes is not just found on rabid social media pages where poorly-educated, and often insecure males (predominantly), click “Like” to show their solidarity with several hundred (a minority) other poorly-educated and often insecure males.
The mainstream media also has a culture of sexism, ranging from crass innuendo and exploitation of women, to outright violence.
Case in point is the media personality-cum-village-idiot, Paul Henry.
Henry has a track record in boorish behaviour, more befitting an immature, adolescent male, rather than a mature man who should know better.
As Mike Kilpatrick wrote for Fairfax media on 16 July, Henry’s obnoxiousness reached a nadir when he interviewed Dr Michelle Dickinson, a scientist working at Auckland University;
.
.
To quote the Auckland university directory, Dr Dickinson’s areas of expertise are;
Nanotechnology, Nanomechanical testing, Fracture Mechanics, Materials Engineering, Biomimetics, Calcified Biological Structures.
And,
Dr Michelle Dickinson obtained her PhD from Rutgers University (USA) and her MEng from Manchester University (UK) in Biomedical Materials Engineering. She has previously held positions in industry which brings an applied focus to her academic research.
Her research is involved in measuring the mechanical properties of materials from the nanoscale through to the macro scale, specifically using indentation techniques.
She has a special interest in biological material behaviour and adapting traditional engineering measurement techniques and models to suit realistic biological testing conditions.
Dr Dickinson is a scientist with serious credentials*.
Which makes what followed next all the more jaw-droppingly unbelievable.
After a cursory interview with Dr Dickinson, Henry then asked a question of mind-blowing, crass sexism, as Kilpatrick explained in his Fairfax piece,
.
.
Henry then shows a photograph of Branson hugging Dickinson and then asks the question “Did you have sex with Richard Branson?”.
Note the question; “Did you have sex with Richard Branson?”.
For those with kevlar-lined stomachs, they can see the interview here. The offensive remarks are 5:21 into the interview.
To illustrate the sadly-all-too-predictable consequences of Henry’s comment, read the public comments – 425 as at this blogpost – which followed Kilpatrick’s story. Note the attitude of those who think that Henry’s comments are acceptable. Note the casualness of acceptance of a remark that, in other circumstance, would be utterly unacceptable in normal social circles, and result in oppobrium.
Is this to be the new benchmark standard for female guests for TV3?
What do female staff and management think of Henry’s remarks? Would they be comfortable if comments like that were directed at them? Or their daughters?
What does Sussan Turner, Group CEO of MediaWorks think of being asked – in public – who she’s recently had sex with?
Perhaps Clare Bradley, Legal Counsel/Company Secretary; Siobhan McKenna, Chief Executive Officer (Interactive); Wendy Palmer, Chief Executive Officer (Radio); Liz Fraser, Director of Sales & Marketing; Katie Mills, Group Marketing Director (Radio); and Jana Rangooni, General Manager (Talk Brands), et al, might like to offer answers to Paul Henry’s questioning of their own sex lives?
If not, why do TV3 executives think that such comments directed at Dr Dickinson were remotely acceptable?
Allow me to remind TV3 executives, producers, staff, and presenters;
- It is not ok to treat women like that.
- It is not ok to have it beamed into our homes.
- It is not ok to give voice to a culture of sexist denigration.
- And it is not ok to dismiss it as just “humour”. There is nothing remotely funny about sexist denigration.
After all, this is precisely why 99% of New Zealanders were so horrified at the degrading behaviour of a group of young men calling themselves “Roastbusters”.
At least the “Roastbusters” had the excuse of youthful stupidity (a crime I was guilty of, in my own youth).
Paul Henry has no such excuse. He is a supposedly mature, responsible, 54 year old man.
I agree with Mike Kilpatrick. Henry’s comment was beyond the pale. He must resign, or be sacked. Unless New Zealanders are comfortable with more and more abhorrent, gutter-level attitudes being expressed by “media personalities” and broadcast into our homes, this kind of behaviour cannot be allowed to become a new norm.
Changing channels is not a practical option. Not if this kind of behaviour is to be normalised throughout the electronic media.
No wonder Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris were able to inflict their decades-long reign of predatory-terror on hundreds of children and women. It had become acceptable and normalised. No one thought to speak out. And if they did, the new normality meant their cries for help fell on deaf ears.
Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris were also funny men.
Their behaviour was anything but.
Well, Mike Kilpatrick has spoken out. And I add my voice to his. I refuse to give assent by silence. I refuse to turn my back on behaviour that, to fair-minded people, is just plain unacceptable.
TV3 – Paul Henry has no place in broadcasting.
He must go.
* Though all women, regardless of education achievements, professional status, etc, should be treated with respect and not with degrading sexist attitudes that are demeaning and promote a culture of casual misogyny.
.
.
Addendum 1
Email sent to TV3;
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Producers <paulhenryshow@mediaworks.co.nz>
cc: Mark Jennings <mjennings@mediaworks.co.nz>
date: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:10 AM
subject: Paul Henry Show – Asking a female guest if she’s had sex with a businessman – is this OK?Kia ora,
Please refer below to a draft of a story which I intend to publish regarding remarks made by Paul Henry on his show, on 15 July and directed at his guest, Dr Michelle Dickinson.
I would appreciate your response to the issues I have raised and what remedies, if any, Mediaworks intends to make before I proceed further.
Your comment s would be appreciated.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger[Draft copy of this blogpost included as in-text]
I received a response the same day;
from: Paul Henry Show <PaulHenryShow@mediaworks.co.nz>
to: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:26 PM
subject: RE: Paul Henry Show – Asking a female guest if she’s had sex with a businessman – is this OK?Dear Mr Macskasy
TV3’s company culture is one that highly values equality and equal opportunity. Our news and current affairs division has often led the debate on how women are treated in New Zealand culture, including two of the instances you mention – a 3 News investigation uncovered the Roast Busters group and led the subsequent coverage, and Tania Billingsley recently told her story on 3rd Degree.
The question line taken by Paul in Tuesday night’s interview with Dr Michelle Dickinson was checked with her before the interview, and Dr Dickinson has confirmed she was not offended at the time, and is not offended now. The question was not asked without Dr Dickinson’s okay. She is an intelligent and articulate person who has appeared on the show many times and can hold her own with Paul (and anyone else). Dr Dickinson has since made her views on the interview clear and it is worth paying her the respect of reading her blog at http://sciblogs.co.nz/nanogirl/2014/07/17/science-sexism-and-the-media/
For the record we completely reject the comparisons your email makes between Paul Henry, and the actions of the Roast Busters group and of renowned paedophiles Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris. Such comparisons are irresponsible, lacking in fairness and balance, and verging on defamatory.
I’m afraid it’s just not possible to take your blog or questions about TV3 seriously when they are written from a position of such ignorance.
Regards
Rachel Lorimer
Group Head of Corporate CommunicationsFiona MacMillan
Executive Producer, Paul Henry Show
For the record, I did read Ms Dickinson’s sciblog post, and have several points to make;
- My criticism of TV3 and Paul Henry in no way reflects on Ms Dickinson or her professional career. Dr Dickinson can in no way be held responsible or associated with things that Paul Henry said.
- This issue is wider than Dr Dickinson herself, and if muppets like Henry can get away with asking obnoxious questions from a highly respected; well-educated; professional woman – then no one else is safe from his prurient “humour”. It was not too long ago that Willie Jackson and John Tamihere were suspended as radio-hosts from RadioLive, after comments were directed to a woman about her sex life, after she disclosed on-air that she had been raped as a 14-year-old.
- I sympathise with Ms Dickinson’s remark in her blogpost; “I feel passionately about providing our daughters with a positive role model for an educated female who is successful in a very male dominated field“. The question is – how does being questioned about one’s sex-life help our daughters to be successful in male dominated fields?
- Dr Dickinson further writes; “Yes, I’m not naive to the reputation that Paul has and I go on to his show prepared for a question that may be slightly off topic or controversial, but I’m an intelligent female who works in a very male dominated field, and I’m used to inappropriate and sexist comments and questions, it goes with the territory of being a female engineer! Perhaps my past experience of being the only woman in a meeting (and asked to make the tea), or being told that if I want to be taken seriously I need to wear shoes with less of a heel as they could distract the men in the room has made me a little immune to sexism and a little more tolerant of comments that I should be offended by.” Should we not be offended by such remarks? And should we not do more than just being offended?
- Should boofheads like Paul Henry not be challenged when they make disparaging sexist comments to women they would never dream of making to male guests? Just as scientists once challenged authority on much-cherished beliefs that the world was flat and the sun orbited the Earth or that disease was caused by ‘humors’ of the body?
- Ms Lorimer and Ms MacMillan seem more keen to label me as “ignorant” rather than addressing the issues I raised in my blogpost. Does this mean they have no answers to the criticisms I have levelled? They certainly have studiously avoided the questions I put to them;
- Is this to be the new benchmark standard for female guests for TV3?
- What do female staff and management think of Henry’s remarks? Would they be comfortable if comments like that were directed at them? Or their daughters?
- What does Sussan Turner, Group CEO of MediaWorks think of being asked – in public – who she’s recently had sex with?
- Perhaps Clare Bradley, Legal Counsel/Company Secretary; Siobhan McKenna, Chief Executive Officer (Interactive); Wendy Palmer, Chief Executive Officer (Radio); Liz Fraser, Director of Sales & Marketing; Katie Mills, Group Marketing Director (Radio); and Jana Rangooni, General Manager (Talk Brands), et al, might like to offer answers to Paul Henry’s questioning of their own sex lives?
- If not, why do TV3 executives think that such comments directed at Dr Dickinson were remotely acceptable?
Fairly simple, straight-forward questions I would have thought?
Or perhaps they would prefer to discuss their sex-lives, if it’s easier?
Addendum 2
A list of companies advertising during the Paul Henry Show on 16 July;
Ford (Kia)
Subway
ANZ
Heineken
Placemakers
NIB Health Cover
Harvey Norman
Caredirect (caredirect.co.nz)
Whiskas (catfood)
Southern Cross Health
Masterfoods
Early Settlers (furniture)
Centrum (vitamins)
Future Finance (futurefinance.co.nz)
Skysport
KFC
Bridgestone Tyres
Dependent on TV3’s actions to follow, this blogger will be contacting the above advertisers next and posing three very simple questions; do they want to be associated with a TV show that promotes sexist denigration of women? Do they want to risk having their reputations tarnished when this story goes ‘viral’ in the blogosphere and social media? And is this what they are paying their expensive ad-slot times for?
.
References
NZ Herald: Bryce Edwards – Does New Zealand have a ‘rape culture’?
Fairfax media: Just when you thought Paul Henry couldn’t sink lower…
Auckland University: Dr Michelle Emma Dickinson
TV3: Organic foods study finds significant benefits
Fairfax media: Just when you thought Paul Henry couldn’t sink lower
NZ Herald: Roast Busters: RadioLive hosts taken off air
Additional
Sciblogs: Science, sexism and the media
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Mike Hosking as TVNZ’s moderator for political debates?! WTF?!
.
.
I checked the calendar, and it’s not April 1st.
An April Fool’s joke is the first reaction I had when I heard that someone at TVNZ had appointed Mike Hosking to be the moderator for live, televised election-year debates.
I mean – really? Mike Hosking?!?!
The same Mike Hosking who endorsed John Key’s government in January 2013;
.
(Hat-tip, The Standard)
.
Hosking was effusive when he endorsed Key last year;
“As I see it, all things considered we are doing pretty bloody well. We box above our weight.
We have bright prospects for the future, so long as you keep them in Government.”
The same Mike Hosking who recently vilified Labour Leader, David Cunliffe?!
“Is David Cunliffe incompetent or mad? Is he out to lunch or out of touch? Is David Cunliffe deluded or living in a parallel universe?
What possible explanation can there be that has any level of sense or thought involved that sees him on holiday skiing two months out from an election when he is where he is in the polls. A decision like this speaks to a person who fails to understand the basic principles of leadership.”
The same Mike Hosking who called David Cunliffe a moron?!
If Mike Hosking is the answer – can TVNZ please spell out what the question was?!
Meanwhile, ordinary New Zealanders are leaving comments here, highly critical of TVNZ’s appointment of Hosking as a “moderator”.
However, Fairfax closed off their comments section after this story, with the majority of posts scathing of TVNZ.
The majority readers of the Fairfax article seem to be unimpressed with Mike Hosking in their (unscientific) poll;
.
.
It is abundantly clear to many people by now that the mainstream media in this country, for the most part, is covertly or overtly supporting the re-election of a John Key-led government. The ongoing de-stabilising campaign against David Cunliffe, complete with non-existent $100,000 bottles of wine and criticising his red scarf, are strong indications of the mainstream corporate-media’s agenda.
If you, the reader, are as bemused by TVNZ’s bizarre decision to use Hosking as a faux “impartial” moderator, then sign the petition here;
.
(click on image)
Please do your bit: share the link to the above petition as far and wide as possible!
Meanwhile, this from me, to “The Listener“…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: Listener <letters@listener.co.nz>
date: Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:51 PM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
The Listener.
Of all the professional broadcasters that TVNZ could have used for the upcoming Leader’s Debates, they chose Mike Hosking?!The same Mike Hosking who, last year, very publicly and enthusiastically endorsed John Key and his government by saying,
“As I see it, all things considered we are doing pretty bloody well. We box above our weight.
We have bright prospects for the future, so long as you keep them in Government.”
By what stretch of the imagination do TVNZ executives think that Hosking is in any way impartial? It would be like asking Maggie Barry or Shane Taurima to do the job.
There are many impartial, talented, and highly respected broadcasters who TVNZ could call upon; Rachel Smalley and Greg Boyd are just two names that spring to mind.
Or, the incomparable Kim Hill, perhaps one of the most respected broadcasters in the country would be ideal. Her credentials for impartiality are impeccable.
But not Mike Hosking. Not when he flies the flag for John Key and the National Party.
We deserve better.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
Remember to share, far and wide!!
.
References
Fairfax Media: Labour claims Hosking’s biased
NZ Herald: Media: Hosking plugs car and Key
Newstalk ZB: Mike’s Editorial: Cunliffe looks like he’s given up
Yahoo Entertainment: Seven Sharp Returns and The Paul Henry Show Debuts
NZ Herald: Liu – $100k not just for wine
TV3: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
Previous related blogposts
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
Other blogs
Against the Current: Mike Hosking claims he isn’t biased. Yeah, right
Against the Current: Mike Hosking says Bash A Beneficiary Day!
Against the Current: Mike Hosking asks – What is David Cunliffe hiding
– See more at: http://nzagainstthecurrent.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/mike-hosking-says-bash-beneficiary-day.html#sthash.4t68qxKz.dpuf
Against the Current: Yes, Mike Hosking is a moron
Against the Current: How much of a tosser is Mike Hosking?
Against the Current: Seven Sharp promotes anti-Gay politician
The Standard:Everything in moderation
Polity: Mike Hosking
The Daily Blog: UNBREAKING: The list of questions Mike Hosking will use in first TVNZ leader debate
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
An interesting poll from TVNZ. Note some of the VERY left-wing questions!?
.
.
July 19 – Yesterday, I received this poll, sent by TVNZ to my email.
What I found very interesting were some of the question relating to issues that have not been discussed – literally – for decades. The question regarding free tertiary education is again an election issue. This is something we can attribute directly to the rise and rise of the Mana-Internet Alliance.
The questions (and answers I gave) are presented here as screen-shots. (Only the final two pages are not included, as they contained some personal responses and details. My preference for which Party I will be endorsing with my Party Vote for will be the subject of an up-coming blogpost.)
.
.
.
It is a shame that the “anti-smacking” question (above) was put without real reference to what the law actually states. If people actually knew the actual nature of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, they might be more inclined to vote as I did. It is a fallacy that the repeal of Section 59 banned all smacking and is a deliberate distortion promulgated by neo-conservatives and religious right elements in our society.
.
.
I responded somewhat “lukewarm” to the question about compulsory Kiwisaver (above). The problem of compensating low-income earners and beneficiaries should be taken into account along with implementing compulsion. Forcing the poor, who might be currently living in garages and unable to afford even the basics, to save for Kiwisaver would be an untenable proposition and a farce.
.
.
I voted “strongly disagree” to the proposition that high income earners should not receive superannuation. We have been through this issue before and it was blindingly obvious that high income earners simply hid their money by clever accounting tricks – thereby avoiding cuts to their super.
Targetted superannuation invites the growth of a labyrinth of rules, exemptions, asset-income testing, and an associated invasive bureaucracy. Better to have Universal Superannuation, alongside a comprehensive progressive tax rate that claws back super-payments by slightly higher marginal tax rates.
And the final tranche of questions;
.
.
It is interesting to note that questions regarding tax cuts were omitted. I would have liked to have seen what New Zealander’s attitudes toward cutting taxes would have been. Especially if the question was framed as a choice between more tax cuts and less social services.
Now that would really have been a barometer of our nationwide psyche!
Now we just have to await the outcome of this poll…
.
.
References
Wikipedia: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
People power trumps vile sexism any day!
.
.
Sydney school teacher, Paula Orbea, started a petition on change.org against Wicked Campers whose campervans were often daubed with sexist, racist, and homophobic slogans. The same camper-vans are present in New Zealand, as well as Australia;
.
.
Ms Orbea began the campaign when her 11 year old daughter read the slogan;
‘In every princess, there’s a little slut who wants to try it just once’
– on the back of one of the campervans. (See above)
On the change.org petition page, Ms Orbea said,
“This is the only way I can explain how offensive it is.
When one reads such a slogan, the same thing happens to every person who understands it – which my 11 yr old did – we picture it. This business, makes us picture that and many other degrading things.
You can either gain pleasure from this image or disgust. Those who gain pleasure are the problem – yet they have a platform to spread their vile perspectives.
My daughter was upset by this because she felt, as a girl, that the slogan was refering to her and it made her fear being perceived that way – especially by someone she may cross paths with who may agree with that perspective.
This particular phrase promotes paedophilia and resonates very badly with everyone who thinks it’s abhorrent to sexually assault a girl, especially by groomed males who think ‘she wants it’.
Slogans such as this ring too familiar to real life atrocities, such as the recent discovery of Rolf Harris’s sexual assaults; enacting on a girl as young as eight.”
.
.
She said,
“It is inconceivable that Wicked Campers choose to not only write the misogynistic ‘joke’ but also then publicise it through their moving, billboard vans.
Disgustingly they have also promoted that, ‘Fat girls are harder to kidnap.’
Shame on them.
Adult females are also degraded into sexual objectification and disrespect – with slogans on show for people of all ages to indiscriminately see and absorb.”
.
.
“This business (amongst many others) thrives on pleasing a small demographic of people, who find it funny to mock those who may be living the horrible realities perspectives such as these manifest.
But we are the majority, not them. Enough.
It is time to say enough – with calm, intelligent but firm resolve.
We must become Actionists – by looking at the action that is being performed, (regardless of gender), deciding whether it’s good for us as a species and calling it out if it isn’t; demand change.
This is not good. I’m calling it out.”
.
.
In February last year (2013), columnist Clem Bastow wrote in the Australian Daily Life, calling for a boycott on what she kindly referred to as “misogyny-’n’-racism on wheels“. Ms Bastow wrote,
Look, I’m sorry, I thought it was 2013? Does nobody else have a problem with these bombs dragging their Wake In Fright-era sexual politics around the country (and, indeed, the world)?
This probably all sounds like shouting into a drain – after all, judging by the tone that appears to be Wicked’s company policy, they’d probably just tell me I need a good root; here’s one such example of an official response to one woman who dared to raise some concerns. (Sorry to rain on your comeback parade dudes, but I’m probably getting more action than anyone who rocks up in one of your grody vans.)
And yes, in some ways, there’s likely no point in making a complaint the next time you see a braindead sexist Wicked slogan in your rearview mirror. Instead, vote with your wallet: go to another hire company, because cheap rates or not, supporting a company that degrades women just so a few dropkicks can have a laugh with their tinnies on a camping trip isn’t worth saving a few measly dollars.
.
.
Earlier this year, here in New Zealand, Wicked Campers attracted the attention of Lyttelton sailing instructor, Dudley Jackson, after one of their vans was spotted with the message, “Go fuck yourself”;
.
.
The Press reported,
“Mr Jackson said he emailed the company to ask whether they thought it was a “suitable” message to be presented to the public, but he had not had a response. “
.
.
In 2010, after the slogan “If you love me, you would swallow it” appeared on the back of a van, a complaint was laid with the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority. Consequently, the ASA unanimously ruled that “the advert was likely to cause serious and widespread offence“.
.
.
The same Press story reported,
“In April last year, Queenstown police began an investigation into a sexually suggestive picture on a Wicked van featuring Gangnam Style singer Psy next to the message “Up the bum no babies”.
The company defended the picture and writing on the campervan, saying it depicted people who were “just dancing”. Police decided the artwork was not offensive enough to warrant further action. “
You have to wonder how sexually explicit an image, in full public view of minors, has to be before the police decide to to take action?
.
.
This van (below) most likely is not geared for the Japanese tourist market;
.
.
Nor is this one (below) designed to attract the married women demographic;
.
.
But as Clem Bastow wrote (in the Australian Daily Life), Wicked Camper’s clients are generally of a young, unaware, “blokey” persuasion;
“It’s easy to assume that the only people who’d hire a Wicked Camper would be either desperate German tourists or dreadlocked “dudes” who like to play the same four bars of a Jack Johnson song for five hours every night (or bros like this), but evidently plenty of women think the company’s misogyny-’n’-racism on wheels shtick is “awesome” – at least according to a casual perusal of Wicked’s Facebook page.”
So why not alienate 51% of your potential client-base, huh?
Like this one, obviously geared toward satisfying the market for up-and-coming rapists and abusers of women;
.
.
The rape-culture on wheels…
But people were not prepared to take Wicked Campers’ grubby messages lying down.
One artist, Stef Burgon, used her own artistic skills to paint over one of Wicked Camper’s juvenile slogans, and replaced it with something a whole lot more thoughtful;
.
.
Meanwhile, Ms Orbea announced that her on-line petition had succeeded in attracting over 120,000 signatures and forced Wicked Campers into a massive back-down;
“We’ve just won! Wicked Campers have apologised, and committed to removing all misogynistic slogans from their vans within six months.
Nothing has shifted them in the past. Complaints. Fines.
But after initially responding to the petition saying they “didn’t care about the uproar” – after your massive support for my petition, they’ve apologised and will re-spray the offensive, sexist vans.
This was a people power win. Starting my change.org petition worked just as it intended, with more than 120,000 of you signing within just four days! We were featured everywhere – ABC News, The Project, News.com.au, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Mamamia, Buzzfeed, and heaps, heaps more.
The kind of sexism and misogyny on those Wicked Campers vans isn’t trivial – it’s degrading to women, harmful for our children to consume, and condones a rape culture that sees one-in-three Australian women sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.
I’m so proud and pleased my daughter said something, and that together we stood up against it.
It’s important that we call out sexism wherever it exists – and my change.org petition enabled me to actually make a difference and win change.”
Good on you, Ms Orbea.
Because here is the thing that I would point out to Wicked Camper founder, Brisbane mechanic John Webb, and other proponants of what they think is “free speech”;
- Free speech is fine and dandy – but just because you can say a thing, doesn’t always mean you should. With freedom comes responsibility and self-discipline (or at least, that’s the theory.)
- This is not about attacking freedom of speech. This is about rejecting what is being said with that free speech. In other words, Mr Webb, you can say it – but we don’t have to accept it. And we’ll tell you that. Because free speech cuts both ways.
- People who want to be vile and obnoxious can do so. But the corollary is we don’t have to see it. Keep it in your own home. Or garage. Or better still, your own head.
Ms Orbea and 120,000 others showed that we don’t have to put up with the smug, arrogant half-wits for whom sexism, racism, and homophobia is a schoolyard joke. We don’t have to be dragged down to their lowest common denominator.
Sexism and it’s progeny, the rape culture, are just not funny.
Ever.
Next: Message to TV3 execs – Is this really acceptable?
.
References
Change.Org: Eliminate misogynistic and degrading slogans and imagery
Daily Life: Why women should boycott Wicked Campervans
The Press: Wicked Campers graffiti offends
News.com.au: Artist Stef Burgon takes on Wicked Campers, paints her own slogan
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 18 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Guest Author: A Cry of desperation from Christchurch
.
.
I spoke to my father (84 yrs old) and asked.. ‘are you going to watch Hope & Wire”?
His response… ‘No, it hardly represents what the people here are still going through. It misrepresents Christchurch all together, and the language is unacceptable. All this intermittant rubbish the writer has crammed into it… represents us as a group of badly educated, sex driven white supremists’!!!
YES.. I couldn’t agree more…
Having now lived through over 13000 earthquakes, and dealing on a daily basis with my own paper war to have my insurance contract with IAG (via the ASB) honoured, living with black mold in the ceilings, no carpet, gib off bedroom & living room walls and having had raw sewerage in the house for 2 years as EQC refused to fix this under ’emergency repairs’ (while my insurers didnt want to know until I was deemed ‘Over cap with EQC, not able to get it fixed myself or ‘I’d loose my insurance claim’!!!)’.
Now I witness see daily ‘fletchered cosmetic repairs failing’, and elderly / disable persons having to shift from their homes for the 2nd or 3rd time, as their floor boards were ‘propped up’ (Jack and Packed) with bits of MDF / Malamine / Gib board and even an old chair leg!!!
Entry doors and windows still cannot be secured, water ingress every time it rains, and drive / pathways inaccessible to those who are elderly or disabled in small ways.
Why?? Because Gerry & his army of twats has decided its OK for up to 20% of structural repairs (replacement of piles) under houses , are able to be completed without consent!!!!! Therefore, we have cowboys being paid millions and their work is not requiring council building inspection!!!! Is this what our insurance is paying for???
YES: the government led (CERA) Fletcher repair scheme has cost the taxpayers three times more than it ever should, caused hundreds of deaths, illness (mental and physical), and this whole Government orchistrated genocide and complete ignoring of the plight of the Christchurch people is criminal….
But do YOU know how I felt at the end of Hope & Wire??
I shed a blubbery tear and felt…
BUGGER YOU NEW ZEALAND. ALL YOU SO CALLED FELLOW COUNTRYMEN & WOMAN. JUST BUGGER YOU ALL.
Why???
Because I have pleaded with you all to listen, protest, become involved and support us.. You get out there to save the dolphins. You rally to stop fracking. You rally to have emergency houses built in Auckland. You rally to help North Island flood victims or Wellington storm / earthquake victims.. you rally to stop wars in other countries.
Yet you leave the victims of this city for four years to survive sub-zer0 degree nights, relentless floods, living in 3rd world conditions. Many still living in tents and garages…. and STILL STUCK WITH EQC / FLETCHERS AND INSURERS STAFF WHO RELENTLESSLY BULLY AND THREATEN ELDERLY AND VULNERABLE VICTIMS OF THIS. OUR NATIONS TRAVESTY.
Yes… BUGGER YOU. If this was rugby… another springbok event.. would you take a day off work and protest??? THIS IS GENOCIDE HERE!! WAKE UP!!!
Sarah O’Brien
Christchurch resident, July 2014
.
Previous related blogposts
Interview: Angie, the Earthquake Angel
Additional
Fairfax media: Christchurch rent crisis ‘best left to market’
The Christchurch Fiasco : the Insurance Aftershock and its Implications for New Zealand and Beyond
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor – the Royal Visit and endless photo ops for Dear Leader
.
.
From a Radio NZ report,
The Royal visit cost several hundred thousand dollars more than the Government originally said it did.
The Duke and Duchess visited eight centres, and the Department of Internal Affairs said that cost taxpayers just over $1 million.
But that figure did not take into account the costs for other government departments, such as police, Defence, Tourism New Zealand and Customs. With those costs included, the ten-day visit cost about $1.7 million.
The group New Zealand Republic said it expects the final bill to climb further, to more than $2 million.
.
My views on this…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:28:01 +1200 TO: "The Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz>.
The editor DOMINION POST . Sir/madam, A recent Radio NZ report stated that the recent Royal Visit cost cost-payers $1.7 million - with the final bill from other government departments pushing the final amount well over $2 million. This is money that could have been invested in alleviating child poverty, buying extra hip-operations, or cleaning up this country's many spoiled, polluted water-ways. Considering that Dear Leader John Key maximised publicity opportunities for the National Party, by inserting himself in as many photo-ops as possible, perhaps the $2 million could be deducted from National's tax-payer funded allocation for political parties' TV and radio advertising? That might balance out the ledger somewhat. Children living in poverty and elderly needing hip-replacement operations would be very appreciative. After all, National does believe in user pays, does it not? -Frank Macskasy [address & phone number supplied].
Or maybe there’s nothing to this?
After all, how many photo-ops could Dear Leader possibly insert himself into…?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh.
.
References
Radio NZ: Royal visit a $68m advert for tourism
NZ Herald: Advertising funding down for Nats, Labour; up for Greens, NZ First
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
National MPs – giving us the finger in election year
.
.
National MPs and ministers have been busy this year with more botch-ups, scandals, an attempted smear campaign, and spinning bullshit to cover their arses with multiple policy failures in health, education, the environment, child poverty, etc, etc, etc…
The fact that National still appears to be riding high in political polls speaks more for a population heavily sedated by trivia and superficial “news” reporting, and for mind-numbingly inane mass-entertainment – rather than any actual success.
Some of the more mind-blowing comments that have recently been made by National ministers have flown below the radar.
Amy Adams
Our so-called “Environment” Minister, Amy Adams, recently dismissed Dr Mike Joy’s criticisms of National’s new water standards.
But Dr Mike Joy, an environmental ecologist at Massey university, says the new standards are a “backwards step for fresh water”.
“You could just drive a truck through it,” he told TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.
“There’s so many gaps, so many things we’ve been measuring up until now that they’ve dropped.”
The changes put limits on the amount of toxins and bacteria that can be present in water, which the Government says will require some communities and farms to improve their waste-disposal systems.
But the weakening of other limits were essentially a “licence to pollute,” Joy said, and would allow for a big increase in the amount of pollution in rivers.
“We’ve got a decline going on,” he said.
“Rivers are getting worse, lakes are getting worse. This should be something that puts the brakes on, but instead it’s an opening-up. It’s like lifting the speed limit from 50kmh to 500kmh – that’s the kind of level of change around nitrate pollution.”
Joy said more than 90 per cent of rivers in lowland areas – those coming from urban areas and farms – were already too dangerous to swim in.
To which Adams responded;
Ms Adams also corrected the Green Party’s and Dr Joy’s comparison of nitrogen levels in New Zealand’s lakes and rivers to those in the Yangtzee River.
“Although the Yangtze River indeed has serious pollution issues, nitrogen is not the core pollutant there.
In fact, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, the primary issue for the Yangtze River is industrial and sewage waste and the management of sediments, rather than nitrogen.”
What the World Wide Fund for Nature (which Adams mis-quoted) really stated was;
“The major pollutants in the Yangtze mainstem are suspended substances, oxidizing organic and inorganic compounds, and ammonia nitrogen. This has severely reduced drinking water quality and contributed to dramatic eutrophication.”
And from the Science Daily;
“For the first time, a team including foreign scientists was authorized by the Chinese government to study water quality on the lower reaches of the Yangtze River…
[…]
For example, nitrogen concentrations have approximately doubled over the past 20 years. In Shanghai, concentrations of dissolved nitrogen were twice as high as at the Three Gorges Dam, reflecting the increasing use of mineral fertilizers in agriculture…
[…]
However, where the river enters the East China Sea, the huge pollutant loads are expected to have devastating effects: each day, 1500 tonnes of nitrogen is discharged, causing eutrophication and growth of blue-green algae in the coastal waters…
[…]
In the Yangtze, concentrations of nitrogen, metals and organic compounds are increasing, as shown by comparisons with earlier measurements in the literature.“
As usual with right-wingers, it pays to check their “facts”. They’re usually bullshit. (As well as batshit crazy.)
Dr Mike Joy – 1
Amy Adams – 0
Paula Bennett
Bennett seems not to know where she stands on the problem of New Zealand’s hidden rape culture.
On 10 July, on TV3’s Third Degree, Bennett accepted the reality of our rape culture;
“And you can see it in the language that is used by some people. You can certainly see it in pretty much a pub or a nightclub in New Zealand on most weekends to be quite frank. So we have a lot of education to do there, I think.”
Two days later, she changed her mind, this time on TV3’s The Nation;
“I wouldn’t say that we’ve got a rape culture or a sexual violence culture in New Zealand…
[…]
I think what we do in New Zealand is we report more [sexual violence] than any other country. So actually some of those that are being reported are incidences that haven’t even led to violence.”
On 10 July, on Third Degree, Bennett accepted that her government had failed Tania Billingsley;
“Could things have been handled differently? We’re the first ones that have said yes it should have been. But for her I feel incredibly sad that the incident has happened in the beginning. And that’s where most of her hurt and anger is.”
Again, after two days, Bennett’s views seemed to have changed, as this exchange on The Nation showed;
Lisa Owen: “Ok, so how do you think that your male colleagues handled the alleged assault on Tania Billingsley and the departure of the Malaysian diplomat? Did they lose sight of the victim? Did they trivialise that?”
Paula Bennett: “Well look I’m not prepared to go into what has happened in that case. But my short answer to that would be no.”
Paula Bennett (2.0)
On TV’s The Nation, Lisa Owen took Paula Bennett to task on our growing endemic rate of child poverty. Owen pointed out to Bennett;
“…people like Jonathan Boston say that eradicating poverty is a political choice. Is it just that you’re not making a big enough political choice? A billion dollars, an extra billion dollars a year he said will make an enormous dent in this.”
Because, as we all know, “throwing money” at the poorest in our society apparently doesn’t work to pull children out of poverty.
But “throwing money” at corporations such as Rio Tinto, Warner Bros, Charter Schools, et al, to “create jobs” or give “choice for better education” to parents, does work.
Or “throwing money” at people by way of tax cuts works to “stimulate the economy“.
Strangely, “throwing money” at welfare beneficiaries – by way of a Training Incentive Allowance – helped former solo-mother, Paula Bennett, obtain a free tertiary education and she is currently (until 20 September) a highly-remunerated Minister of the Crown.
So why is “throwing money” by way of corporate welfare; tax-cuts; Charter school subsidies, etc, a ‘good‘ thing – but “throwing money” at poverty to eliminate this scourge from 21st century New Zealand – is a ‘bad‘ thing?!
National ministers have yet to answer this question.
God knows we “throw enough money” at them with their generous salaries.
Simon Bridges
This was one of National’s election platforms in 2011;
.
.
“Staying strong on crime“.
Except when National decides that a particular law is “inconvenient”. Then it will instruct it’s ministeries not to prosecute offenders. As Minister Simon Bridges recently instructed the Labour Inspectorate;
Radio New Zealand has obtained documents under the Official Information Act which show the Labour Inspectorate has moved away from the proactive approach to enforcement and has redistributed its efforts to crack down on illegial migrant workers.
Traditionally labour inspectors have been out on the streets at Easter, catching out shop owners who open illegally, but will now wait for members of the public to complain about shops being open and will follow those up with warning letters.
Special briefing notes from the Labour Inspectorate General Manager George Mason to the minister show the inspectorate has questioned the effectiveness of the shop trading act, which allows for a $1,000 penalty for breaches of the law.
In many cases the judicial system was reluctant to impose the maximum fine, Mr Mason told the minister.
He said in recent years not many complaints from the public were received and this year not a single shop was prosecuted for opening at Easter.
[…]
But Simon Bridges said shops can still be prosecuted and will be if the Inspectorate felt it was necessary.
The law will be upheld – if the Inspectorate felt it was necessary?!
When a government will not uphold the law because it conflicts with their own ideological stance – then why have laws at all?
And can the rest of us pick and choose which laws are convenient to uphold, and which we can break?
It appears so…
Mr Bridges is showing us the way.
Murray McCully
After the debacle of the Malaysian diplomat, accused of burglary and attempted rape, and the question over why Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully failed to keep track over events in his own ministry, an inquiry was launched on 11 July.
“A thorough and transparent inquiry is important, as those managing diplomatic immunity issues for the Government need to enjoy the full, unfettered confidence of the New Zealand public.”
Although one wonders just how “ thorough and transparent” any inquiry will be when,
- The terms of reference do not include Murray McCully’s actions. This effectively gives the minister an ‘escape clause’ from the fiasco.
- John Key has already pre-determined who the guilty party is, within the Ministry, when he stated on 4 July; “If that person doesn’t have clarity about that position then they need to think very strongly about whether they’re in the right job.”
- Rob Hosking from the National Business Review suggested that the Inquiry will “not likely to be [completed] before the September 20 election”. How ‘convenient’.
Hekia Parata
On 8 June 2012, as National’s planned to increase class-room sizes blew up in their faces with a combined teacher-parent revolt, I wrote;
Parata’s Plan to cut teaching staff and increase classroom sizes was dressed up as “improving teaching quality and professional leadership” – which was exposed as patent bollocks when she stated,
“The changes to teacher:student funding ratios were to have saved the Government around $174 million over four years, of which $60 million was going to be invested in improving teaching quality and professional leadership.”
Sacking Parata for policies that every other Minister has been implementing seems pointless. Especially when National’s essential policy of cutting expenditure and services would remain unchanged.
That is the real crux of the matter; an ongoing programme of reduction in social services because of two tax cuts we could ill afford, and which National was irresponsible in making.
Two years later: On 7 July, Radio NZ’s Morning Report co-presenter, Susie Ferguson, spoke to National’s accident-prone Hekia Parata and put it to her that Labour’s plans to reduce class-room sizes by 2018 were proving very popular with parents. Ferguson pointed out that Labour’s policy was in direct opposition with Parata’s humiliating failure to increase class-room sizes.
At 3.05 into the interview, Parata replied,
“And at the time we were in a different fiscal environment and we were focusing right then on how did we find the money to invest in quality. And now we’re in a better fiscal environment, we can do both,both more teachers and more quality...”
Which is confirmation, if any was needed, that National’s plans to reduce teacher numbers and increase class-room sizes was nothing more than an outrageous cost-cutting exercise. Happily, it failed as New Zealanders stood up, en masse, and told National,
.
.
New Zealanders were not prepared to sacrifice their children’s learning and future on the alter to National’s cost-cutting. If Key and his cronies were foolish enough to cut taxes as part of their 2008 election bribes, it was most certainly not going to be paid for by the children of the middle classes.
So far, #Teamkey seems to be going ‘swimmingly’ well.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: Water rule changes seen as ‘licence to pollute’
World Wildlife Fund: Threat of Pollution in the Yangtze
Science Daily: First-ever Precise Data On Yangtze Water Quality
TV3: Minister agrees with diplomat’s alleged victim
TV3: The Nation Interview – Paula Bennett (transcript)
NBR: Bennett cutting a benefit that helped her – Labour
NZ Herald: PM defends $30m payout to Rio Tinto
Scoop media: Warner Brothers Hobbit Deal a $67 Milllion Farce
NZ Herald: Editorial – Charter schools will give poorer parents choice
Beehive.govt.nz: Government delivers April 1 tax cuts, SME changes
Radio NZ: Govt defends trading law enforcement
Dominion Post: Malaysian diplomat case inquiry head named
NZ Herald: Diplomat case: Court file released
TV3: Ministerial inquiry launched into diplomat case
Interest.co.nz: Key suggests mid-level MFAT diplomat “considers career options”
NBR: McCully announces inquiry into MFAT’s handling of Malaysian diplomat allegations
Scoop media: Teacher funding ratios to remain the same
Radio NZ: Listen Hekia Parata on Morning Report
Radio NZ: Labour pledges to reduce class sizes
Previous related blogposts
Why Hekia Parata should not be sacked
Hypocrisy – thy name be National
Hon. Paula Bennett, Minister of Hypocrisy
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 13 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Random Thoughts on Random Things #7 – the fate of the Maori Party
.
.
Watching Pita Sharples interviewed on TV3’s ‘The Nation’ on 5 July, two things occurred to me.
1.
There is every likelihood that, come election day, the Maori Party is doomed. If they are really, really, really lucky, they might win one seat. Perhaps.
2.
As much as I dislike National’s coalition lap-dogs, We may yet need the Maori Party.
Up till now, I have wished for their hurried departure from Parliament. As a much-needed coalition ally to National, they have propped up this government and allowed various policies to be enacted that further the neo-liberal agenda at the expense of the majority of New Zealanders.
But this, in turn, has meant that National and ACT have toned down much of the anti-Treaty rhetoric that Brash engaged in when he was leader of the Nats. When Brash gave his infamous Orewa speech in January 2004, the more conservative, reactionary element in New Zealand society rewarded him and his party with a huge (if short-lived) 17% ‘bounce’ in the polls.
.
.
National’s strategists understand they cannot afford to alienate that support. Not when every vote and every seat in Parliament counts. And not when this year’s election promises to be the narrowest-run race in decades.
Keeping the Maori Party on-side has also meant losing a strategic tactic from the Right – playing the racist “Treaty Card”. National can no longer play that “card”. Not if it expects to keep the Maori Party as a coalition ally.
This is an added ‘bonus’ for the Left. By removing anti-Treaty messages from National’s “arsenal” of available campaign strategies, racist rednecks no longer have a “natural political home” to vote for, en masse.
As someone who has no love for National and it’s coalition allies, I have to grudgingly admit to a new-found use for the Maori Party – as a useful brake on National’s racist tendencies.
Perhaps Labour and Mana should consider the strategy of “gifting” one of the seven Maori Electorates to the Maori Party?
.
References
TV3: The Nation – Interview – Maori Party founding co-leader Pita Sharples
TV3: Interview – Pita Sharples – Transcript
Fairfax media: Brash takes aim at Key in race speech
Previous related blogposts
Poll shows gain for National’s ‘dog whistle’ politics
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Media will respond to Kim Dotcom’s up-coming revelations professionally, impartially, and with all due diligence…
.
.
“On September 15, I’m doing a Town Hall event in Auckland and I invite everyone to come there because that is going to be the day when I’m going to reveal my evidence…..my evidence around the political interference and my evidence that John Key lied.” – Kim Dotcom
It will be the best show in town.
Though the NZ Herald will probably run the story’s angle along the lines of “Mona Dotcom fails to attend event at public hall”…
Patrick Gower will rail on the evils on a resurgent Mana Party actually having a workable budget…
Rachel Smalley will comment on women attending the meeting as a ‘bunch of lardos’…
John Armstrong will demand David Cunliffe resign because he heard from a friend’s neighbour who’s cousin has a hairdresser who overheard a conversation between two strangers (Cameron Slater and Jason Ede) that Cunliffe once wrote a letter in high school to a girl he had a crush on…
Duncan Garner will run a story quoting Bill English that it’s all Labour’s fault…
Mike Hosking will apply more hair gel…
TV1 News will lead the 6PM bulletin with 5 crime stories; 2 court verdicts; a cutesy-animal story; kids doing something amazing – and cute; then the Kim Dotcom story, followed by Key responding that he can’t recall anything…
TV3 will lead with 4 crime stories; 3 court verdicts; a cutesy-animal story; kids doing something cute – and amazing; then the Kim Dotcom story, followed by Key responding that he can’t recall anything, and Patrick Gower standing in the Parliamentary Debating Chamber, looking earnest; and saying “this reflects badly on the OPPOSITION parties”…
Paula Bennett will release a “coincidentally-timed” *shock!*horror!* story that New Zealand’s beneficiaries are secretly all working and actually, we have no real unemployed or solo-mums. Prosecutions to follow.
The Dominion Post will lead with National claiming success for a 99.99% drop in crime, and Paradise on Earth in our time.
Paul Henry, on TV3’s late night slot, will ask women if they’ve had sex lately. (And if not, would they like to?)
Have I missed anything?
.
References
Acknowledgement
The Daily Blog: The September 15th Dotcom vs GCSB Town Hall meeting in Auckland
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Guest Author: So John Key, a man can’t be a feminist?
.
Comedian Louis C.K. John Key, David Cunliffe.
The hillbilly minority in this country has entered another week in wasted anger over David Cunliffe’s “sorry for being a man” quote. A new Facebook page has risen from the depths of hate as “Labour’s war on men” – attracting close to 700 lost rednecks to join up in a matter of days. It includes, from the observation of the naked eye, truckers expressing their distaste in Cunliffe’s use of words.
Those who know me will know; this is something I just can’t stand. Men, insisting they are an oppressed minority.
OK, for goodness sakes – you are a WHITE MAN! Let me use Louis C.K’s scenario; if you had a time machine, you, as a white man could go anywhere, at any point in time, and be welcomed with open arms and rights. If you are a woman – that’s not the case. Anywhere before 1970 and you’ll get Women saying – “No thanks, don’t feel like being patted on the backside in the workplace” or “I have better things to do than staying at home all day, doing the ironing”.
Men have it great. I know this. And every man knows this. What no man understands is the despicable discrimination and hatred which still exists against Women in our modern, supposedly liberal society. Women are still underrepresented in boardrooms, council rooms and offices of high power. We still have existing stereotypes that Men do one thing and Women do the other. We still use phrases like ‘are you man enough?’ as if Women are lesser when it comes to bravery.
So, Men aren’t discriminated against in our society. Men are incredibly focused on in popular culture; for example, why are we so interested in the All Blacks and not the Blackferns? Do you even know who the Blackferns are?
Then there’s violence. Violence against women. Whenever someone tries to raise the point of this completely ignored and horrifyingly common violence, you’ll always get someone saying “It’s not OK to hit a man too!”. Oh poop. Are you man enough?
We are discussing Women’s violence. You know, the one we ignore but counts for 85% of all violence at home? Yeah, that’s the violence we are trying to discuss here. This is the violence the media has ignored every time a politician has tried to address this serious problem. Then there’s the audacity from our manliest beast of a man John Key, who laughs off Cunliffe’s comments.
This is not a joke. One woman calling a helpline or the police every nine minutes because she is being beaten by a man she loves is not a joke. It could hardly be interpreted as such, and I’m sorry men, but for once – this isn’t all about you. This is about saving lives, relationships and families. This is about saving young women from being scarred for life – this is about being defenders of the vulnerable and a voice for the voiceless.
What the media should have focused on is what Cunliffe said after “I’m sorry for being a man”. But we didn’t hear a word. Had we heard a word, and had New Zealanders been willing to listen and willing to care, David Cunliffe would not only be respected, but would be labeled a hero for speaking out.
The fact the media was up to it’s old tricks, trying to spot a gaffe, the fact our Prime Minister and various other politicians used his comments for their gain is disgusting. They used it without even checking nor accepting the crisis which exists within the country they govern. The country they could fix.
Key laughed offed the comments and gained reputation for being the voice of ‘oppressed men’ – all the while, he watched as the Christchurch Rape Crisis Centre closed it’s doors, leaving dozens in a broken city without hope.
$30,000 to leave that open. The next day he spent $80,000 on re-designing bank notes.
That is how our government values women. That is how our government values abuse. That is how our government values rape. A joke, and less important than a banknote. $50,000 less important than a banknote. Keep going Mr. Key, you’re doing Abbott proud…
So if men can’t be feminists, I guess there never should have been whites speaking out against apartheid. I guess there shouldn’t be Jewish people right now fighting the actions of a Zionist government in Palestine. And I guess no straight person should celebrate a gay couple being happy.
And if men never act on issues which help Women; then there would never be the right for Women to vote.
So in that respect, laughing off Cunliffe’s comments as ‘feminist bullshit’ is un-Kiwi. It goes against who we are and why we are all here; to fight for the equality of all our people.
B. Morgan, 2014.
Re-printed by kind permission from Bennett’s blog, InsightNZ
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Dear Leader loves you!
.
The Cult of Dear Leader
.
It was inevitable. The poll-rated ‘popularity’ of Prime Minister has evolved into a full-blown, carefully-choreographed, Cult of Personality the likes of which this country has never before seen.
The recent National Party conference focused on one man; John Key. The new catchphrase; “TeamKey“.
Everything was “TeamKey”. If you are not “TeamKey”, then obviously you are not “on-board the team”. It has a definite authoritarian, quasi-fascist ring to it.
.
.
The visual effects surrounding Key became disturbingly familiar, as the Party unleashed an Orwellian-like publicity campaign reminiscent of a Stalinist-style Personality Cult promotion of their leader;
.
.
Team Key v.s. Team Stalin?
.
.
Even the techniques seemed eerily familiar. Only the year was different- from 1984 to 2014;
.
.
The Great Leap Forward to a Brighter Future? Did Mao and Key have the same PR firm for their campaigns?
.
.
But this is the 21st Century. We don’t do tacky political posters any more. We iz more sophis-ti–katud…
.
.
For those who are a tad long-sighted, Party functionaries made absolutely certain that The Leader’s image could be seen from every vantage point, by every person. It certainly worked wonders for Big Brother’s re-election chances in 1984’s ‘Oceania’;
.
.
(If you’re going to do Cult of Personality, number one on the List To Do’s – phone Hire Quip for f*****g big telescreens.)
When the left began to refer to Key as “Dear Leader” soon after the 2008 General Election, it was meant as a spoof. We didn’t intend it to be a literal suggestion for a future election campaign-strategy;
.
.
Even the Party’s campaign slogan this year has a weird, pseudo-Soviet hint to it;
.
.
What next, Five Year Plans?!
Of course, no Cult of Personality is complete without the photogenic partner to complete the conflated image of sexual success with political power. It works equally well for despotic dictators as well as demagogic democrats; for Team Key or Team Assad;
.
.
Having kids in publicity shots is always a handy bonus, to add the “family element” to any successful Cult of Personality. Above all, Teamkey must be seen as family – especially kid – friendly;
.
.
Will we soon be referring to Dear Leader Key as “Uncle John”? The kindly Great Leader to whom we look for solutions how to increase our rice crop yields and produce more pig iron?
.
.
The Party will always show Great Leader relaxed. Never upset. That would reveal things to us proles, that the Party’s central committee would rather not have made public.
Things like attacking and under-mining worker’s rights; implementing mining in national parks and deep-sea drilling of our coast; rising child poverty, hunger, and spreading incidences of Third World diseases; increasing wage-wealth inequality; 15,000 homeless people in just Auckland alone; tax cuts for the rich, paid by the sale of state assets; increasing prescription fees which the poor could barely afford before; giving away taxpayers subsidies to charter schools, smelters, movie companies – while rape crisis centres had their funding cut (until election year rolled around) and closed down.
All these things must never be reflected in the Leader’s expression. He must be happy, casual, and supremely confident. Even when things are turning to sh*t for the rest of us.
This is Teamkey.
.
.
Certainly not this;
.
.
In case anyone thinks that conflating our Dear Leader with the likes of Stalin, Assad, Mussolini, etc is outrageous and nonsensical – they are essentially correct.
But no more outrageous and nonsensical than the Cult of Personality that the National Party’s taxpayer funded strategists and media spin-doctors are in the process of creating around one man. Elevating one human being to such a position positively invites ridicule and comparisons with past larger-than-life political leaders.
There are other reasons why personality-driven politics should be anathema to our way of doing things;
1. The public becomes more cynical as our democratic system devolves into a superficial contest of personalities.
The United States is a prime example where personality-driven politics will lead us – low voter turn-out; venal, incompetant people elected to power; and the rise of extremist political factions such as the ‘Tea Party’.
2. The media will love it. Personality politics will mesh perfectly with personality-driven media reporting.
In fact, it would be the perfect symbiotic relationship, with each feeding of the other.
3. How will this impact on our political leaders’ mental state? Love them or hate them, they are human, and a Cult of Personality will eventually lead to some very bad policy-drafting; decision-making; and laws, as they begin to believe their own hype.
It has happened to us once beforte. Robert Muldoon should serve as a salient reminder to us how one man’s unrestrained ego led this country to near-ruin.
It also invites the very serious question; if the National Party are basing their re-election success on one individual – does that mean that they have no policy successes; no social or economic gains, upon which to base any other style of campaign?
Perhaps the real question though – is a Cult of Personality compatible with the Kiwi group-psyche of self-effacement and not blowing one’s own trumpet? After all, it is said we are a nation of tall-poppy cutters.
If National are not careful, #teamkey may simply become hash-teamkey.
.
References
Kiwiblog: The Government targets
Radio NZ: Christchurch rape crisis centre closing
Taranaki Daily News: Hungry kids eating pig slops
Fairfax media: Auckland’s hidden homeless
NZ Herald: Meds price hike: ‘Children will die’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 9 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
To any Israeli solidiers reading this…
.
… when you are fighting women and children, you have lost.
It is not women and children who threaten you, it is your own recourse to violence and oppression.
.
.
.
.
It’s time to put down your guns and clubs and behave like civilised human beings. Hopefully you still understand what it means to be civilised? And human?
.
.
.
= fs =
TV3 News on Polling Cellphone Users – Only A Year Late
.
.
Over a year ago, in March 2013, I raised the issue of cellphone users not being polled by the major polling companies, with the exception of Roy Morgan. To polling companies such as Reid Research, UMR, Ipsos, Colmar Brunton, Digipoll, etc, people who rely solely on cellphones are “invisible” when it comes to surveying.
As I wrote on 8 March last year,
“If the numbers of households without a landline are significant (+/- 10%), then polling companies will either have to adjust their polling techniques – or be rendered useless. Without factoring in cellphone-only households, polling companies risk becoming an expensive ‘parlour game’ with little value.”
The importance of this fact was highlighted in last year’s Census, which reported on 3 December 2013 that 14.5% of households did not have access to a landline,
“Access to a landline telephone decreased. In 2013, 85.5 percent of households had access to a landline telephone at home, down from 91.6 percent in 2006.”
I then wrote on 12 December,
“Low income families may not necessarily have credit on their cellphones – but that does not prevent polling companies from phoning in, to cellphone owners. As I blogged on 1 September, when Roy Morgan phoned me on my cellphone (see: Mr Morgan phoned).
The up-shot of this census result is twofold;
-
As the only pollster to call respondants’ cellphones, Roy Morgan is the most credible polling company and the one to watch.
-
Expect other polling companies to follow suit and call respondants via their cellphones – or risk being ignored and becoming irrelevant.”
It was therefore amusing to see this TV3 “news” story on 6 July
.
.
As the story stated;
The rise of the mobile phone is casting a shadow over the reliability of traditional telephone polling…
[…]
In fact, he says it is not just young people who are rejecting landlines. The latest census data shows 86 percent of households have a landline, down from 92 percent in 2006.
And only eight months since I pointed out that the increasing sole-reliance on cellphones in many households made land-line-calling, as a sole means of contacting respondents, somewhat dubious.
Interestingly, TV3 journo, Emma Jolliff – who penned the story – wrote,
“…because there is no directory of mobile phone numbers those people are essentially off the grid to pollsters.”
.
References
Stats NZ: Release Calendar
Stats NZ: 2013 Census QuickStats about national highlights – Phone and Internet access
TV3: Cellphones make political polling tricky
Roy Morgan: National (48%) down but still holds clear election winning lead over Labour/ Greens (40%)
Previous related blogposts
Dodgy polls, dodgy dealings, and a spot of fear-mongering
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (Part rua)
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 8 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Barbarians at the Gates
.
.
It appears that too many members of the Israeli government and military have learnt the lessons of their past Nazi persecutors all too well…
.
.
.
.
It’s all in “self-defense”, of course…
.
.
Message to the Israeli government: let us know when you’ve killed the last Palestinian. Will that be “Mission Accomplished”?
.
References
Radio NZ: Israel ‘will not give in’ on Gaza
The Greanville Post: “Operation Protective Edge”: Is Israel Planning Gaza’s “Final Solution”?
Today’s Zaman: Palestinian death toll rises to 76 as Israel hits Gaza
Previous related blogposts
Provocateurs attempt to disrupt March for Palestine, in Wellington!
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair: responses from NZ Herald and Prime Minister’s Office – Is the PM’s office fudging?
.
.
1. To re-cap
.
The Donghua Liu Affair hit the headlines on 18 June, with allegations that David Cunliffe wrote a letter in 2003, on behalf of business migrant, Donghua Liu.
Four days later, on Sunday 22 June, the Herald ran stories alleging massive donations to the Labour Party by Liu. Tabloid- style stories of $100,000 paid for a bottle of wine and $15,000 for a book, along with a $50,000-$60,000 dinner party hosted for then Labour minister, Rick Barker, and a donation to a rowing club, raged for several days.
By Wednesday, on 25 June, the Herald was forced to retract Liu’s claims. The “new” story was that Liu’s “donation” was,
“… close to $100,000 and that is my closing comment in my statement…that is how much I believe I have donated in total to Labour and some of their MPs during their last term in Government.”
The so-called Yangtze River boat “dinner for Rick Barker” turned out to be some sort of staff function that Liu had invited the Labour minister to attend.
Only Liu’s donation – of $2,000 – to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club, was confirmed. Considering that any “link” between the NZ Labour Party and Hawkes Bay Rowing Club is tenuous at best (Barker’s daughter was a member of the club), the value of this aspect of the Liu Affair is dubious, to put it mildly.
Cunliffe’s 2003 letter was far from “avocating on Liu’s behalf”. Instead, the 11 April 2003 letter turned out to be a stock-standard inquiry sent to Immigration NZ with the rather banal request ,
“I am aware of the difficulties facing the Business Migration Branch of New Zealand Immigration Services in coping with the overwhelming numbers of applicants that have applied for consideration under these categories and the time taken to verify documents. However it would be very helpful to Mr Liu to be advised of an estimated period of time period [sic] in which he could expect a decision on his case.”
Requesting “an estimated period of time period” seems a stretch to describe it as advocating.
Accordingly, this blogger lodged a formal complaint with the Herald’s editor-in-Chief, and the Office of the Prime Minister.
.
2. The NZ Herald – formal complaint & Murphy’s response
.
On 28 June, I emailed a formal complaint to Tim Murphy, the Herald’s editor, on how he and his staff had conducted themselves regarding the Liu Affair;
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Tim Murphy <Tim.Murphy@nzherald.co.nz>
date: Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM
subject: Formal Complaint to NZ Herald’s stories on Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others
Kia ora Mr Murphy,Thank you for your response, dated 27 June, which I consider an inadequate response to my earlier email to you
Further to your response to me, you may consider this a formal complaint regarding the nature of your paper’s stories regardiing Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others.
1. On 18 June, your paper published stories relating to a letter written by current Labour MP, David Cunliffe to the Immigration Service, dated 11 April 2003. In several subsequent stories referring to this letter, the Herald omitted any reference to the date on this letter, thereby suggesting to readers that the letter was recently written.
Examples:
Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
Ref: Liu: $100k not just for wine – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11281832
Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276526
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539
Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278520
The consequence of this omission in several Herald stories is that readers who are unaware of all the facts may be led to the impression that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was a more recent event, and therefore not give due weight to his explanation that he was unaware of an eleven year old letter due to the passage of time and thus not recalling the incident.
Therefore, your reporting of this event, and omitting to refer to the letter as a “2003 letter”, is mis-leading by omission of a salient fact.
2. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $15,000 for a book at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.
That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 21 June, where Jared Savage wrote;
“National declared a $22,000 donation in 2012, but Labour found no records of Liu donations after the Herald revealed that he paid $15,000 for a book at an auction fundraiser in 2007.”
Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278520
The Herald presented an unsubstantiated claim as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that this claim was verified as true.
This was mis-leading reporting of a salient event.
3. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.
That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 22 June, where Bevan Hurley wrote;
“Millionaire businessman Donghua Liu spent more than $150,000 on the previous Labour government, including $100,000 on a bottle of wine signed by former prime minister Helen Clark at a party fundraiser.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089
This claim was subsequently amended on 25 June, where Jared Savage wrote;
“Controversial businessman Donghua Liu has issued a new statement to the Herald confirming “close to” $100,000 in total payments to Labour and its MPs – including anonymous donations – but clarifying that the money was not for one bottle of wine.”
Ref: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
Between 22 June and 25 June, the Herald has presented Liu’s claims regarding paying $100,000 for a bottle of wine as fact.
But Liu’s claims were not only unsubstantiated claims without evidence, but also Liu did not make a formal affidavit which would have given greater legal standing to his claims.
The Herald chose to base their stories on;
1. one man’s claims,
2. a “signed statement” rather than an affidavit,
3. no evidence,
4. no witnesses.The Herald presented unsubstantiated claims as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that his claims were verified as true.
4. On 22 June, Bevan Hurley wrote in the NZ Herald that the paper had obtained a copy of Donghua Liu’s “signed statement” which made several claims;
“The embarrassing revelations are contained in a signed statement from Liu, which the Herald on Sunday has obtained.”
Ref: Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089
The Herald has not released a verbatim copy of Liu’s “signed statement”, despite making public David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter on 18 June,
Ref: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276510
It is manifestly unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable that the Herald has not released, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” as it did with David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
It is unfair because the public have recourse to only one side of the story and access to only one letter, written in 2003, but not the more recent document by Liu.
It is unreasonable, because if the Herald saw fit to quote from Liu’s “signed statement”, then it should publish the entire document, in full and verbatim, so that the public can make their own conclusions on Liu’s claims.
Otherwise, by using only excerpts, the Herald has presented only a restricted version of Liu’s statement.
The lack of full disclosure has led to the Herald presenting mis-information. This was admitted by the paper on 25 June, when Liu changed his story;
Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
On 27 June, a Herald editorial admitted that it had mis-reprtesented facts based on Liu’s claims;
“We regret having reported inflated and conflated dollar figures.”
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539It is unconscionable that the Herald refused to publish either Liu’s original “signed statement” or his subsequent “clarification”.
The role of the media is to present information to the public – not to restrict it’s availability.
There are few reasons why a media outlet might not disclose information;
1. Court suppression orders,
2. Where a victim of a crime, or witness, might be harmed or otherwise impacted,
3. Where children are involved.
4. Where information might be defamatory and actionable.Liu’s “signed statement” does not fit criterias 1, 2, or 3.
Does it fit criteria #4?
If so, and if the document is defamatory and actionable, is that why the Herald chose not to publish it, verbatim?
Herald editor, Tim Murphy, alluded to this in a Radio NZ interview on 23 June.
Ref: New Zealand Herald stands by its story – http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20140623-0732-new_zealand_herald_stands_by_its_story-048.mp3
If Liu’s “signed statement” could not be used because it contained unsubstantiated claims and statements that were potentially defamatory and actionable – why was the document used at all, as a basis upon which to publish a series of stories?
5. On 18 June, the Herald’s chief political commentator, John Armstrong, wrote a column that was highly condemnatory of David Cunliffe, and called for his resignation.
Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276526
(A) At no time did Armstrong refer to the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to the Immigration Service had been written in 2003. As outlined above, this omission of fact would have mis-lead any reader who was unaware of all facts pertaining to Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
(B) By omitting the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration Service was eleven years old, Armstrong was able to arrive at the unreasonable conclusion;
“Either deliberately or through a lapse of memory, Cunliffe has been economical with the truth.”
This was a clear claim that Cunliffe lied.
(C) Armstrong further wrote;
“Unless Cunliffe can come up with a very good explanation, the answer has to be ‘no’.”
That statement ignores the fact that Cunliffe had already explained that the letter was eleven years old and any reasonable person would have understood that such an event would be difficult to recall.
Armstrong’s column, by itself, would amount to very little except an extreme viewpoint of one individual.
But taken in context with the Herald’s subsequent stories, based primarily on Donghua Liu’s “signed statement”, it becomes apparent that the paper has adopted an unfair and biased stance against David Cunliffe.
6. The Herald’s bias was further apparent in it’s reporting of Donghua Liu’s claims that he spent thousands of dollars on a social event for visiting Labour MP, Rick Barker. As Bervan Hurley wrote on 22 June;
“• That he spent $50-60,000 hosting then-labour minister Rick Barker on a cruise on the Yangtze River in China in 2007; and
• That Liu visited Barker in Hawke’s Bay in 2006, having dinner with him at an exclusive lodge and then meeting for breakfast the next morning. Liu said he made a donation to Hawke’s Bay Rowing, which Barker was associated with.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089It has transpired that Liu’s Yangtze river boat social event was a staff party for his employees;
“”I went to China to catch up with some friends of mine, see some sights … and I made a side trip to Chongqing – I had not been to the city before.
“I was in the city a short time. Mr Liu showed me his business and that night, I attended a dinner which seemed to be a dinner he had put on for all his staff.”
Ref: Photograph shows Liu-Labour link – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276071
Regarding Donghua Liu’s $2,000 donation to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club – which has thus far been the only claim by Liu to be substantiated – in what way is a donation from a private individual to a club evidence of wrong-doing by Rick Barker?
This incident and subsequent Herald reporting appears to be an exercise in guilt-by association or guilt-by-innuendo.
There is no evidence or claim by Liu that Barker prompted the migrant businessman to make the donation.
If Liu made the donation to “impress” Mr Barker, how can that be laid at the feet of the then-Labour MP?
Why has the Herald seen fit to spin Liu’s donation to the rowing club as somehow attributable to Rick Barker and the Labour Party?
If Liu’s donation to the rowing club in 2006 was designed to “curry favour” with the then-Labour government, it should be noted that Liu had already been granted residency two years before, in 2004 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10172715/David-Cunliffe-advocated-for-Donghua-Liu).
This was mis-leading, slanted reporting of a minor event.
7. In conclusion, I maintain the folllowing;
(a) the Herald has relied on the unsubstantiated claims of one man, that he made various donations to the Labour Party. These donations originally amounted to $150,000 on 22 June (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089) but were later wound back to $38,000 on 27 June (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539).
(b) the Herald has relied on a “signed statement”, rather than a legally binding affidavit.
(c) the Herald has had to change it’s story after Liu provided a “clarification” on 27 June.
(d) the Herald has not published either Liu’s original “signed statement” nor the subsequent “clarification”.
(e) the Herald does not appear to have conducted any investigation as to Liu’s motivation for making his “signed statement”, which was signed two days after Maurice Williamson was forced to resign after his involvement with Liu was made public.
(f) Unsubstantiated claims were presented as facts.
(g) the Herald has not apologised for promoting claims of a “$100,000 bottle of wine” or “$15,000 book” – subsequently admitted by Liu to be incorrect.
(h) the Herald has mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation to Liu’s river boat party.
(i) the Herald has mis-represented Liu’s donation to a boating club and unfairly linked it to Rick Barker.
(j) the Herald’s series of stories since 18 June has been biased against David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, and the Labour Party by distorted reporting and by improper emphasis.
(k) Reporting of Liu’s claims has not been factually based nor verified, prior to publication.
(l) The Herald’s stories since 18 June have been harmfully inaccurate, as outlined above.
(m) By not publishing, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” and subsequent “clarification”, the Herald has not disclosed all essential facts and has suppressed relevant, available facts.
I await your response and your remedies (if any), to the issues I have raised.
Regards,-Frank Macskasy
Mr Murphy replied within the required ten (working) days outlined by the Press Council for such formal matters. His response,
from: Tim Murphy <Tim.Murphy@nzherald.co.nz>
to: “fmacskasy@gmail.com” <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:45 AM
subject: FW: Formal Complaint to NZ Herald’s stories on Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others
mailed-by: nzherald.co.nzDear Mr Macskasy
Thank you for your follow up email below.
1. The date of the letter was prominently publicised at the time we broke the story and indeed we published the letter online. The residency application by Liu was in the mid-2000s and that was referenced numerous times in our coverage. We do not list all dates and facts in all subsequent references.
2. We stand by our report that a book was purchased and expect further ‘evidence’ of this to be made public shortly.
3. It is clear that the $100,000 for a bottle of wine was misreported, and was corrected as soon as further information became available from Liu. We clarified this on all our channels and in the subsequent Herald on Sunday and explained the error in an editorial in the New Zealand Herald.
4. We do not automatically make public documents which we obtain as part of ongoing journalistic inquiries. There are many reasons for this, including the conditions upon which they were obtained from whatever source and the need for us to pursue further matters contained within. While there seems to be an expectation that journalistic inquiry must be ‘open source’ this ignores these conditions and also the competitive nature of news gathering. The Cunliffe letter was obtained under the Official Information Act and was released to all media, so is thus automatically a public document.
5. You seem to have accepted without question MP Rick Barker’s claim he attended only a staff party in China. We do not accept this and expect further details of the hospitality for him and others in China to be revealed in due course.
6. It would be wilfully naïve to assume that the donation to the rowing club associated with an MP, the day after that MP has hosted Liu in the region, is unconnected to that MP. The donation was made and Liu made it with the intent of it being in favour of the MP.
In general, the Herald has been inquiring into Liu since late last year and reporting on his donations and immigration procedures and links with political parties since March. The issues raised regarding donations to Labour did not solely emerge from the signed statement but were established some time prior. The signed statement from Liu was used because it confirmed (albeit with inflated and conflated figures) matters which had already been becoming apparent to our inquiry.
We fully expect further details to come will show the Herald’s earlier reporting to have, as we have known throughout, been accurate and soundly based.
Yours sincerely
Tim Murphy
Editor-in-chief, Herald titles
I do not consider Murphy’s response to be adequate, and accordingly filed a formal complaint to the Press Council on 5 July. The text of my complaint is substantially the same as my 28 June email to Tim Murphy (see above).
The complaint is based on two Principles Breached;
1. Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
[…]
4. Comment and Fact
.
3. Office of the Prime Minister – OIA Request; PM’s response; and Clarification sought
.
On 19 and 26 June, I lodged a formal OIA request with the Office of the Prime Minister;
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM
subject: OIA Request – Reminder!Kia ora Mr Key,
On 19 June – now one week ago – I lodged an OIA request with you and your office.
My request was as follows,
Kia ora Mr Key.
This is a request lodged under the Official Information Act.
Please provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording, relating to any and all activities surrounding the procurement; storage; and planned circumstances of the release of the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003.
This includes a request for all communications relating to the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003, which may have occurred between yourself; any and all staffmembers in your office; any member of the National Party; any blogger; any media person; and any other group or individual who was contacted on this issue.
Information may be emailed to me, or, if the file is too large, I can supply a postal address for hard copies.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
Since then, I have not received any acknowledgement to my lodged application and require you to do so, under the Act.
If I do not receive acknowledgement to my request, I will have no option but to pursue the matter with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
I received acknowledgement of my OIA request on 26 June, and a formal response on 3 July, signed by Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson;
.
.
I considered Mr Eagleson’s response to my OIA request also to be inadequate. Accordingly, I wrote back;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sarah Boyle <Sarah.Boyle@parliament.govt.nz>
cc: Wayne Eagleson <Wayne.Eagleson@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:34 AM
subject: Re: Response to your request of 19 June
Kia ora Ms Boyle,Thank you for replying promptly to my OIA request on the Donghua Liu Affair and your office’s involvement in the matter.
I find it highly surprising that, according to Mr Eagleson’s letter (dated 3 July), that “no correspondence has been sent or received regarding this matter , and no minutes, notes, reports or otherwise have been produced on the matter”.
It seems unlikely that the Liu Affair has not been mentioned in even one email?
What correspondence was sent to the Prime Minister around 18 June, when he was in the United States?
Surely the Prime Minister’s office was in touch with him when the Liu Affair went public in the NZ Herald around 18 June?
So how can there be no emails, “minutes, notes, reports or otherwise” between the Prime Minister and your office?
Mr Eagleson’s assertion simply does not seem credible.
I await clarification before proceeding with this matter to the Ombudsman’s Office.
Regards,
Frank Macskasy
Further to that email, I wrote a follow-up to Ms Boyle and Mr Eagleson,
…it is my understanding that the Parliamentary system relating to received documents involve date-stamping hard copies of any and all documents received by an MP’s office, before being filed or passed on.Therefore, you should have a hard copy of David Cunliffe’s letter with a date-stamp imprinted on it.
In which case, why did Mr Eagleson state “to the best recollection of events a copy of the letter was received by a member of staff from this office on or around 26 May 2014 from the Office of the Minister of Immigration”?
A date stamped hard-copy would be evidence of the date it was received by a staffer, and not have to rely on solely on memory or ” best recollection of events”, as Mr Eagleson wrote.
If the 2003 Cunliffe letter was sent by email, then that document should still be in your system and accordingly still falls within my request to “provide me with copies of all correspondence”.
Regardless of whether or not the 2003 letter by David Cunliffe was received by electronic means or by hard copy by your Office, it still falls within my request to “provide me with copies of all correspondence”.Further from Mr Eagleson,
“I can confirm that this office on the weekend of 10/11 May was advised about the existence of a letter from David Cunliffe to Immigration New Zealand (INZ) regarding Mr Liu dated 11 April 2003.”How has Mr Eagleson arrived at the firm date of 10/11 May as to when the PM’s Office was “advised about the existence of a letter from David Cunliffe to Immigration New Zealand”? The specific date indicates that a record of the receipt of the 2003 letter has been kept.In which case, that record is part of my request, to ” provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording”.Mr Eagleson also wrote;“The Prime Minister would have been advised about the existence of the letter prior to it’s release under the Official Information ACT by INZ.”
That statement infers that the Prime Minister was briefed on this matter.Which further infers that the briefing took place using notes or a written agenda for a scheduled briefing session or meeting between Mr Eagleson and the Prime Minister.Again, this falls within the scope of my OIA request, to ” provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording”.I await further clarification on these points, before proceeding to the Ombudsman’s Office.Regards,Frank Macskasy
Having spent a brief time working in the Alliance Parliamentary Office in the 1990s, I have an understanding of the protocols of correspondence in MPs’ offices. Therefore, Wayne Eagleson’s 3 July letter makes no sense and is notable more for it’s omissions than facts. Parliamentary staffers simply do not rely on memory as to when correspondence and other documents are received.
It seems that there is yet more to this story than has been made public.
.
References
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
References sites*
NZ Press Council – Complaints Procedure
EPMU – Journalist Code of Ethics
* Hat-tip – Zetetic
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Protest against National Party soiree results in one arrest – for bugger all!
.
Acknowledgement: Garrick Tremain
.
NZ, Wellington, 29 June 2014 – About one hundred people took part in a peaceful – if noisy – protest on a Saturday night outside Wellington’s sea-front museum, Te Papa. The National Party had booked Te Papa for a cocktail evening, with flash tuxedos and expensive frocks de rigueur for the evening.
Needless to say, low-income families and beneficiaries were not overly represented at this exclusive soirée.
The protest action was organised by Pōneke Action Against Poverty, a recently formed grass-roots pressure group fighting the widening gap between rich and poor in Aotearoa-New Zealand.
In a widely distributed statement, PAAP spokesperson, Kassie Hartendorp, said,
“While the Government has been lauding a drop in the number of people receiving the benefit, real unemployment has stayed the same. Instead of lifting people out of poverty, this Government has been refusing to support those who need help.”
The group statement condemned National current economic, social, and environmental policies;
While previously refusing to acknowledge the reality of being poor in Aotearoa, in May of 2013 Finance Minister Bill English declared “We don’t believe there is a solution to poverty in general.”
At the same time this Government is supporting the wealthy to become richer. From tax cuts in 2010 to asset sales and the ongoing expansion of mining, drilling, and fracking, this government is supporting big business while ignoring those who need help.
Pōneke Action Against Poverty stated that they wanted to see a Government working to support the most vulnerable in our society. Kassie Hartendorp said,
“We want to see a rise in the benefit (for the first time in decades), and the introduction of a decent Living Wage which is tied to the average wage in this country.”
Judging by the style of clothing worn to the Te Papa cocktail party, poverty was not a problem for attendees.
Many of the attendees had to walk the gauntlet between two rows of protesters. In case anyone believes that is “unfair” – consider that 250,000-plus children living in poverty is also unfair. Let this be a reminder to National Party members of the consequences of the policies they support;
.
.
This was a salient reminder to those middle class aspirationists and One Percenters that there is real, palpable anger out in the community.
.
.
There was sustained, loud, enthusiastic chanting from the crowd;
“One, two, three, four! Stop the war on the poor!”
“Shame! Shame!”
“What’s the story, filthy Tory?”
“Whose streets?Our streets!”
“When workers rights are under attack – Stand up fight back!
If those National supporters think sixty protesters were too noisy, imagine 250,000 children all screaming out for help. Something that Minister and National Party campaign strategist, Steven Joyce, might bear in mind, as he walked by;
.
.
Some clear messages for the National Party, and it’s supporters;
.
.
(Acknowledgement: Mick McCrohon)
.
.
When the Prime Minister himself puts down the poorest of the poor in this country, is it any wonder that people will react accordingly? These signs say it all;
.
.
Even the cetaceans aren’t safe from this government;
.
.
Co-administrator of the ‘John Key has Let Down New Zealand‘ Facebook group (current membership: 14,605), Karen Jones (R), with her two daughters, Katie (L) and Tracey (centre). Karen is the very proud mum of two very sharp, and dedicated, young activists;
.
.
And speaking of young people, these teenagers – not part of the protest – were curious to know what was going on;
.
.
We explained to them that it was a protest against National’s social, economic, and environment policies. They immediately wanted to know if it related to mining on the Denniston Plateau and drilling in marine reserves! They were thoroughly clued up on contemporary environmental issues,
“New Zealand’s such a unique landscape, why ruin it, just for money?”
“Money is such a short time thing but then, like, our environment is a long time thing, and you can’t really replace [it].”
It would be a mistake to believe that young people are disinterested in the critical issues of the day. They were knowledgeable, and they were articulate. They were firm in their opposition to mining and drilling in our national parks and marine reserves.
They are the future hope for our country.
Greenpeace’s envoy from the arctic, the polar bear, tried to pass on the message of global warming threatening our world. Predictably, National Party supporters were more interested in cocktails and canapés, rather than climate change, as they hurried by;
.
.
Police presence numbered around ten to a dozen, with additional private security guards to boost numbers. The One Percent must be very afraid of their tenuous hold on power.
.
.
.
The protesters re-grouped to face the courtyard in front of Te Papa. By this time, their numbers had swelled to around a hundred. They were no less vocal, as National Party members, Ministers, and assorted MPs kept arriving.
When Tony Ryall walked by, I asked in a fairly loud voice,
“Mr Ryall, do you have anything to saying about a quarter of a million children living in poverty?”
I asked the question three times. He walked past, with no answer.
.
.
Towards the end of the protest, Police arrested one person – Darren – for “Offensive Behaviour”. Darren had allegedly used a can of “spray string“, aimed at National Party members. As this blogger was present and witnesssed the incident, Darren did not “spray paint” the museum, and reports to that effect are untrue.
Police were quick to move in and arrest Darren seconds after he discharged the can. As the photos clearly show, Darren was relaxed, smiling, and at no time offered any physical resistance;
.
.
Several dozen of the protesters – many holding various electronic recording devices (including this blogger, ‘armed’ with a camera and Voice Recorder) – looked on. At this point I asked one of the constables,
FM: “Are you arresting this gentleman, are you?”
Policeman: “We’re just speaking with him at this stage.”
People were watching and perhaps this kept Darren’s arrest restrained and non-violent;
.
.
As this image clearly shows, Darren was not only not resisting, but stood casually beside them and made no attempt to flee;
.
.
After being questioned, Darren was led to a ‘paddy wagon’, some few metres away;
.
.
Three minutes after my first query, as policemen held Darren’s arms behind his back, I asked,
FM: “Excuse me, is he under arrest?”
Policeman 1: “That’s up to him. That’s up to him if he wants to tell you that.”
I asked again;
FM: “Excuse me, is this gentleman under arrest?”
Policeman 2: “Are you his lawyer?”
FM: “Sorry?”
Policeman 2: “Are you his lawyer?”
FM: “No, no I’m not.”
Policeman: “Well don’t interfere with them, while they’re doing their job.”
FM: “No, no. No, no. Not doing anything [to interfere].”
I persisted,
FM: “Can anyone tell me what he’s being charged with? Can anyone tell me what he’s being charged with?”
[No reply from police.]
Darren: Offensive behaviour apparently.
FM “Offensive behaviour? [to police] Is that correct?”
[No reply from police.]
Darren: “Offensive behaviour.”
Policeman: “Hey look, if you want to video, I’ll take it that’s fine, but what I’ll just ask you to do is keep your distance while we’re dealing with this? “
FM: [holding my hands up]: “Not going to touch you guys, not coming anywhere near you guys.”
Policeman: “If you could just, yeah, like I say.. that’ll be great -“
FM: “Yep, yep, arms length.”
As Darren was handcuffed, I asked, I asked Police,
FM: “Is it necessary to handcuff him? He wasn’t being violent.”
Policeman: “Standard procedure -“
FM: “It’s what, sorry? Standard procedure is it, to handcuff him?”
Policeman: ” – when we’re dealing with him.”
.
.
There seemed no apparent reason for hand-cuffing Darren. He gave no resistance, and he fully complied with their instructions.
The following three images have been brightness-enhanced, but otherwise un-retouched. They show Darren hand-cuffed; and led into the paddy-wagon;
.
.
.
.
About half an hour later, as it became apparent that no further guests were arriving to the function, the protesters packed up and moved away without further incident.
On Sunday evening, following Darren’s arrest and release, I interviewed him on-line to ascertain what had happened.
.
Frank: Firstly, can you tell us what happened last night [Saturday]?
Darren: I was at a protest against the 2014 National Party Conference outside of Te Papa, where National Party Members were meeting for an evening function.
Frank: Can you tell us what the protest was about?
Darren: The protest was about a number of issues that people are angry at the National based government for pushing through despite public opposition, including the selling of prospecting rights on marine reserves to foreign multinational oil companies. At approximately 7:30pm I was arrested for ‘Offensive Behaviour’.
Frank: I was present when you were arrested. You used one of those party “string” spray-cans. You weren’t spray painting Te Papa, as some reports have stated, were you?
Darren: Yes at one stage I was holding a “string” spray-can. I did not spray paint the building. I, like other protesters, was offended by the behaviour of our so-called National Museum Te Papa that allowed an undemocratic right-wing political party, who I as a Citizen of New Zealand am opposed to, to book their premises.
Frank: Indeed, many people present can vouch that the spray can you were holding was not a paint can. So, what happened when you were arrested? You were handcuffed?
Darren: When I was first arrested a police officer took hold of my arm, I did not resist. They ‘patted me down to search me and confiscated all my personal items, wallet, cellphone, flat keys etc. I was ordered to put my hands behind my back and they put metal handcuffs on me. I was then told to enter the police van, where I sat for what felt like about ten minutes. Then I was let out and told to get into the back of a police car.
Frank: I was present when that happened, Darren. There seemed to be some uncertainty that the police charged you or not. Did they say they were charging you with anything?
Darren: I asked then what they were arresting for and was told the offense was ‘Offensive Behaviour’. They started asking me questions and I told them that I was remaining silent, which is one of my ‘Miranda Rights’.
Frank: Were you still handcuffed when they transferred you into the police car?
Darren: Yes, by that stage my wrists were bruised from the cuffs. The office sitting next to me attempted to put a seat belt on me, which would not fit because of the cuffs. I told the police that the cuffs were hurting my wrists but they would not take them off until I was processed at the police station some minutes later.
Frank: Ok. So all up, how long do you think you were handcuffed for? And can you confirm that you offered no resistance whatsoever? Because when I was present from the moment they caught you, using the “string” spray can, to the point they put you in the paddy-wagon, you showed no resistance at all. Was that your behaviour later, after they transferred you to the police car?
Darren: I think I was handcuffed for about twenty minutes, although it was hard to tell exactly as one of the first things that they confiscated was my wrist watch. The only time during the whole ordeal in which I showed any resistance was near the beginning when you were nearby, the policeman took hold of my right arm, which was technically an assault. I simply shrugged to get him to loosen his grip, which did not work. From then on I offered no resistance whatsoever and I remained silent for most of the time except to answer questions about my identification and residence etc and to make some general references, ie about the weather etc which had no bearing on my conviction.
Frank: Did they take you to the station to be formally charged and processed?
Darren: Yes, to my limited knowledge, it was done by their ‘book’. They processed me, gave me the formal charge of ‘Breach of the Peace’, photographed me, asked my intimate questions about my physiological and mental health, took my shoes, my belt and my ear rings and said that all my possessions would be kept in their safe while I was put into a holding cell for two hours. I was not allowed a telephone call or to contact legal representation, even though they mentioned that the police could provide me with ‘free lawyers’.
Frank: Did you ask to contact a lawyer or anyone else?
Darren: They briefly mentioned a lawyer when they were reading me my ‘rights’. I chose to remain silent except when an officer was padding me down and confiscating all my remaining property. I told the officer that when people are that intimate with me that they normally buy me a restaurant meal and a few drinks. The offer of a lawyer was not made again, and I was photographed and then marched into a holding cell, where I was left with no food, drink or telephone for about two hours, despite me telling them that I am diabetic.
At not time during the two hours did I have access to a telephone or my cellphone, even though I do remember asking for my cellphone back
Frank: So what time were you finally released? And have you been given a date to appear in Court?
Darren: It was about 9:40pm when they returned my watch and all my possessions. I think that they were annoyed that I remained silent and did not provide any resistance. According to my Breach of Peace Release Notice: “Subsequent enquiries have now established that: *(a) No charge will be laid against you in court and you are now free to leave the Police Station, OR” (sic) The notice was signed by the officer in charge. I was then marched out the vehicle entrance of the police station and told to go directly home.
Frank: How are your hands, after being handcuffed?
Darren: I did some wrist flexing exercises in the holding cell, that I remembered from going to a gym, to get the circulation back, but they are still bruised.
Frank: Any other observations you’d care to share with us about your Police experience? Do you think their detention of you was excessive?
Darren: Yes it was excessive. They didn’t need to handcuff me, they didn’t need to take every single personal item off me – what harm could I have done with my ear rings, for example. They could have asked if I wanted a glass of water or to make a telephone call. I had an ice coffee in my satchel, which they could have asked if I wanted to drink etc. The cell had a thin rubber mattress and a metal toilet, but that was all. They also didn’t need to hold me for two hours after processing me.
Frank: Will you lay a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Authority, do you think?
Darren: Probably not. No photos were taken of my wrists and the cuffs did not draw blood or cut off the circulation. No charge was laid against me and I don’t want to aggravate the police to change that decision.
Frank: Ok. Lastly, has this put you off taking further protest action do you think?
Darren: Not at all.
Frank: So we’ll see you on the next protest action then?
Darren: It depends upon what the next action is, but if the issue is important enough I will be there.
Frank: Thanks, Darren!
.
Postscript
Ministers really should car their ministerial limousines in legal car-parks – not just anywhere it suits them. These two were parked on a pedestrian plaza and across a motorcycle parking bay;
.
.
.
.
But I guess National ministers pretty well do whatever they like these days. The law doesn’t apply to them, obviously.
As I took these photos (on my way to my legally parked car, for which I had to pay a car-parking fee), Darren was still locked in the police paddy-wagon.
For him, the law meant hand-cuffs.
.
Note: apologies for poor quality of images. The camera I was using was not the one I usually use. – Frank Macskasy
.
References
Scoop media: Pōneke Action Against Poverty to protest National Government
Dominion Post: National Party protester arrested
Aotearoa Independent Media Centre: PAAP takes on Nats
NZ Herald: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
Copyright (c) Notice
All images stamped ‘fmacskasy.wordpress.com’ are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
» Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
» Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
» At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
» Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Great Worldwide Treasure Hunt – NZ Herald style…
.
The craze/phenomenon of treasure hunts in major cities around the world has finally reached New Zealand;
.
.
The New Zealand Herald has decided on a similar “treasure hunt”, as publicity to re-build it’s somewhat tarnished image and reputation from the last couple of weeks. The editor, Tim Murphy as announced a Herald-style treasure hunt, with prizes secreted around the city.
Solve the clues, and you could win a magnificent prize, courtesy of the Herald… [scroll down]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your very own copy of;
.
.
Start the hunt early and avoid the rush!
.
References
NZ Herald: Worldwide treasure hunt for hidden $100 notes comes to Auckland
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council.
.
.
Following the completion of my previous story on the Liu Affair (published next day in The Daily Blog) , I wrote to the Herald editor, Tim Murphy;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Tim Murphy <editor@herald.co.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:34 PM
subject: The Donghua Liu Affair & Consequence
Tim Murphy
Editor,
The New Zealand Herald
Kia ora Mr Murphy,
After recent revelations, it has become patently obvious and apparent to all that Mr Donghua Liu is no longer a credible witness to any alleged wrong-doing or alleged inappropriate behaviour by David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, or the NZ Labour Party.
Mr Liu has;
1. Failed to provide evidence for his allegations of hefty donations to the Labour Party. The closest he has come has been a $2,000 cheque he gave to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club, on his own volition.
2. Mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation and attendance at a staff party, on a river-boat, in China.
3. Made no verifiable Affidavit, and provided only a “signed statement”.
4. Issued a second statement on 25 June, changing his initial allegations.
5. Offered no evidence for his second, 25 June, “signed statement”.
Since 18 June, when your reporter, Jared Savage, broke this story in a piece entitled “David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid”, the Herald has;
* published unsubstantiated allegations;
* failed to provide subsequent evidence to back up those allegations;
* published stories damaging to the reputations of David Cunliffe and Rick Barker;
* published allegations damaging to the Labour Party (during an election year!);
* published a column calling for David Cunliffe to resign (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order”), based on incomplete information, and omitting a crititical fact, namely that Cunliffe’s letter to NZ Immigration had been written in 2003, and was a legitimate reason why the MP may have forgotten the letter;
* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, thereby acting as a gate-keeper/censor of information that the public had a right to see;
* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, despite having no hesitation in publishing David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to NZ Immigration (“David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid”)
* made little or no discernible attempt to investigate the background to Liu’s allegations; his motives; and who else might have been involved.
Under your watch, the tenor of stories relating to the Cunliffe-Liu issue has been one-sided and predicated on baseless allegations.
This has been a tabloid-style, highly-emotive, unjustified witch-hunt which collapsed only because Donghua Liu’s story changed and it became apparent he was no longer a credible witness.
The Liu Affair has seriously damaged your paper’s reputation and also further eroded public confidence in the ability of the Fourth Estate to report fairly, accurately, and without bias.
Accordingly, I submitthat it behoves you to put this matter right. I therefore call upon you;
1. The NZ Herald should immediately publish a full page apology on the front page of your paper.
2. It may also be appropriate for you to re-consider your position and decide whether your role as the Herald’s editor is now tenable after this shameful fiasco.
3. On 18 June, in a highly biased, unreasonable column, John Armstrong called for David Cullen’s resignation, (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order”). I submit that Mr Armstrong’s own position as a senior Herald staffer is no longer tenable and must take his own advice and resign.
These three steps are the basis upon which the New Zealand Herald can regain it’s reputation that has been severely dented since 18 June.
Regards,
– Frank Macskasy
Note: this letter will be made public on “The Daily Blog”, and subsequently, on “Frankly Speaking” (my own personal blog). Any response you care to make will also be disclosed and made public.
.
Tim Murphy duly responded the following day;
.
from: Tim Murphy <Tim.Murphy@nzherald.co.nz>
to: “fmacskasy@gmail.com” <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:57 AM
subject: FW: The Donghua Liu Affair & Consequence
mailed-by: nzherald.co.nz
Dear Frank Macskasy
Thank you for your email below and your public complaint against the Herald.
Many of your opinions below are dealt with by today’s Herald editorial, which I attach: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539
As to your comments about John Armstrong – his opinion was responding to the revelation of evidence that a party leader had done what he had one day earlier denied doing. It was an entirely valid column. It did, of course, (consistent with the gentle approach you have taken below in regard to both John and my roles), suggest it may be in order for David Cunliffe to resign, rather than demand his resignation.
On the signed statement: There seems to be an unusual expectation being aired that inquiry journalism has now become a field in which all documents obtained are made public – a kind of open source investigative process. This, while superficially seductive, cannot always be the case in the pursuit of serious and ongoing journalistic investigations relying on confidences and respecting sourcing and legal sensitivities. Where officially available documents like David Cunliffe’s letter hurrying up the Immigration Service on behalf of Donghua Liu are released to us and to others it is obvious that they can be published in raw form.
We have, as the editorial points out, published stories inconvenient to both the National and Labour parties over the Donghua Liu donations and grants of residency and citizenship. And yes, in an election year! It is even more important at this time that issues of public interest are covered fully.
We are continuing to investigate the payments from Donghua Liu and the circumstances of his various migration approvals.
Thank you again for the email and we have no worries about your note or this response being published on your outlet of choice.
Yours sincerely
Tim Murphy
Editor-in-chief, Herald titles
.
I was not satisfied with Mr Murphy’s response, and responded with a formal complaint;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Tim Murphy <Tim.Murphy@nzherald.co.nz>
date: Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM
subject: Formal Complaint to NZ Herald’s stories on Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others
Kia ora Mr Murphy,Thank you for your response, dated 27 June, which I consider an inadequate response to my earlier email to you
Further to your response to me, you may consider this a formal complaint regarding the nature of your paper’s stories regardiing Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others.
1. On 18 June, your paper published stories relating to a letter written by current Labour MP, David Cunliffe to the Immigration Service, dated 11 April 2003. In several subsequent stories referring to this letter, the Herald omitted any reference to the date on this letter, thereby suggesting to readers that the letter was recently written.
Examples:
Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
Ref: Liu: $100k not just for wine – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11281832
Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276526
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539
Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278520
The consequence of this omission in several Herald stories is that readers who are unaware of all the facts may be led to the impression that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was a more recent event, and therefore not give due weight to his explanation that he was unaware of an eleven year old letter due to the passage of time and thus not recalling the incident.
Therefore, your reporting of this event, and omitting to refer to the letter as a “2003 letter”, is mis-leading by omission of a salient fact.
2. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $15,000 for a book at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.
That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 21 June, where Jared Savage wrote;
“National declared a $22,000 donation in 2012, but Labour found no records of Liu donations after the Herald revealed that he paid $15,000 for a book at an auction fundraiser in 2007.”
Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278520
The Herald presented an unsubstantiated claim as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that this claim was verified as true.
This was mis-leading reporting of a salient event.
3. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.
That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 22 June, where Bevan Hurley wrote;
“Millionaire businessman Donghua Liu spent more than $150,000 on the previous Labour government, including $100,000 on a bottle of wine signed by former prime minister Helen Clark at a party fundraiser.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089
This claim was subsequently amended on 25 June, where Jared Savage wrote;
“Controversial businessman Donghua Liu has issued a new statement to the Herald confirming “close to” $100,000 in total payments to Labour and its MPs – including anonymous donations – but clarifying that the money was not for one bottle of wine.”
Ref: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
Between 22 June and 25 June, the Herald has presented Liu’s claims regarding paying $100,000 for a bottle of wine as fact.
But Liu’s claims were not only unsubstantiated claims without evidence, but also Liu did not make a formal affidavit which would have given greater legal standing to his claims.
The Herald chose to base their stories on;
1. one man’s claims,
2. a “signed statement” rather than an affidavit,
3. no evidence,
4. no witnesses.The Herald presented unsubstantiated claims as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that his claims were verified as true.
4. On 22 June, Bevan Hurley wrote in the NZ Herald that the paper had obtained a copy of Donghua Liu’s “signed statement” which made several claims;
“The embarrassing revelations are contained in a signed statement from Liu, which the Herald on Sunday has obtained.”
Ref: Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089
The Herald has not released a verbatim copy of Liu’s “signed statement”, despite making public David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter on 18 June,
Ref: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276510
It is manifestly unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable that the Herald has not released, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” as it did with David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
It is unfair because the public have recourse to only one side of the story and access to only one letter, written in 2003, but not the more recent document by Liu.
It is unreasonable, because if the Herald saw fit to quote from Liu’s “signed statement”, then it should publish the entire document, in full and verbatim, so that the public can make their own conclusions on Liu’s claims.
Otherwise, by using only excerpts, the Herald has presented only a restricted version of Liu’s statement.
The lack of full disclosure has led to the Herald presenting mis-information. This was admitted by the paper on 25 June, when Liu changed his story;
Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
On 27 June, a Herald editorial admitted that it had mis-reprtesented facts based on Liu’s claims;
“We regret having reported inflated and conflated dollar figures.”
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539It is unconscionable that the Herald refused to publish either Liu’s original “signed statement” or his subsequent “clarification”.
The role of the media is to present information to the public – not to restrict it’s availability.
There are few reasons why a media outlet might not disclose information;
1. Court suppression orders,
2. Where a victim of a crime, or witness, might be harmed or otherwise impacted,
3. Where children are involved.
4. Where information might be defamatory and actionable.Liu’s “signed statement” does not fit criterias 1, 2, or 3.
Does it fit criteria #4?
If so, and if the document is defamatory and actionable, is that why the Herald chose not to publish it, verbatim?
Herald editor, Tim Murphy, alluded to this in a Radio NZ interview on 23 June.
Ref: New Zealand Herald stands by its story – http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20140623-0732-new_zealand_herald_stands_by_its_story-048.mp3
If Liu’s “signed statement” could not be used because it contained unsubstantiated claims and statements that were potentially defamatory and actionable – why was the document used at all, as a basis upon which to publish a series of stories?
5. On 18 June, the Herald’s chief political commentator, John Armstrong, wrote a column that was highly condemnatory of David Cunliffe, and called for his resignation.
Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276526
(A) At no time did Armstrong refer to the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to the Immigration Service had been written in 2003. As outlined above, this omission of fact would have mis-lead any reader who was unaware of all facts pertaining to Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
(B) By omitting the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration Service was eleven years old, Armstrong was able to arrive at the unreasonable conclusion;
“Either deliberately or through a lapse of memory, Cunliffe has been economical with the truth.”
This was a clear claim that Cunliffe lied.
(C) Armstrong further wrote;
“Unless Cunliffe can come up with a very good explanation, the answer has to be ‘no’.”
That statement ignores the fact that Cunliffe had already explained that the letter was eleven years old and any reasonable person would have understood that such an event would be difficult to recall.
Armstrong’s column, by itself, would amount to very little except an extreme viewpoint of one individual.
But taken in context with the Herald’s subsequent stories, based primarily on Donghua Liu’s “signed statement”, it becomes apparent that the paper has adopted an unfair and biased stance against David Cunliffe.
6. The Herald’s bias was further apparent in it’s reporting of Donghua Liu’s claims that he spent thousands of dollars on a social event for visiting Labour MP, Rick Barker. As Bervan Hurley wrote on 22 June;
“• That he spent $50-60,000 hosting then-labour minister Rick Barker on a cruise on the Yangtze River in China in 2007; and
• That Liu visited Barker in Hawke’s Bay in 2006, having dinner with him at an exclusive lodge and then meeting for breakfast the next morning. Liu said he made a donation to Hawke’s Bay Rowing, which Barker was associated with.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089It has transpired that Liu’s Yangtze river boat social event was a staff party for his employees;
“”I went to China to catch up with some friends of mine, see some sights … and I made a side trip to Chongqing – I had not been to the city before.
“I was in the city a short time. Mr Liu showed me his business and that night, I attended a dinner which seemed to be a dinner he had put on for all his staff.”
Ref: Photograph shows Liu-Labour link – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276071
Regarding Donghua Liu’s $2,000 donation to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club – which has thus far been the only claim by Liu to be substantiated – in what way is a donation from a private individual to a club evidence of wrong-doing by Rick Barker?
This incident and subsequent Herald reporting appears to be an exercise in guilt-by association or guilt-by-innuendo.
There is no evidence or claim by Liu that Barker prompted the migrant businessman to make the donation.
If Liu made the donation to “impress” Mr Barker, how can that be laid at the feet of the then-Labour MP?
Why has the Herald seen fit to spin Liu’s donation to the rowing club as somehow attributable to Rick Barker and the Labour Party?
If Liu’s donation to the rowing club in 2006 was designed to “curry favour” with the then-Labour government, it should be noted that Liu had already been granted residency two years before, in 2004 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10172715/David-Cunliffe-advocated-for-Donghua-Liu).
This was mis-leading, slanted reporting of a minor event.
7. In conclusion, I maintain the folllowing;
(a) the Herald has relied on the unsubstantiated claims of one man, that he made various donations to the Labour Party. These donations originally amounted to $150,000 on 22 June (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089) but were later wound back to $38,000 on 27 June (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539).
(b) the Herald has relied on a “signed statement”, rather than a legally binding affidavit.
(c) the Herald has had to change it’s story after Liu provided a “clarification” on 27 June.
(d) the Herald has not published either Liu’s original “signed statement” nor the subsequent “clarification”.
(e) the Herald does not appear to have conducted any investigation as to Liu’s motivation for making his “signed statement”, which was signed two days after Maurice Williamson was forced to resign after his involvement with Liu was made public.
(f) Unsubstantiated claims were presented as facts.
(g) the Herald has not apologised for promoting claims of a “$100,000 bottle of wine” or “$15,000 book” – subsequently admitted by Liu to be incorrect.
(h) the Herald has mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation to Liu’s river boat party.
(i) the Herald has mis-represented Liu’s donation to a boating club and unfairly linked it to Rick Barker.
(j) the Herald’s series of stories since 18 June has been biased against David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, and the Labour Party by distorted reporting and by improper emphasis.
(k) Reporting of Liu’s claims has not been factually based nor verified, prior to publication.
(l) The Herald’s stories since 18 June have been harmfully inaccurate, as outlined above.
(m) By not publishing, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” and subsequent “clarification”, the Herald has not disclosed all essential facts and has suppressed relevant, available facts.
I await your response and your remedies (if any), to the issues I have raised.
Regards,-Frank Macskasy
.
Next step, the NZ Press Council.
Note: Anyone wishing to follow suit with a formal complaint need not write a ‘novel’-length piece like I have. A formal complaint can be a few paragraphs, focusing on simply one or two points.
Information on how to proceed is given below, under “Reference sites”.
.
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu timeline – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
Other blogs
The Standard: Take action against the Herald’s lies
References sites*
NZ Press Council – Complaints Procedure
EPMU – Journalist Code of Ethics
* Hat-tip – Zetetic
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
.
.
Preface
.
As the the final acts in the smear campaign that was the Donghua Liu Affair are about to unfold, and the curtain soon to fall, it is worthwhile re-assessing what has occurred; what has been learned; and the fall-out for certain individuals.
.
1. The NZ Herald
.
The NZ Herald does not emerge from this Affair very well.
From 18 June, when Cunliffe’s eleven year old letter was “discovered” and made public; to 21 June, when Donghua Liu’s first “signed statement” was reported by the Herald; to 25 June, when the Herald released a “new statement” from Liu – this has been either a cock-up of colossal proportions, or self-serving connivance, in a carefully orchestrated smear campaign.
Where does one start to unravel the mess that the Herald and some of it’s staff and editor have created?
- The sensationalist headlines that were splashed across the paper with damaging allegations, with no evidence, and based purely on one man’s “signed statement” was trash “journalism” at it’s worst.
Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
Liu’s $100k wine news to Rick Barker
Labour looks in serious disarray
Labour must cling to the wreckage
Oh David – it’s come down to a question of trust
Cunliffe’s denial has done party no favours
Cunliffe working 9 to 5 to save his job
Poisoned chalice may be leader’s saviour
etc, etc, et-bloody-cetera…
- Liu’s “signed statement” was not even in the nature of an affidavit – the latter carrying more legal weight under the Evidence Act 2006. Which means that Liu could make any wild claim he fancied, with minimal repercussions. (Not unless someone with deep pockets, and plenty of time, bothers to take a defamation case against the trouble-prone migrant businessman.)
This should have made the Herald and it’s supposedly professional, experienced staff of journalists and columnists, more cautious.
Instead we read outrageous claims of a “$100,000 bottle of wine” (or “four bottles of wine” depending on which account you read); “$15,000 books”, and “$60,000 dinners on the Yangtze River” – all without a jot of evidence or witnesses. (The Yangtze boat trip/party turned out to be a staff party that then-Labour minister, Rick Barker, had been invited to attend.)
In short, we witnessed an appalling standard of sloppy “journalism” and “trial by media” based on no evidence, and judged guilty-by-innuendo.
- This shameful style of media reporting was made worse by the likes of Jared Savage who wrote uncritical pieces on this story, repeating in a parrot-like fashion any fanciful claim that Liu could come up with. When only one of Liu’s claims was substantiated – his $2,000 donation to a boating club – it was trumpeted as “proof” that all of Liu’s claims had been confirmed,
“The confirmation comes after Labour has denied other allegations in the signed statement from Liu, including the claim he paid “close to $100,000″ for wine at fundraising auctions.”
Rick Barker had his own views on the rowing club donation, which seemed a whole lot more credible than Liu’s “$100,000 bottle of wine”. (‘Cold Duck’ anyone?)
- Or Herald Editor, Tim Murphy, on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report“ on 23 June, where he was evasive in his answers and gave no explanation as to why Liu’s “signed statement” had not been published verbatim. Murphy said on the interview that he stood by the Liu story, confidently asserting;
“Well, what’s not to stand by?”
We now know that Liu’s claims were either misleading, fanciful, or over-exaggerated and most likely, defamatory.
That is the most likely reason why the Herald did not publish, verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” It would have made them a party to a defamation lawsuit.
- But perhaps the worst offender was Herald Columnist, John Armstrong, who on 18 June, penned one of the most scurrilous pieces of “journalistic” rubbish in recent media history. Armstrong’s piece was written on the same day that the Herald published Cunliffe’s eleven year old letter to Immigration NZ. Amazingly, as Armstrong vilified Cunliffe for “a lapse of memory”, and demanded his resignation as Labour leader – he omitted to mentioned that the letter had been written some eleven years ago.
Armstrong’s piece was written and published at 1pm on 18 June – one hour twentynine minutes before Jared Savage broke the story detailing Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to Immigration NZ, on behalf of Donghua Liu.
Which suggests Armstrong’s haste and eagerness in putting the journalistic ‘knife’ between Cunliffe’s ribs.
It was not until three days later that the Herald’s other right-leaning columnist, Fran O’Sullivan, attempted to inject some degree of sanity into her colleagues with her more thoughtful, restrained opinion piece on 21 June,
Memo: David Cunliffe. Don’t let your political enemies (that includes your frenemies) push you out of the Labour leadership ahead of the election.
[…]
There is already a media-fuelled expectation that Cunliffe should either step down or be rolled so that Labour’s fourth leader in one parliamentary term can lead the party into the September 20 election.
This would leave precious little time for a replacement – be it Grant Robertson or Andrew Little – to bed their own leadership in place before going head-to-head with Key in the election campaign. It would almost certainly result in electoral defeat.
Similarly, the resignation calls Cunliffe faced after the Herald broke the story that the Labour leader had signed off a letter on behalf of Liu bordered on risible.
That letter was clearly a pro forma note written by his staffers. There was no element of special pleading. It’s no wonder he had forgotten it. It should not have sparked a Gotcha call from political journalists.
Well, I’m not so charitable.
The behaviour of the Herald (with some notable exceptions) has been nothing short of disgraceful. It has with-held information from the public. It has published defamatory claims from a vengeful businessman with no evidence to support his claims regarding Labour (rowing boat club aside). It has engaged in tabloid-style, “gotcha” political-journalism. It has demonstrated a particularly virulent style of biased, partisan reporting. It has not undertaken the most basic journalistic requirements of confirming a story before going public. It has not bothered to investigate (as far as anyone can tell) who was behind Liu’s claims and why. It has abused it’s position as a major media organisation, with it’s considerable influence in New Zealand society.
As such, to take a page from John Armstrong’s 18 June opinion piece, I issue the following;
Tim Murphy
Tim Murphy must apologise to David Cunliffe and to the NZ Labour Party promptly, fully, and unreservedly. That apology should be placed on the front page of the Herald. It is the very least that he should do as a matter of justice.
After which, Mr Murphy should re-consider his own position and decide whether his role as the Herald’s editor is now tenable after this shameful fiasco.
(See Appendix B)
John Armstrong
There is no question – John Armstrong must resign immediately. His behaviour has been shocking and inexcusable. Any notion of Armstrong as an impartial journalist was swept away with his intemperate and openly partisan column on 18 June.
To para-phrase Mr Armstrong, “he has called for [David Cunliffe’s] head to roll for the equivalent or less. Having set the standard required of others, it is incumbent on him to himself follow suit“.
When a supposedly well-educated person writes such a travesty of journalism, there is only one course of action open.
Go, John.
Just, go.
(See Appendix B)
Jared Savage
Jared was the author of many of the pieces reporting (more like cutting and re-pasting) Donghua Liu’s claims. There was no evidence to support Donghua Liu’s claims – but they were published and given prominence nevertheless.
Jared does not appear to have given any serious thought to questioning Liu’s claims, nor the motivations for them. This style of reporting is grossly irresponsible and undermines his profession.
Unlike his colleagues, Murphy and Armstrong, Jared is young and still learning his craft. The Liu Affair has not been to Jared’s credit, but hopefully he has learned from the experience. I encourage Jared to under-go a refresher course in journalistic ethics so that future reporting can be more balanced and accurate.
.
2. A more measured p.o.v.?
.
With the dust settling on the Liu Affair, and the hysteria from more ‘excitable’ media columnists and commentators dying away, I refer to the reader a more measured, thoughtful p.o.v. from Dominion Post columnist, Vernon Small, who wrote that the Liu saga hits harder when Labour’s down.
Small’s column wasn’t just a breath of fresh air, it was a full tank of oxygen in an otherwise murky atmosphere of political muck-raking, innuendo, lies, and media histrionics.
.
3. The Labour Party
.
Legal Action
Without a doubt, Labour – and specifically, David Cunliffe – have no choice. They must take legal action for defamation against the Herald. The kind of shabby, tabloid-style “journalism” shown since June 18 has further undermined the Fourth Estate’s credibility (whether Herald staff and management realise this or not, is irrelevant) and must not be allowed to become the new default standard by which editors and journalists operate in this country.
For these reasons, Labour must sue for three good reasons;
- It runs the risk that the public ‘memory’ on this incident will be fixed at the point of “revelations” about a “$100,000 bottle of wine” – not that Liu changed his story. Nor that no evidence was forthcoming.
- If the Liu Affair goes to Court, the process of discovery may reveal who was behind this smear campaign.
- If the phone tapping/”News of the World” scandal in Britain has shown us anything, it is that the tabloid journalism road, where irresponsible reporting becomes an acceptable ‘norm’, leads to unpleasant (and often illegal) consequences.
However, my advice to Cunliffe and the Labour Party is to defer legal action until after 20 September. The Labour Party cannot afford distractions this close to an election.
Rapid Response Team
Unless Labour already has one, I suggest that they create a media “rapid response group” which can ‘kick in’ when the next smear campaign rears it’s ugly head. (Mark my words, the next dirty trick is probably already in the works.)
Such a group could comprise of senior party members, MPs, legals, media minders, etc, and could ‘swing into action’ at the first hint of another event like the Liu Affair.
Every Labour candidate should have an easy-to-contact “rapid response group” team-member on their phone’s speed-dial.
Potential Allies
If the Liu Affair has shown anything, it is the old maxim,
“United we Stand, Divided we Fall”
The smear campaign was notable for one thing; Labour stood alone against the NZ Herald, other media, and various lunatic right-wing bloggers. It had few allies.
Perhaps this incident should serve as a wake-up call to Labour that it needs allies – potential coalition partners who can come to the aid of an embattled Labour Party. And vice versa.
God knows the Left has many enemies in the media, political sphere, business world, rant-back radio, and rabid-right blogs.
A more collegial and co-operative relationship between Labour, the Greens, Mana-Internet, trade unions, and other progressive organisations will be needed if future dirty tricks and smear campaigns are to be successfully resisted.
“United we stand, divided we fall” is not just a catchy catch-phrase. It actually means something.
The GCSB
Last year, John Key and the National government, with support from ACT and Peter Dunne, changed legislation to allow the GCSB to carry out domestic surveillance and spy on New Zealanders.
Of course, this does not mean that I am suggesting that when Labour becomes government, that they should use the GCSB to spy on the Herald, Donghua Liu, his lawyers, Cameron Slater, Jason Ede, David Farrar, and anyone else who might be connected with this Affair, to find out who was responsible.
I am not suggesting that at all.
That would be morally wrong.
But quite legal.
.
4. John Key
.
It was clear from Day One, that John Key had been fully briefed on David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to Immigration NZ. On 19 June, John Key said he had previously known about the letter;
“Can’t exactly recall, I think it was a few weeks ago.”
But far more interesting is that Key seems to have been aware of Liu’s “signed statement” prior to the Herald aquiring a copy of it.
Note the following article from the Herald, written by Audrey Young, when she was in New York, covering Key’s visit to the United States . Specifically, note the date; Thursday 19 June;
.
.
Note the opening paragraph;
Prime Minister John Key believes the Labour [sic] has a lot more than $15,000 in donations from wealthy Chinese political donor Donghua Liu.
Key is quoted in Young’s article,
“I’ve heard the rumours and we’ll see what actually comes out but I’d be very, very amazed if the amount is $15,000,” he told New Zealand reporters.
But according to Herald on Sunday editor, Miriyana Alexander, revelations of Donghua Liu’s claims for other donations did not come to their attention until Saturday, 21 June;
But Herald on Sunday editor Miriyana Alexander said it only got a copy of the statement on Saturday and called the party within an hour of receiving it.
The date of when the NZ Herald came into possession of Liu’s “signed statement” was also confirmed as “on Saturday” [21 June], by Herald editor, Tim Murphy, who was interviewed on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report“, two days later (Monday 23 June). In the same interview, Murphy refused to say how the Herald acquired the statement.
When asked by Morning Report co-presenter, Susie Ferguson, why a copy of Liu’s statement had not been supplied to Labour, Murphy’s response was,
“There’s still more to be done. And there’s issues of sensitivities around it, for us. All these these things don’t get passed over […] I imagine it’ll come out but it just a matter of us working through some things first.”
Timeline:
19 June (Thursday): Key stated that he believed Labour had a lot more than $15,000 in donations from wealthy Chinese political donor Donghua Liu.
21 June (Saturday): NZ Herald came into possession of Liu’s “signed statement”. The Herald does not publish the “statement” verbatim, nor does it pass a copy on to the Labour Party. (A point raised by Morning Report co-presenter, Susie Ferguson in her interview with Tim Murphy.)
23 June (Monday): NZ Herald editor, Tim Murphy confirms that his paper did not acquire a copy of Liu’s “signed statement” until two days ago (21 June).
So John Key knew the contents of Liu’s “signed statement” two days in advance of the Herald.
In my previous blogpost (The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?) I posed these questions;
- Who had access to the Prime Minister in such a way that he could be briefed, with such detail, in advance, on Cunliffe’s letter and Liu’s “signed statement”?
- Who was involved in encouraging Donghua Liu to make his statement?
- How did a copy of Liu’s “signed statement” get to the NZ Herald?
- What was the motivation in briefing the Prime Minister?
- Who else in the PM’s office was involved? Was it Jason Ede?
Without much doubt, Key, his ministers, and some of his closest advisors, were fully aware of Cunliffe’s 2003 letter and Donghua Liu’s “signed statement”.
.
5. Conclusions
.
1.
The Herald’s editor, Tim Murphy and political columnist John Armstrong behaved disgracefully throughout this entire event. Either through ineptitude or complicity, they allowed the NZ Herald to become a tool for a carefully planned and executed smear campaign against David Cunliffe.
In an email to Tim Murphy (see Appendix B), I call for a full-page apology to be published in the Herald.
I also call for Tim Murphy’s and John Armstrong’s resignations.
As such, after my email to Tim Murphy, and depending on his response, I will be considering a complaint to the NZ Press Council on the matter.
I may also look at other avenues such as contacting the Herald’s main advertisers.
2.
David Liu was not the instigator or author of his “signed statement”. Without doubt, it was a dirty trick of the sort that Nicky Hager warned us about in his brilliant exposé on corruption in the National Party, “The Hollow Men”.
The date on Liu’s “signed statement” – 3 May – was only two days after Maurice Williamson’s enforced resignation after being found out attempting to influence a police investigation into Liu’s assault on two women.
The close timing of Williamson’s resignation and the date on Liu’s “signed statement” was a critical mistake on the part of those responsible for this smear campaign. It ties the two events together. I believe Key’s senior media strategist, Jason Ede, and right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater were probably involved.
The motive for the smear campaign was an act of utu, in retaliation for Labour prosecuting revelations against Maurice Williamson.
3.
Labour must sue the NZ Herald for defamation. Whilst smear campaigns are, unfortunately part-and-parcel of politics (because partisan voters seem not to care, as long as it is done to the “other side”), complicit or incompetant actions by media reporting such stories cannot – must not – be allowed to stand.
Unless we want to see this country’s media become a South Pacific mirror of “News of the World“, with associated phone hacking, bribery, police corruption, and god knows what else, the kind of sensationalist, headline-driven, misleading “journalism” shown by the Herald from June 18 cannot be allowed to become the new standard of media behaviour.
Even media companies have responsibilities and obligations to behave in a responsible manner.
If not, we must look to legal remedies to ensure responsible behaviour.
.
Appendix A
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM
subject: OIA Request – Reminder!Kia ora Mr Key,
On 19 June – now one week ago – I lodged an OIA request with you and your office.
My request was as follows,
Kia ora Mr Key.
This is a request lodged under the Official Information Act.
Please provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording, relating to any and all activities surrounding the procurement; storage; and planned circumstances of the release of the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003.
This includes a request for all communications relating to the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003, which may have occurred between yourself; any and all staffmembers in your office; any member of the National Party; any blogger; any media person; and any other group or individual who was contacted on this issue.
Information may be emailed to me, or, if the file is too large, I can supply a postal address for hard copies.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
Since then, I have not received any acknowledgement to my lodged application and require you to do so, under the Act.
If I do not receive acknowledgement to my request, I will have no option but to pursue the matter with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
An hour later, I received an emailed acknowledgement to my OIA request.
.
Appendix B
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Tim Murphy <editor@herald.co.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:34 PM
subject: The Donghua Liu Affair & Consequence
Tim Murphy
Editor,
The New Zealand Herald
Kia ora Mr Murphy,
After recent revelations, it has become patently obvious and apparent to all that Mr Donghua Liu is no longer a credible witness to any alleged wrong-doing or alleged inappropriate behaviour by David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, or the NZ Labour Party.
Mr Liu has;
1. Failed to provide evidence for his allegations of hefty donations to the Labour Party. The closest he has come has been a $2,000 cheque he gave to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club, on his own volition.
2. Mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation and attendance at a staff party, on a river-boat, in China.
3. Made no verifiable Affidavit, and provided only a “signed statement”.
4. Issued a second statement on 25 June, changing his initial allegations.
5. Offered no evidence for his second, 25 June, “signed statement”.
Since 18 June, when your reporter, Jared Savage, broke this story in a piece entitled “David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid“, the Herald has;
* published unsubstantiated allegations;
* failed to provide subsequent evidence to back up those allegations;
* published stories damaging to the reputations of David Cunliffe and Rick Barker;
* published allegations damaging to the Labour Party (during an election year!);
* published a column calling for David Cunliffe to resign (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order“), based on incomplete information, and omitting a crititical fact, namely that Cunliffe’s letter to NZ Immigration had been written in 2003, and was a legitimate reason why the MP may have forgotten the letter;
* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, thereby acting as a gate-keeper/censor of information that the public had a right to see;
* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, despite having no hesitation in publishing David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to NZ Immigration (“David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid“)
* made little or no discernible attempt to investigate the background to Liu’s allegations; his motives; and who else might have been involved.
Under your watch, the tenor of stories relating to the Cunliffe-Liu issue has been one-sided and predicated on baseless allegations.
This has been a tabloid-style, highly-emotive, unjustified witch-hunt which collapsed only because Donghua Liu’s story changed and it became apparent he was no longer a credible witness.
The Liu Affair has seriously damaged your paper’s reputation and also further eroded public confidence in the ability of the Fourth Estate to report fairly, accurately, and without bias.
Accordingly, I submit that it behoves you to put this matter right. I therefore call upon you;
1. The NZ Herald should immediately publish a full page apology on the front page of your paper.
2. It may also be appropriate for you to re-consider your position and decide whether your role as the Herald’s editor is now tenable after this shameful fiasco.
3. On 18 June, in a highly biased, unreasonable column, John Armstrong called for David Cullen’s resignation, (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order“). I submit that Mr Armstrong’s own position as a senior Herald staffer is no longer tenable and must take his own advice and resign.
These three steps are the basis upon which the New Zealand Herald can regain it’s reputation that has been severely dented since 18 June.
Regards,
– Frank Macskasy
Note: this letter will be made public on “The Daily Blog”, and subsequently, on “Frankly Speaking” (my own personal blog). Any response you care to make will also be disclosed and made public.
.
References
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
Legislation: Evidence Act 2006
Radio NZ: Newspaper stands by donation claims
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: Liu donation to rowing club confirmed
Radio NZ: Morning Report – New Zealand Herald stands by its story
NZ Herald/Hawkes Bay Today: Saga returns to bite Rick Barker
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: Fran O’Sullivan: Unfounded resignation calls should be far from Cunliffe’s mind
Auckland University of Technology: Journalism Major – Bachelor of Communication Studies
Dominion Post: Liu saga hits harder when Labour’s down
Wilson Harle: Overhaul of New Zealand’s Discovery Rules
Radio NZ: Cunliffe accuses Govt of smear campaign
Radio NZ: Newspaper stands by donation claims
Fairfax media: Labour fights new Liu donation claims
TV3: Maurice Williamson resigns as minister
Additional
Twitter: Jared Savage
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
NZ Herald: Liu: $100k not just for wine
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu timeline – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Another useless law?
.
The latest “bright idea” from this government…
.
.
Oh yes. Because other forms of Protection Orders work so wonderfully well, they don’t even need to be enforced…
.
.
.
.
It might help if this government instructed the police to enforce current protection orders, before embarking on new laws which may turn out just as ineffectual as the current system.
Unless, of course, this is all simply another election-year gimmick from National and this new law will be quietly ignored after 20 September?
.
References
Dominion Post: New law to protect sex and violence victims
Wairarapa Times-Age: Ignored protection orders ‘nightmare’
Timaru Herald: Editorial – Order gave no protection
Manwatu Standard: More breaching protection orders
Other blogposts
The Daily Blog: Children Murdered in Dunedin – Protection Order Breaches and Death Threats Ignored by Police
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 26 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
