Archive
Kicking a person when they are down is never a good thing
.
.
The resignation of Clare Curran from her remaining ministerial portfolios has created a wider fallout that has enveloped Radio NZ’s Political Editor, Jane Patterson.
In a recent ‘tweet’ on Twitter, Ms Patterson drew angry responses after posting a comment directed at former Labour MP, Marian Hobbs;
.
.
Ms Patterson’s ‘tweet’ was roundly criticised by a majority of Twitter commentors – though one of the eightytwo ‘Likes’ was by a well-known right-wing blogger;
.
.
Which is ‘curious’ to put it mildly. Cameron Slater has expressed nothing but hostility and contempt for Radio NZ in the past, often referring to it as “Red Radio”.
Clare Curran responded to Ms Patterson’s ‘tweet’ describing it as an “incredibly nasty comment”. Shortly thereafter, Ms Curran closed her Twitter account, according to a NewstalkZB report.
Ms Patterson’s on-line remark capped a disastrous week for former Broadcasting and ACC Minister, Clare Curran. Sensing Clare Curran’s vulnerability over recent gaffes, the National Party relentlessly piled on the pressure.
Ms Curran was rattled – her self-confidence badly dented – judging by her handling of answers on 5 September to questions from National MP, Melissa Lee.
Sensing the Minister’s vulnerability, National Opposition MPs continued to attack her in Parliament and through on-line social media.
It was the most primal of interactions between creatures; a pack of predators hungry for a kill, circling a solitary, wounded creature. The ‘pack’ pursued her, drained her of strength until all resistance crumbled, and she relented;
.
Acknowledgement: Bryce Edwards
.
On 7 September the Minister announced her resignation. For Ms Curran, the fight for (political) survival was over.
The Opposition Pack had claimed their ‘kill’ – her ministerial ‘scalp’ the first from this government.
To be utterly, brutally fair – the Labour Opposition scored their own victories during nine years of Key’s administration, claiming one ‘scalp’ after another;
Todd Barclay
Judith Collins
Aaron Gilmore
Phil Heatley
Mike Sabin
Kate Wilkinson
Maurice Williamson
Pansy Wong
Richard Worth
Some, like Hekia Parata, resigned for “personal reasons” – political code for stepping down under intense political/public scrutiny and pressure – but not wanting to give the satisfaction of a ‘scalp’ to the Opposition.
In Ms Parata’s case, her role as Education Minister had been abysmal, drawing strident criticism from parents, principals, School Boards, and teachers alike. During the classroom-size controversy, former PM John Key was forced to intervene during an overseas visit to dampen the firestorm enveloping his Minister.
Ms Curran’s resignation drew unexpected sympathy from an Opposition National MP not usually associated with any sense of compassion – Judith Collins.
On the same day Ms Curran resigned, Judith Collins told Mediaworks’ The AM Show;
“I thought this is someone who seriously needs to think about whether or not they want to come back into that environment. I felt quite sorry for her, and even though it’s our job to hold her to account – and Melissa Lee’s done an excellent job – I think we that we all felt a bit sorry for Clare as a human being. She should have been relieved of her posts properly a couple of weeks ago.”
For someone like Judith Collins to express sympathy – whether feigned or real – puts Jane Patterson’s less-than-charitable into stark contrast. The point that Ms Patterson made a comment that was ‘Liked’ by a far-right blogger should give her pause for thought.
A comment so widely criticised and more likely to come from Mike Hosking, Duncan Garner, or Leighton Smith should give Ms Patterson something to reflect on.
Clare Curran faced an ignominious week. The National Opposition did it’s ‘job’. She resigned under a cloud. Judith Collins expressed a measure of compassion.
A seasoned professional like Jane Patterson, working for the most respected media outlet in this country, should know better. Dumping on a person when they are down and out, at their most vulnerable, has no other name: bullying.
I would like to think Ms Patterson has made an honest mistake – and god knows we all make them. Removing the ‘tweet’ would be a good start. A personal phone call to Ms Curran should follow next.
It’s what good people do when passions and tempers cool.
.
.
.
References
Twitter: Jane Patterson – Clare Curran – 7 September 2018
Whaleoil: Radio NZ/”Red Radio”
NewstalkZB: Clare Curran hits back at RNZ journalist’s ‘incredibly nasty’ tweet
Radio NZ: Clare Curran’s resignation: ‘This pressure has become intolerable’
Radio NZ: Clare Curran’s resignation: ‘This pressure has become intolerable’
Fairfax media: Clare Curran on personal leave after horror Question Time
Twitter: National Party – Clare Curran – 6 September 2018
Fairfax media: Nothing wrong with Hekia Parata’s husband’s health – not why she’s stepping down
Fairfax media: Backlash forces Government class size U-turn
Mediaworks: The AM Shows – Judith Collins felt sorry for Clare Curran ‘as a human being’
Other Bloggers
No Right Turn: Dishonest
No Right Turn: Good riddance
Pundit: Ministers be warned – Next time the Band-Aid will come off fast
The Daily Blog: Clare Curran shows grace and resigns as Broadcasting Minister
The Standard: Curran resigns as a Minister
The Standard: The right work themselves into a frenzy about Ardern and Curran
Previous related blogposts
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 9 September 2018.
.
.
= fs =
Ali Jones rips right wing blogger a “new one” on Radio NZ’s “The Panel”
.
.
Unexpected fireworks erupted on Jim Mora’s ‘The Panel’ on Radio NZ on Tuesday 15 May when PR consultant and former Christchurch City Councillor, Ali Jones, took on National Party apparatchik, pollster, wannabe Bond-villain, and right-wing blogger, David Farrar.
Farrar began by parroting the current National party propaganda line – at 1.51 – that “despite being nine years in opposition, the government hasn’t actually come in with a lot of detailed policy“.
Ali Jones responded – at 3.15 – taking umbrage at Farrar’s pro-National spin. She replied with a scathing critique of National’s poor track record for the last nine years. It is worth listening to;
.
.
National’s artificially manufactured reputation for “sound/prudent fiscal management” didn’t just take another hit from Ms Jones. It got a swift, hard kick in the ‘goolies’ by a person unwilling to take any bullshit from one of National’s chief apologists.
Nicely aimed and delivered, Ms Jones.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Labour accused of doing nothing but setting up committees (alt.link)
The Press: Ali Jones not seeking second term on Christchurch City Council
Previous related blogposts
The Mendacities of Mr English – No, I wasn’t told – Yes, I was told
National’s housing spokesperson Michael Woodhouse – delusional or outright fibber?
The many mendacities of Mr Bridges – a few volts short of an EV
Newsflash: apparently our public hospital system is in crisis?!
National spins new “fake news” narrative: there is no health crisis
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 16 May 2018.
.
.
= fs =
Syria: the mendacities of the mainstream media (part tahi)
.
.
“The first casualty when war comes is truth…” – Hiram Johnson, 1866 – 1945
.
Recent Timeline*
4 April: Trump announces he wants all remaining US forces out of Syria “very quickly”. Trump says; “Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision. And I said, Well, you know, you want us to stay? Maybe you’re going to have to pay”.
8 April: First reports emerge of chemical gas attack in Douma, the last rebel-held town in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta province. Reports are unverified.
8 April: Russian government calls reports of alleged gas attack in Douma “fake news” and describes the story as a “false flag” operation. Russia’s Foreign Ministry states; “The goal of this… baseless speculation is to shield the terrorists and… the radical opposition that refuse to engage in a political settlement [process], as well as to justify potential military strikes from the outside”.
9 April: Trump promises major decision in next twentyfour hours on alleged gas attack.
10 April: Syria and Russia invite Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate allegations of chemical attack in Douma.
10 April: Chairman of the State Duma’s Defense Committee, Colonel General Vladimir Shamanov warned the West; “ The double standard policy has overstepped all possible boundaries. At this point, the [pro-Putin parliamentary majority] United Russia party must responsibly state that we are going to take all political and diplomatic measures, and also military measures if such need arises. Not a single unlawful action will be left without response.”
11 April: Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman says it will support any military strike on Syria in retaliation for the alleged gas attack in Douma; “If our alliance with our partners requires it, we will be present”.
11 April: Russia’s ambassador to Lebanon, Alexander Zasypkin, repeats Colonel General Shamanov’s warning to the US: “If there is a US missile attack, we – in line with both Putin and Russia’s chief of staff’s remarks – will shoot down US rockets and even the sources that launched the missiles.”
12 April: French President Emmanuel Macron declared that France has evidence that Syria carried out the gas attack in Douma; “We have proof that last week, now 10 days ago, that chemical weapons were used, at least with chlorine, and that they were used by the regime of (President) Bashar al-Assad. Our teams have been working on this all week and we will need to take decisions in due course, when we judge it most useful and effective.”
Two days later, hours after the US-led attack on Syria, France releases statement on evidence of alleged gas attack: “After examining the videos and images of victims published online, (French intelligence services) were able to conclude with a high degree of confidence that the vast majority are recent and not fabricated.”
12 April: OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) fact-finding team lands in Syria to investigate alleged gas attack in Douma. Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari, said; “We will facilitate the arrival of the team to anywhere they want, in Douma, to check whether or not there was use of chemical substances”.
14 April: Trump announces US-led attack on Syria, launching 105 missiles at targets in that country. Trump states: “So today, the nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshaled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality”.
14 April: President Putin of Russia states categorically: “Just as one year ago, when the Shayrat Airbase in Syria came under attack, the US used as a pretext a staged chemical attack against civilians, this time in Douma, a Damascus suburb. Having visited the site of the would-be chemical attack, Russian military experts did not find any traces of chlorine or any other toxic agent. Not a single local resident was able to confirm that a chemical attack had actually taken place.”
15 April: Trump declares: “Mission accomplished!”
15 April: Russia loses vote in UN Security Country to condemn US-led military strike. Russian UN ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia said: “Today is a very sad day for the world, the UN, its charter, which was blatantly, blatantly violated.”
15 April: US Ambassador to UN, Nikki Haley, tells Fox News Sunday that US troops will remain in Syria: “Yes, it is all of our goal to see American troops come home. But we’re not going to leave until we know we’ve accomplished those things. ”
.
* International time-zones not taken into account: above dates are approximate.
.
Saturday: a proven crime of aggression
On 14 April, the United States launched 105 ‘Tomahawk‘ cruise missiles against Syria. The United Kingdom sent four RAF ‘Tornado‘ jetfighters to attack and destroy targets at a former missile base near Homs. France also participated.
Despite assurances from Western governments that Bashar al-Assad’s forces were responsible for the alleged gas attack, no actual evidence has been presented regarding;
(a) who carried out the alleged attack
(b) if the so-called ‘attack’ happened at all.
Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, was not even certain what gas weapons were used. At a Press Briefing after the attack, he disclosed;
“We are very much aware of one of the agents. There may have been more than one agent used. We are not clear on that yet. We know at least one chemical agent was used.”
An OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) fact-finding team had barely reached Syria to determine what took place at Douma (if anything), when the US-led attack took place shortly afterwards. The OPCW team could not have found evidence or reached conclusions in the brief period of time (see timeline above) available to carry out their UN-mandated duties.
Local media reporting…
The response of our local media to report Saturday’s missile strike has been largely superficial and followed the Western narrative;
(a) the gas attack happened
(b) Syrian government forces were responsible
…From Radio NZ
Radio NZ has attempted to maintain a measure of cautious agnosticism, referring to “a suspected chemical attack“; “alleged chemical weapons sites“; and, “suspected poison gas attack“.
In most instances, the terms “suspected” and “alleged” are used. In one of it’s first stories, Radio NZ explicitly stated;
There has been no independent verification of the reports.
That caveat was not repeated on most (if any) updates from Radio NZ.
On occasion, though, Radio NZ has reported US and other sources without questioning veracity or indicating that statements presented as facts may or may not be accurate;
At a Pentagon briefing shortly after Mr Trump’s announcement, Gen Joseph Dunford listed three targets that had been struck:
- A scientific research facility in Damascus, allegedly connected to the production of chemical and biological weapons
- A chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs
- A chemical weapons equipment storage and an important command post, also near Homs
And;
UK strikes carried out by four Tornado jets hit one of the targets mentioned by the Pentagon – a military site near the city of Homs which is believed to have housed precursor materials for chemical weapons, according to the UK ministry of defence.
The term “allegedly” is noticeably missing in these paragraphs from a 13 April story;
The attack on the city on Saturday is said by activists and medics to have killed dozens of people when government aircraft dropped bombs filled with toxic chemicals.
The international Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is due to send monitors to Douma, but it is [unclear] how much evidence of any chemical attack might remain.
And from this 12 April story;
May, also speaking earlier on Wednesday, said all the indications were that the Syrian authorities were responsible for the chemical attack in the town of Douma and that such shocking assaults could not go unchallenged.
Radio NZ had reported that a OPCW fact-finding team had landed in Damascus on Saturday, the day of the U.S.-led attack, and in subsequent stories;
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) says a fact-finding mission has been “gathering information from all available sources and analysing it”.
Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are currently in Damascus and are expected to visit Douma this weekend.
No reference to the fact that Syria and Russia had both invited the OPCW to send a fact-finding team.
…From Newstalk ZB
Commercial radio station , NewstalkZB, was the complete polar opposite to Radio NZ. They made no pretense to journalistic impartiality, and the term “alleged” was notably missing from their stories;
President Donald Trump says the United States has “launched precision strikes” on targets associated with Syrian chemical weapons program.
This coordinated strike marked the second time in a year that Trump has used force against Assad, who U.S. officials believe has continued to test the West’s willingness to accept gruesome chemical attacks.
…since the reported chemical attack that killed civilians in the rebel-held town outside Damascus last weekend.
…an attack could pull the United States into Syria’s civil war and trigger a dangerous conflict with Assad ally Russia – without necessarily halting chemical attacks.
In the wake of last weekend’s gruesome attack, some U.S. officials advocated a larger, and therefore riskier, strike than the limited action Trump had ordered in April 2017, also in response to suspected chemical weapons use.
But the airfield targeted by the Pentagon resumed operations shortly after the attack and, according to Western intelligence assessments, chemical attacks resumed.
And just in case anyone doubted who NewstalkZB held responsible for the alleged gas attack in Douma;
Planning for these strikes focused on ways to curb Assad’s ability to use such weapons again.
Since last year’s strike, multiple chemical attacks have been reported in opposition areas, most of them involving chlorine rather than the nerve agent sarin, as was used in 2017, suggesting the government may have adjusted its tactics.
An attribution at the bottom revealed; “Additional reporting by AP and The Washington Post“. Not surprising then that NewstalkZB’s story looked more like a rehash of a Pentagon press release than any notion of impartial reporting;
.
.
A subsequent story on 16 April stated;
It’s unknown whether missile strikes in Syria will prevent or evoke the use of chemical weapons in future.
The only thing missing from NewstalkZB stories on Syria is a disclosure, “Approved by The White House Politburo”.
…From Fairfax
Fairfax media fared not much better than NewstalkZB, making only cursory attempts to qualify reports. As far as can be determined by this blogger, the phrase ‘unverified’ was used only once on the day the reports were first published in various Fairfax publications.
On 9 April, in a story headlined “Dozens killed in apparent chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria, rescue workers say“, the term ‘apparent’ was as close as Fairfax dared in lieu of ‘alleged’;
Dozens of men, women and children have been killed in an apparent chemical attack on a besieged Syrian enclave near Damascus, doctors and rescue workers say.
Even when the term ‘alleged’ should have been used, it was omitted – giving reportage an air of conclusive factuality when it was not deserved;
Gregory D Koblentz, the director of George Mason University’s Biodefense Program, said the [alleged*] attack appeared to reflect how much the clout of US policy has faded in Syria.
[…]
US President Donald Trump responded to the [alleged*] attack Sunday morning on Twitter.
[…]
The [alleged*] attack came as Syrian government forces stepped up an eight-week long offensive against Douma, outside Damascus, the last stronghold controlled by hardline rebels from the Jaish al-Islam group.
[…]
Multiple reports, including from rescue workers and the US State Department, said an initial [alleged*] attack had targeted a hospital. It was unclear, however, what type of [alleged*] chemicals may have been used.
[…]
Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert described the [alleged*] reports from Eastern Douma as “disturbing and “horrifying,” saying they required an “immediate response by the international community.”
[…]
Syrian doctors and rescue workers on Sunday shared with journalists [alleged*] graphic images of men, women and children they said had been [allegedly*] killed or wounded in the [alleged*] attack.
[* Author’s insert: ‘alleged’]
A statement from UN Secretary General, António Guterres, was the only instance where the reader was reminded that reports of a so-called “gas attack” were unconfirmed and nothing more than unproven allegations;
A representative for the United Nations said that Secretary General António Guterres was “particularly alarmed by allegations that chemical weapons have been used against civilian populations in Douma” but that the United Nations was “not in a position to verify these reports.”
At no point does the 9 April Fairfax story mention that an OPCW fact-finding team had landed in Damascus after the alleged gas attack and had not yet had an opportunity to verify events. Once again, the U.S. had circumvented an ongoing investigation to judge and apportion guilt without any corroborating, independent evidence.
Another Fairfax story on 9 April attempted to put a caveat on the alleged gas attack with the term “suspected” – but that does not convey the same meaning as ‘alleged’;
The reported strike comes after a suspected poison gas attack killed at least 40 in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, the last foothold for the Syrian opposition in the area.
US President Donald Trump has promised a “big price to pay” for the suspected chemical attack.
Curiously, the end of the story makes a brief reference to another state ‘actor’ in the Syrian civil war, citing;
Israel has also struck inside Syria in recent years.
Again, no mention that the alleged incident was unproven and that the OPCW had yet to determine the facts.
Also on 9 April, an emotive piece penned by Josie Ensor presented a seemingly chilling “eye witness account” of victims of the alleged attack. The story presented the so-called “attack” as factual, with supposed “eye witness” statements and descriptions of “victims”.
The sympathies of the author is evident when she writes;
Both Syria and its Russian backer denounced the allegations as “fabrications”, while Iran, another of Bashar al-Assad’s patrons, called it a “conspiracy”.
There is no questioning of the incident’s veracity – until near the end of the article;
Saturday’s alleged attack pushed the holdout rebels back to the negotiating table. Hours later, they agreed to a Russian evacuation deal, signalling the end of the rebellion in one of the opposition’s most important territories.
Despite belatedly describing the so-called ‘attack’ as “alleged”, the author then reverted to indicating that it was a factual, proven event;
Reports sparked international outrage. But as Syrians have learned over the years, those responsible are unlikely to ever be held to account.
How can anyone be “responsible” if the so-called “attack” was “alleged” and not yet proven? If the “attack” is shown to be false, then no one could be held “responsible” for an incident that never happened. QED?!
The following day, another Fairfax article abandoned any pretext of an ‘alleged’ gas attack;
The prime minister has expressed “the strongest condemnation” of the chemical attack in eastern Ghouta, Syria, while the foreign minister has labelled it a war crime.
Dozens of men, women and children have been killed in the chemical attack on a besieged Syrian enclave near Damascus.
The deadly attack came as Syrian Government forces escalated their offensive to recapture the last rebel strongholds near the capital.
At least 40 people were killed on Saturday evening (local time) in the attack in Douma, eastern Ghouta, about 20 kilometres from Damascus, according to the Syrian-American Medical Society (SAMS), a Washington-based nonprofit group that supports health facilities in the area.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Foreign Minister Winston Peters condemned the attack, and said those behind it needed to be held to account.
[…]
News of the attack comes after the Labour-led Government promised to double New Zealand’s refugee quota from 750 to 1500 each year.
Only Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, to his credit, held out by keeping an open mind;
“When we know who to point the finger at, we’ll point the finger then… It’s abhorrent, and it’s against international laws and standards.”
Only on 14 April – six days after reports emerged of the alleged attack – Fairfax deigned to refer to the supposed incident as ‘alleged’;
.
.
The story even referred to an impending investigation by the OPCW and carried substantial statements from the Russians.
Was this a realisation by Fairfax management that the alleged incident in Douma had yet to be verified? That coverage by New Zealand’s mainstream media had been less than “fair and balanced”?
Unfortunately, no. The above story emanated from PBS News Hour and was carried via Associated Press, which Fairfax picked up. It did not originate from the hands of any New Zealand journalist. (Much to our shame.)
A day later, after the U.S. had launched 105 cruise missiles at various locations in Syria, Trump announced with glee; “Mission Accomplished”. Fairfax reported the post-strike event, abandoning all notions of keeping an open mind on the alleged gas attack;
Allied missiles struck at the heart of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal in a show of force and resolve aimed at punishing the Assad government for a suspected poison gas attack against civilians and deterring the possible future use of such banned weapons.
Notice that the opening paragraph referred to “Syrian chemical weapons arsenal” – not “Syria’s [alleged] chemical weapons arsenal“. There is zero evidence that Syria possessed any chemical weapons after they were removed under international supervision in 2014;
.
.
If such banned weapons still remained in Syria, Western powers were mysteriously silent on the issue.
The “Mission accomplished” story goes on to point out – albeit briefly, almost as an afterthought – that the OPCW had sent a team to Syria;
A global chemical warfare watchdog group said its fact-finding mission would go as planned in Douma, where the apparent use of poison gas against civilians on April 7 that killed more than 40 people compelled the Western allies to launch their attack. Syria has denied the accusation.
None of the story’s three writers could bring themselves to use the word ‘alleged’, substituting instead the more bland “apparent use of poison gas”.
The next paragraph again abandons any notion of journalistic skepticism;
But France’s foreign minister said there was “no doubt” the Assad government was responsible, and he threatened further retaliatory strikes if chemical weapons were used again, as did Pentagon chief Jim Mattis, who said the assault was a “one-time shot,” as long as chemical weapons weren’t used again.
As far as Fairfax’s journalists were concerned, there was no doubt that the attack had occurred; gas was used against civilians; and Assad’s forces were the guilty party. No doubt at all; no question that Western governments were 100% truthful.
The OPCW had yet to find any evidence, but that seemed not to matter for most Western journalists.
What other areas of state-government activities draws such unquestioning fealty from our much-vaunted “free press”?
For example, when the story reported that;
Dunford said missiles first struck a scientific research centre in the Damascus area that he said was a centre of Syrian research, development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology. The second target was a chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs. He said this was believed to be the main site of Syrian sarin and precursor chemical production equipment.
The third target was a chemical weapons equipment storage facility and an important command post, also west of Homs, Dunford said.
– did no one in the Fourth Estate bother to ask the most basic question: why were those “facilities” destroyed when they potentially held vital evidence that the OPCW team could have uncovered?
By 16 April, the murky smog of chemical weapon hysteria began to part just a little so that questioning voices could be heard. Perhaps someone at Fairfax realised that Western allegations of a so-called “gas attack” were just that: unproven allegations.
A story entitled “Syrian government deploys forces in Douma after alleged chemical attack” used the term ‘alleged’ three times, once in the title;
Syrian state TV says another 5,000 security forces are deploying in a town near the capital that was brought under full government control a week after an alleged chemical attack.
[…]
In Assad’s view, the airstrikes that were launched in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack by Syrian forces on the town of Douma will unify the country.
Following paragraphs returned to the less neutral term ‘suspected’;
The town was also the scene of a suspected poison gas attack on April 7 that prompted the US, Britain and France to launch missiles on Syrian military targets early Saturday.
[…]
The pope spoke after airstrikes by the United States, France and Britain aimed at taking out Syria’s chemical weapons capacity, following a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb that killed dozens, including children.
The OPCW fact-finding mission to Syria was again only briefly alluded to;
An international fact-finding mission from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is in Syria and expected to visit Douma.
Better than previous reporting, without doubt. But not by much.
[To be concluded in Syria: the mendacities of the mainstream media (part rua).]
.
.
.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to ‘Francesca‘ for the OPCW link, Progress in the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons programme.
References
Wikiquotes: Hiram Johnson
Politico: Trump – ‘I want to get out’ of Syria
BBC: Syria war – At least 70 killed in suspected chemical attack in Douma
RT News: Moscow calls ‘chemical attack’ in Douma ‘fake news,’ warns against Syrian intervention
BBC: Trump promises ‘major decision’ on Syria chemical attack
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: OPCW Will Deploy Fact-Finding Mission to Douma, Syria
RT News: Duma defense chief says Russia may respond with military force to US strike on Syria
Reuters: Saudi could take part in military response in Syria – Crown Prince
Al Jazeera: Russia threatens to shoot down any US missiles fired at Syria
Reuters: France has proof Syrian government conducted chemical weapons attack – Macron
USA Today: French report lays out the evidence – Assad forces conducted chemical attack on civilians
RT News: ‘They can go anywhere they want in Douma’: OPCW team arrives in Syria to investigate alleged attack
Military Times: President Trump’s statement on the U.S. military action in Syria
Kremlin.ru: Statement by President of Russia Vladimir Putin
Bloomberg: Trump Says ‘Mission Accomplished’ With Syria Strike Unanswered
The Guardian: Russia loses vote condemning strikes
Fox News: Amb. Nikki Haley on Trump administration’s Syria strategy
The Guardian: ‘No alternative’ – Theresa May sends British jets to join airstrikes on Syria
US Department of Defense: Briefing by Secretary Mattis on U.S. Strikes in Syria
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: Progress in the elimination of the Syrian chemiucal weapons programme
Radio NZ: Syria – Toxic gas attack kills at least 70 in Douma
Radio NZ: US and allies launch strikes on Syria chemical weapons sites
Radio NZ: US ‘has no moral right to blame other countries’ – Russia
Radio NZ: Macron has ‘proof’, to decide on Syria air strikes
Radio NZ: UK’s May summons ministers for Syria meeting
Radio NZ: The path to the attack on Syria
Radio NZ: Syria warned US still ‘locked and loaded’
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons: OPCW Will Deploy Fact-Finding Mission to Douma, Syria
NewstalkZB: Russia vows to retaliate after missiles target Syria
NewstalkZB: Effects of Syria strikes unknown
Fairfax: Dozens killed in apparent chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria, rescue workers say
Fairfax: Syrian news agency reports missile attack
Fairfax: Nowhere to hide from Syria ‘gas attack’
Fairfax: NZ expresses ‘strongest condemnation’ of chemical attack on Syrians
Fairfax: Russia claims alleged chemical attack in Syria staged by UK
PBS News Hour: Russia says suspected chemical attack in Syria was staged by UK
Fairfax: ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Syria, Trump declares on Twitter
BBC: Last of Syria’s chemical weapons shipped out
NPR: Syria Gives Up Chemical Weapons … But A War Rages On
Reuters: Syria hands over remaining chemical weapons for destruction
Fairfax: Syrian government deploys forces in Douma after alleged chemical attack
Additional
The Independent: The search for truth in the rubble of Douma – and one doctor’s doubts over the chemical attack
Reuters: French declassified intelligence report on Syria gas attacks
Previous related blogposts
The Sweet’n’Sour Deliciousness of Irony: Russia accused of meddling in US Election
Trump escalates, Putin congratulates
Trumpwatch: The Drum(pf)s of War
Trumpwatch: One minute closer to midnight on the Doomsday Clock
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 April 2018.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor: What’s up with Richard Griffin and National’s Melissa Lee?
.
.
Interesting to note this little item which has been all but over-looked by the mainstream media;
.
.
Which begged these questions;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: 31 March 2018
subject: Letter to the editor
.The editor
NZ Herald
.The recent furore over the so-called “secret” meeting between broacasting minister Clare Curran and RNZ’s Carol Hirschfeld revealed that Board chair and former National government advisor, Richard Griffin, phoned National MP, Melissa Lee to inform her that Ms Hirscheld had tendered her resignation. This barely reported event raises several questiins that have yet to be fully answered;
Why did Griffin contact Ms Lee?
Is it appropriate for a Board member to be discussing sensitive employment matters with an Opposition National MP?
Did Griffin get Board approval to discuss this with Ms Lee?
What other contact has Griffin had with National MPs?
If Griffin’s discussion with Ms Lee was inappropriate, will he be resigning as RNZ’s chair of the Board?
And who advised National MP Melissa Lee of the not-so-secret meeting between Clare Curran and Carol Hirscheld?
There is more to this story than coffee-chats beteen two people. The apparent behind-the-scenes machinations hint at something far deeper between the National Opposition and an unknown “agent” working from within Radio NZ.
Plans to expand the public broadcasting service of Radio NZ may be threatened by a secretive faction at work.
.Frank macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
Questions remain – and not just of Minister Curran to answer.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Richard Griffin ‘gobsmacked’ by details of interaction
Additional
Radio NZ: Political commentators Matthew Hooton and Stephen Mills
Fairfax media: Melissa Lee was given a heads up about Carol Hirschfeld’s resignation
FYI.org: Communications between Melissa Lee and Richard Griffin
Twitter: Tim Murphy
Other blogs
Werewolf: Gordon Campbell on Clare Curran’s dim future
Previous related blogposts
National pissed off: Labour is nicking John Key’s dodginess!
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 31 March 2018.
.
.
= fs =
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (whitu)
.
.
The final day of campaign is upon us. Tomorrow is the “official” Election Day and nine years of National government is about to either end – or win a rare fourth term.
Polling does not look good for an outright win for the Labour-Green bloc.
National’s dirty politics of lies has apparently entered the subconsciousness of mainstream New Zealand. Despite being rubbished by every economist, commentator, media, and Uncle Tom Cobbly, Bill English continued to repeat Joyce’s lie about Labour’s “$11.7 billion fiscal hole”;
.
.
Or National’s lie about tax “increases” under a Labour-led government;
.
.
English seems to be “relaxed” about borrowing from our former Prime Minister’s handbook to bend the truth – or just outright lie when it suits his selfish needs.
National’s willful lying on this issue is classic Crosby-Textor manipulation; throw mud and some of it will stick in the minds of poorly informed voters. Or voters who know it’s a lie – but want to feel validated voting for a party that promotes the lifestyle of the Cosy, Comfy Middle-class.
An artificially bloated home valuation can be a powerful inducement for some voters to go with the status quo that maintains the illusion of wealth. Especially when those same Cosy, Comfy Middle-class have no contact in their lives with child poverty, homelessness, over-stretched mental health services, people suffering on lengthening hospital waiting lists…
This has been borne out with comments I’ve heard during my door-knocking and market-stalls campaigning for the Green Party. A few from the Cosy, Comfy Middle-class seemed eager to voice derogatory opinions about Metiria Turei, but when questioned what experiences they’ve had trying to survive on welfare, the response has been either to deflect to “get a job” or a complete lack of understanding.
Orwell knew precisely what he was telling us when he insisted that “Ignorance is Strength”.;
.
.
Being willfully ignorant means not doubting; not questioning; and enjoying support from fellow Cosy, Comfy Middle-class to maintain the illusion.
That is the problem with the property-owning Cosy, Comfy Middle-class. Until a “market correction” strips away their over-inflated valuations, they are happy to live the mirage of “wealth”.
Which leads to why we will likely see a fourth National term after Saturday.
First, some recent history. Radio NZ’s 2014 Poll of Polls; predicted the following outcome for the 20 September 2014 election;
National: 46.4%
Labour: 25.7%
Greens: 12.5%
[Combined Labour/Green: 38.2%]
NZ First: 7.6%
The 2014 General Election final results were as follows;
National: 47.04%
Labour: 25.13%
Greens: 10.70%
[Combined Labour/Green: 35.83%]
NZ First: 8.66%
The Radio NZ poll-of-polls was fairly close, with only the Greens suffering a major drop in actual votes.
Post 2014 election, National’s votes translated to 60 seats and was able to gain Supply & Confidence from “rats and mice” minor parties; ACT, Maori Party, and Peter Dunne.
The most recent Radio NZ Poll of Polls has the following results;
National: 45.1% (up from 41.9%)
Labour: 37.2% (down from 41.6%)
Greens: 7.2% (up from 5.5%)
[Combined Labour/Green: 44.4%]
NZ First: 6.6% (no real change from 6.8%)
This time the National and red/green bloc are almost identical.
The smaller parties will be unable to be the deciding factor. That role will go to NZ First, with the following permutations;
National (45.1%) + NZ First (6.6%) = National-NZF (51.7%)
Labour (37.2%) + Greens (7.2%) + NZ First (6.6%) = Labour-Greens-NZF (51%)
In May this year, Peters confirmed his belief that “constitutional convention” required his party to approach the largest party, post-election, for coalition talks;
Corin Dann: Let’s go back to 2005, in Rotorua, where you gave a pretty famous speech about your– You were being harried by media – probably like myself, because I was there – about who you were going to go with in 2005. And you stood up and said, ‘According to constitutional convention, the party which gains the most seats is the party which must first try and form a government. We will support this constitutional convention in the first instance.’ Can you give New Zealanders an assurance that that’s your position today and come September 24th?
Winston Peters: All it means is what I said. ‘In the first instance’, that’s what you’d expect to happen, not just in this country but in every country. However, it’s only the first instance. It’s not a binding rule that says ‘In this first instance, this is clearly going to fail, therefore we should look elsewhere. That’s all it means.
That would be National.
In July this year, Peters’ issued one of his many “bottom lines”; a binding referendum on abolishing the Maori seats;
“My strategy is to tell everybody out there that you won’t be talking to NZ First unless you want a referendum on both those issues at the mid-term mark of this election.”
Both Labour and the Greens have resolutely ruled out any such referendum. Only one other major party has ever had a policy of doing away with those seats.
That would be National.
It is common knowledge that there is considerable animosity between the Green Party and NZ First. Peters is unlikely to sit in a three way coalition involving the Greens (or a four-way, involving the Maori Party). His preference would most likely be as one of two in a dual-party coalition.
That would be National.
Will Winston Peters join in formal coalition with National? If so, he would be repeating a mistake he made twentyone years ago;
.
.
For which he had to eventually apologise;
.
.
To coalesce or not to coalesce, that is the question…
Of course, Peters could simply offer Supply & Confidence to “the largest party”.
That would be National.
But what would be in it for him and NZ First? What gains could he achieve if he’s not “at the table”?
In deciding whether to join in Coalition or simply offer Supply & Confidence to a fourth term National government, Peters would do well to remember that with the Nats at 45.1%, 54.9% of voters want change. That’s a clear majority.
So the question Peters should be asking is , “which party is leading the 54.9% wanting change?”
That would be Labour.
Choose wisely, Mr Peters. Choose wisely.
.
.
.
References
Mediaworks: Patrick Gower – National playing ‘post-truth politics’
Radio NZ: Poll of Polls – 19 September 2014
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2014 General Election Official Results
Radio NZ: Poll of Polls – 21 September 2017
Scoop media: Q+A – Winston Peters interviewed by Corin Dann
Fairfax media: Winston Peters delivers bottom-line binding referendum on abolishing Maori seats
Radio NZ: Labour rules out Māori seat referendum
NZ City: Greens promise to protect Maori seats
NZ Herald: National to dump Maori seats in 2014
Additional
NZ Herald: Homeless people sleep under National billboard outside the Auckland City Mission
Wikipedia: New Zealand 2014 general election
Mediaworks: Patrick Gower – National guilty of biggest campaign lie
Mediaworks: Patrick Gower – National playing ‘post-truth politics’
Previous related blogposts
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (tahi)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rua)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (toru)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (wha)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (ono)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 22 September 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Is Karl du Fresne happy now?
.
.
In March 2013, former Dominion editor and right-wing columnist, Karl Du Fresne, spat an almighty dummy when he launched a diatribe of accusations of “bias” against Radio New Zealand;
.
.
I responded shortly thereafter with my own interpretation of Du Fresne’s accusation, writing;
Du Fresne referred to RNZ as “left wing”. And then listed all those people whom he thinks are guilty of being “left”. People like,
Kim Hill
Chris Laidlaw
Jeremy Rose
Kathryn Ryan
Obviously, these people all need to be brought before Parliament’s House Committee for Un-New Zealand Activities. (Which, we don’t have – yet – but I’m sure one of Mr Du Fresne’s right wing colleagues such as Maggie Barry could easily organise one. More on Maggie Barry in a moment.) Then the H.C.U.N.Z.A. can ensure that Hill, Laidlaw, Rose, and Ryan never work in this town again.
Du Fresne claimed;
“So what might the new RNZ chief executive do to enhance the organisation’s standing in a political climate that is less than favourable? One obvious step is to take a tougher line against the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes.
Public broadcasting organisations, by their very nature, tend to be Left-leaning.”
“Left-leaning“?!
Du Fresne did not hold back in his trenchant criticism of the state broadcaster;
“But publicly funded broadcasters have an obligation to make programmes that reflect the views and interests that I’m comfortable with – not just those the broadcasters happen to favour for the rest of New Zealand who are a bunch of leftie, pinko, mung-bean eating, hippies.”
I responded by listing the right-wing commentators who were regular or semi-regular guests and commentators on Radio NZ;
- ex-National President, Michelle Boag;
- National & ACT supporter and anti-MMP campaigner, Jordan Williams
- rightwing blogger and National Party apparatchik, David Farrar;
- ex-ACT MP and Party President, Rodney Hide;
- ex-ACT and later, ex-National MP, Stephen Franks;
- former speech-writer and press secretary for National and right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooten;
- and former police officer and front-person for television’s “Police Ten 7″, Graham Bell (who holds right wing views on many issues).
Not forgetting also;
- Richard Griffin, Radio NZ’s one-time political editor, who worked for National Party ex-Prime Minister Jim Bolger, as his press secretary in the late 1990’s, and is on Radio NZ’s Board of Governors
- Maggie Barry (who I referred to above), was the morning presenter on Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report’ in 1986, and hosted ‘Nine To Noon’ show in 1990. Later, in November 2011, Ms Barry stood as a political candidate in the general election, and won the seat of North Shore. She stood as a National Party candidate.
On Wednesday 10 August, another guest featured on Radio NZ;
.
.
Karl du Fresne – his name pointed out with a big, ‘pinko’ arrow.
So, is Radio NZ still biased?
Especially when the only person to be publicly banned from that broadcaster was left-wing commentator Martyn Bradbury;
.
.
Not so self-righteous with indignant cries of “Bias!” now are we, Mr Du Fresne?
.
.
.
References
Manawatu Standard: RNZ’s bias needs to be tackled
Radio NZ: Board of Governors
NBR: Maggie Barry selected as National’s North Shore candidate
Radio NZ: The Panel with Jeremy Elwood and Karl du Fresne
Additional
TV3: Blogger Bomber banned from RNZ for criticism of Key
Tumeke: Banned from Radio NZ for criticizing the Government
Previous related blogposts
Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session
Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session – part rua
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 August 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Matthew Hooton on “secret” UMR poll?
.
.
On Monday 11 July, right-wing commentator Matthew Hooton was making his regular appearance on Radio NZ’s Nine To Noon Political Panel programme. The host was Kathryn Ryan, the commentator from the Left was Stephen Mills.
During the debate on Labour’s recently-released housing policy, Matthew Hooton made this startling revelation;
.
Matthew Hooton, right-wing commentator, columnist, and Director of ‘Exceltium’ PR company
.
@ 10.25
Matthew Hooton: “And Labour’s at twenty eight percent… And, and, look here’s the thing, Labour, in the latest UMR poll for June, done by Steven’s polling company, Labour was at twenty eight percent, Greens at sixteen. So we are, so they will need to increase because currently they’re polling worse than Jeremy Corbyn.”
Kathryn Ryan: “And where is National at, in that poll?”
Matthew Hooton: “Forty two.”
Using a search engine I could find no reference to any poll carried out in June having been released.
Through Twitter, I asked if Matthew could clarify his comment regarding such a UMR poll. He promptly replied, confirming his statements on Radio NZ;
.
.
When I asked for a source, Matthew replied;
“No. It’s secret.”
I have no way of confirming the validity of Matthew’s assertion of the existence of a secret poll by UMR. He could be mischief-making, for which he occasionally has some inclination.
Yet…
The alleged UMR polling bears striking similarity to a recent Roy Morgan poll released on 20 June;
.
.
In the Roy Morgan poll above, 5.5% were Undecideds.
According to Hooton’s “secret poll”, a combined Labour-Green rating of 44% has over-taken National on 42%.
If the so-called “secret poll” is legitimate, then that explains the recent flurry of panicked activity from National to counter Labour’s recently released housing policy.
The next few polls will be Crunch Time for National and if they bear out Roy Morgan and the “secret UMR Poll” – then we are indeed witnessing the decaying administration of John Key’s third term government.
The rich irony of such a crisis for an incumbent government is that attempting to avert the down-ward spiral becomes a hopeless exercise. The more policies they “throw” at a problem, the greater the public’s perception that they are panicking.
“Policy-making on the hoof” reached new levels of comic-absurdity when the “Fixit Minister”, Steven Joyce, announced by Twitter that Housing NZ would forego dividend-payments to the National government for the next two years;
.
.
Shipley’s short-lived administration and Helen Clark’s final three years were marked by similar acts of desperate ad hocery. (But without “Tweeting” sudden policy lurches.)
Our esteemed Dear Leader may be about to discover the same fate.
.
Addendum
Roy Morgan polls are considered more accurate because they call respondents using both landlines and mobile telephones. (See: Census, Surveys, and Cellphones)
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Nine To Noon – Political commentators Matthew Hooton and Stephen Mills
Twitter: Mathew Hooton
Roy Morgan Poll: National and Labour down in June but New Zealand First still holds the balance of power if Election was held now
Twitter: Steven Joyce
Other bloggers
Chris Trotter: Tricky Customer – Why Is Matthew Hooton Accusing John Key’s Government Of Lurching To The Left?
Chris Trotter: The Terrifying Radicalism of Matthew Hooton
Previous related blogposts
Mr Morgan phoned (2013)
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (2013)
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (Part rua) (2013)
Latest Roy Morgan poll – wholly predictable results and no reason to panic (2015)
The slow dismantling of a Prime Minister – downward slide continues
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 July 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to Radio NZ – Homelessness, Poverty, and the Final Solution
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Morning Report <morningreport@radionz.co.nz>
date: Wed, May 18, 2016
subject: Homelessness and the Final SolutionKia ora Suzie & Guyon,
I’ve been hearing some of your listeners making comments that the homeless should not have children.
In effect, what they are doing is blaming the poorest in society for their predicament. Really? When did the poor ever decide economic policy in this country?
What those correspondents are saying is only the well-off should have children.
The only question that remains to be answered is what do working families do when they are made redundant and end up in garages or cars with their children – what method do your correspondents advocate to euthenase those children?
Because that is what they’re advocating; a Final Solution for the Poor.
– Frank Macskasy
.
.
.
= fs =
Panama Papers: Matthew Hooton’s Alternate Universes on Twitter and Radio NZ
.
.
On 8 May, Martyn Bradbury posted the below screenshot, with an associated story (<a href=’http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/05/08/matthew-hooton-and-the-panama-papers-why-does-he-sound-so-frightened/’>Matthew Hooton and the Panama Papers – why does he sound so frightened?</a> ) .
Reading Matthew Hooton’s “tweets” and his re-Tweets of other comments – many of which seemed to verge on the hysterical – it was apparent that our favourite right-wing commentator was beside himself at what the Panama Papers had uncovered (and continues to uncover);
.
[Image courtesy of Martyn Bradbury]
.
There is a preternatural volcanic fury from the Right – many, if not most, of whom view taxation as “theft” and tax-havens as a legitimate counter to governments who cheekily demand tax from it’s citizens and corporates.
The same Right believe that taxation is “wasted” on “frivolous” matters such as public health, public education, welfare, environmental protection, housing the poor, etc. Only funding for Police and the Armed Forces is considered justified. (To protect their hoarded wealth from increasingly poor , frustrated, and angry workers.)
Rather surprisingly, Hooton’s comments were toned-down for Radio NZ’s Nine To Noon political panel on 9 May;
.
.
Listen to Hooton’s participation on the panel, and compare his measured commentary on Radio NZ versus his irrational sniping on Twitter. It’s almost as if we’re seeing and hearing two completely different Matthew Hootons from Parallel Universes; our Earth and Earth 2.
Earth 2 must be a lovely place to live, if Matthew v2 is anything to go by.
.
.
.
References
Twitter: Matthew Hooton
Twitter: Mark Hubbard
Libertarianz: Taxation
Libertarianz: Justice
Libertarianz: Defence
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Mike Williams & Matthew Hooton (alt. link) (audio)
Previous related blogposts
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 11 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
The slow starvation of Radio NZ – the final nail in the coffin of the Fourth Estate?
The chilling of the mainstream media
Whether by machiavellian, subtle and covert political pressuring from on-high; bad management decision-making, or an inevitable process of dumbing-down brought on by the never-ending need for advertising revenue and rapacious returns to share-holders, news media in this country continues to suffer at the on-going impacts of “market forces”.
The demise of Campbell Live and the loss of Mihingarangi Forbes from Maori TV’s Native Affairs and Dita De Boni from the NZ Herald should give all thinking New Zealanders cause for concern. Those three were amongst the most talented and critical voices from the mainstream media, and their dumping no doubt had a chilling effect throughout the media in this country.
With few exceptions, journos have mortgages and bills to pay; mouths to feed; and careers they are passionate about. The constant possibility of sudden termination of their contract is a sword of damocles that probably weighs on their minds when considering how critical of the Establishment they really want to be.
The may be risking their jobs if they stick their heads too far above the parapets.
The only people whose jobs are apparently safe are Mike Hosking and Paul Henry (who seems to bounce from company to company without any deleterious effects to his credibility).
Interestingly, each has been ’embedded’ with the two major television networks, TVNZ and Mediaworks’ TV3. Neither are journalists and both Hosking and Henry are unashamedly linked to National.
This is “independepent media freedom” in New Zealand, circa 2015AD.
Who watches the Watchmen?
The last bastion of an independent freedom, free from commercial imperatives and political interference (hopefully) is, Radio NZ. Despite an incident three years ago, where blogger Martyn Bradbury was banned from Radio NZ for making comments highly critical of our esteemed Dear Leader, the broadcaster maintains a strong ability to project itself as a serious, credible news and current affairs medium.
It continues to carry out strong investigative reporting; interviewing government ministers; State sector leaders; and other public figures; and offering political analysis from both the Left and the Right.
One of Radio NZ’s most insightful (and often under-valued) programmes is Mediawatch, which scrutinises, analysis, and holds to account, New Zealand’s mainstream media in a way that is not matched anywhere else by any other MSM outlet. As the Radio NZ promo-blurb states;
“Mediawatch looks critically at the New Zealand media – television, radio, newspapers and magazines as well as the ‘new’ electronic media. It also examines the performance of the agencies, corporations and institutions that regulate them. It looks into the impact the media has on the nation, highlighting good practice as well as bad along the way – and it also enquires into overseas trends and technological developments which New Zealanders need to know about.
It aims to enlighten everyone with an interest in the media about how it all works, how quickly things are changing – and how certain significant stories and issues are being covered. It’s also intended to be essential listening for those who work in the industry itself – as well as those who simply enjoy well-produced and lively radio.”
A recent prime example was on 9 August, when TV3 reporter, Tova O’Brien was taken to task for attributing a quote to someone who never actually said what she claimed;
@ 2:50 –
Colin Peacock: In New York, Tova O’Brien also got a second opinion on Murray McCully’s lofty dream of reforming the veto powers of the so-called Big Five at the UN. And 3 News introduced that story like this;
TV3 News: Former Prime Minister Helen Clark thinks Murray Clark is dreaming if he thinks New Zealand can rid the UN Security Council veto. Russia used the veto yesterday during… [fade-out]
Colin Peacock: Though Helen Clark had actually applauded Murray McCully for his ambition. It was Tova O’Brien who used the word ‘dreaming’ in a question to Helen Clark.
Helen Clark: It [New Zealand] should go for it. It [New Zealand] should follow it’s [New Zealand’s] dream.
Tova O’Brien: But in this case he’s dreaming.
Helen Clark: It’s not a short-term objective.
That was downright dishonest reporting. Only Radio NZ’s Mediawatch picked up on it.
Last year, on 7 July, Mediawatch was the only mainstream media team that questioned and criticised the NZ Herald’s dubious stories surrounding unsubstantiated claims of large donations made by migrant businessman, Donghua Liu, to the Labour Party. (Those claims were later “clarified” with a half-hearted retraction by the Herald.)
No other mainstream media questioned any of the astounding and unsupported claims made by Donghua Liu, and reported uncritically by the Herald.
It is a sobering thought that aside from the toothless “watch dog” of the Press Council, and only marginally more effective Broadcasting Standards Authority, there is no real scrutiny of mistakes, omissions, and mis-reporting made by our media.
Self-criticism does not come easily to the Fourth Estate.
Gutting by slow starvation?
Funding for Radio NZ is channelled through New Zealand on Air – a body described on Wikipedia, as “…an independent New Zealand broadcast funding agency” and “autonomous crown entity separate from central Government and governed by a Board of six appointed by the Minister of Broadcasting. NZ on Air is responsible for the funding of public-good broadcasting content across television, radio and new media platforms“.
The funding figure of $31.816 million is an easy one to remember – it has remained unchanged since 2009-10, when National assumed the reins of government. The figure has been maintained until next year.Using the Reserve Bank inflation calculator, Radio NZ’s funding should have risen to $35.26 million. In effect, by not keeping pace with inflation, Radio NZ’s funding has been cut by around 10%.
By contrast, Budget data showing increases to the Prime Minister’s Department makes for sobering reading.
- Michael Cullen’s last budget, 2008/09, allocated $25,470,000 to Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet.
- In the same 2008/2009 Budget, Radio NZ was allocated $31,718,000 through NZ on Air, an increase of $2,644,000 (approx 8%) from the previous year.
- In National’s first Budget, 2009/10, Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet was allocated $33,021,000 – an increase of $7,551,000 – or just under 25%!
- In the same 2009/2010 Budget, Radio NZ’s allocation went up by $98,000 to $31,816,000 – not even a 1% increase.
For the first time, the Prime Minister’s Departmental budget exceeded that of Radio NZ. Furthermore;
- Since 2009/10, Radio NZ’s allocation has stayed the same; $31,816,000.
- By contrast, the amounts allocated to the Prime Minister’s Department has increased, and in the 2015/16 Budget was allocated $49,298,000 – an increase of $24,476,000 since 2008 and a near-doubling of John Key’s department and Cabinet expenditure since Michael Cullen’s last budget, seven years ago.
- In the 2015/16 Budget, Radio NZ was allocated $31,816,000 – a nil increase.
Framed another way, a news media organisation – dedicated to informing the public about government activities – has had no increase in resourcing since John Key’s administration came to power in late 2008.
By contrast, the Prime Minister’s Department – dedicated to promoting the power of the Government and more specifically, pursuing National’s political agenda – has had a doubling of taxpayer funding.
Where to for funding Radio NZ?
On 17 August, I wrote to NZ on Air’s Chief Executive, Jane Wrightson and asked;
“In your Annual reports, NZ on Air’s income from Crown revenue went from $109,813,000 (for the year ended 30 June 2008 ) to $128,726,000 (for the year ended 30 June 2015) – an increase of nearly $19 million.
Can you explain why none of that increase, according to your Annual Reports, was directed at Radio NZ?”
On 21 August, Ms Wrightson responded;
“NZ On Air does not set Radio New Zealand’s Crown funding. This is done by Ministers. I am not aware of any government-funded entity that has an automatic inflation provision to increase funding.”
When questioned whether “Radio NZ’s funding has been frozen (effectively reduced, after inflation is factored in) because it is considered to be politically “inconvenient” or “embarrassing” to the government”, Ms Wrightson replied;
“NZ On Air is a funding agency independent of Government in terms of our content funding strategy and decisions. Radio New Zealand’s funding has been static in the same way that all publicly funded agencies in the cultural sector have been static, during a time of fiscal constraint.”
“Fiscal constraint” does not appear to be a limiting factor when the Prime Minister’s Department is funded from the tax-payer’s purse/wallet.
Questions for the Broadcasting Minister
On 6 September, I asked the Minister of Broadcasting, Amy Adams;
It is my understanding that Radio New Zealand’s funding has not increased since 2009, when it’s budget was set at $31,816,000.
With it’s funding frozen, and no means of other revenue, it has effectively had a funding cut after inflation and salary increases are taken into account.
Can you explain why Radio NZ’s budget has not, at the very least, been inflation-indexed?
Can you explain why Radio NZ’s budget has been frozen whilst at the same time, the Prime Ministers Department has had a budget increase since 2008 from $25,470,000 to $49,298,000 in 2015/16 – a near doubling in just seven years?
Are you committed to increasing Radio NZ’s budget next year? If not, why not?
How do you expect Radio NZ to deliver excellent service when it has effectively had a cut in funding?
On 20 May this year, you were enthusiastic about Radio NZ’s growth in market-share;
“While there has been a decline in listenership across traditional platforms, over the last twelve months RNZ’s online audience has grown significantly as their multi-media strategy is implemented.”
For example:
- In 2013/14, 3.5 million podcasts were downloaded.
- In 2013/14, radionz.co.nz page views reached 21 million and over 2014 unique users of the website grew by over 50 per cent.
- In 2013/14, regular user of the RNZ mobile app grew by almost 62 per cent.
Ref: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/bill-update-radio-nz-charter-passes-second-reading
Whilst this is evidence that Radio NZ is a prudent manager of it’s funding, it is unreasonable to expect that this situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future.If the Prime Minister’s Department required a 100% increase from 2008, then why has Radio NZ not been accorded the same benefit?
There have been suggestions that Radio NZ’s frozen funding is a covert attack on the broadcaster and an attempt to reduce it’s effectiveness. What is your response to this assertion?
On 17 September 〈¹〉,Minister Adams replied to my questions;
“I have been pleased to see the steps RNZ is taking to ensure its success in the
changing media environment and the ways it has expanded to reach new audiences,
such as The Wireless, an online service for young people. Although operating
within a static funding environment, RNZ continues to meet it’s objectives and
has become an established multi-platform broadcaster with the annual funding of
$35 million it receives.While I share your concern about the funding constraints RNZ has faced over
recent years, this is common across all public services. In a time of fiscal
constraint, it is especially important that the Government manages the public
finances in a prudent and responsible manner and makes sustainable choices about
the prioritisation of public funds. I welcome the approach RNZ has taken to
ensure the business is run as efficiently as possible and that public funds
are utilised as effectively as they can be to maximise the public value of content.”
Adams went on to state;
“While I recognise your concern about the funding constraints RNZ has faced over
recent years, this is common across all public services. In a time of fiscal
constraint, it is especially important that the Government manages the public
finances in a prudent and responsible manner and makes sustainable choices about
the prioritisation of public funds. I welcome the approach RNZ has taken to ensure
the businrss is run as efficiently as possible and that public funds are utilised
as effectively as they can be to maximise the public value of content.”
To put it mildly, her response was utterly unsatisfactory, and in no way offered any sensible answers. Her comments also did not appear to reflect realities surrounding Radio NZ and required clarification.
Awkward Questions and Questionable Answers
On the same day, I wrote back to the Minister, seeking new answers;
As I pointed out to you in my 6 September email,
It is my understanding that Radio New Zealand’s funding has not increased since 2009, when it’s budget was set at $31,816,000.
With it’s funding frozen, and no means of other revenue, it has effectively had a funding cut after inflation and salary increases are taken into account.
Can you explain why Radio NZ’s budget has not, at the very least, been inflation-indexed?
Can you explain why Radio NZ’s budget has been frozen whilst at the same time, the Prime Ministers Department has had a budget increase since 2008 from $25,470,000 to $49,298,000 in 2015/16 – a near doubling in just seven years?
In your response to me, dated 17 September, you stated in-part;
“While I share your concern about the funding constraints RNZ has faced over
recent years, this is common across all public services. In a time of fiscal constraint, it is
especially important that the Government manages the public finances in a prudent and
responsible manner and makes sustainable choices about the prioritisation of public
funds. I welcome the approach RNZ has taken to ensure the business is run as
efficiently as possible and that public funds are utilised as effectively as they can be to
maximise the public value of content.”This response does not address the questions and issues I raised in my email.
Namely; why has Radio NZ’s funding been frozen since 2009 – whilst funding for the Prime Minister’s Department has doubled since 2008 from $25,470,000 to $49,298,000 in 2015/16.
The next point I raised was;
Why has Radio NZ’s funding been frozen since 2009 – whilst funding for the Prime Minister’s Department has doubled since 2008 from $25,470,000 to $49,298,000 in 2015/16.
You state that “In a time of fiscal constraint, it is especially important that the Government manages the public finances in a prudent and responsible manner and makes sustainable choices about the prioritisation of public funds” – yet this constraint does not seem to have been applied to the Prime Minister’s Department, with funding increases every year since 2008.
Can you shed light on why Radio NZ’s funding has been frozen, but the Prime Minister’s Department has not?
And the last point I raised;
Secondly, you write that “ it is especially important that the Government manages the public finances in a prudent and responsible manner and makes sustainable choices about the prioritisation of public funds“.
Can you explain the meaning of term, “sustainable choices” in the context of your letter? What, precisely, do you mean by “sustainable choices“?
Lastly, you refer to Radio NZ as a “business”. Considering that RNZ is non-commercial; has very little revenue; does not return a dividend; and has no profit-making capability – can you explain in what sense the broadcaster is a “business”?
The section of your email relating to the budget of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has been transferred to the Department, as it is better able to respond to your query.
Minister Adams will respond to your questions regarding the funding of RNZ.
It was now apparent that I was asking awkward questions that could not be fobbed off with a three-paragraph letter written in bland political jargon-speak.
Having transferred part of my OIA to the Prime Minister’s Department, I suspected it would be a long wait for a response.
On 13 November, Minister Adams responded to my request for clarification to her statement on 17 September. She first said;
“With regards to the first matter you raise, no government agency’s budget is inflation
linked. Ministers make decisions on an annual basis about potential funding increases
based on the requirements of the agencies. As you will be aware, these decisions involve
prioritisation across the entire public sector to ensure that any additional funding is
focused on the areas of most need.”
The Minister’s claim that “no government agency’s budget is inflation linked”appears to be at variance with the fact that the Prime Minister’s Department’s budget has doubled since 2008. This is an area which she obviously has no answer to, hence “transferring” my query to the PM’s Department.
However, Adams’ assertion that “ministers make decisions on an annual basis about potential funding increases” is actually at the nub of this problem. It is precisely the fact that Radio NZ’s budget has been frozen by a decision at a ministerial level, that Minister Adams herself admits.
In effect, by deciding that Radio NZ’s budget is not to be increased, it is a form of political interference in an otherwise independent agency’s affairs.
National has long since abandoned Muldoonist-style direct interference in state sector departments and agencies. The more subtle – but just as destructive technique – is to quietly starve a recalcitrant independent body of funding.
When Minister Adams insists that “Ministers make decisions on an annual basis about potential funding increases based on the requirements of the agencies“, she is being duplicitous.
No one could sensibly suggest that a nationwide broadcaster could operate on a long-term basis without an increase to it’s funding.
Executives warn Parliamentary Select Committee of dire financial situation for RadioNZ
Radio NZ’s growing financial problems was raised during the 2012/13 financial review of Radio New Zealand, by the Parliamentary Commerce Committee. The Committee referred to the issue at the beginning of their Report;
“Crown funding for Radio New Zealand has not increased in six years; we asked how this had affected staff and services.”
Labour’s Kris Faafoi was direct when he asked RadioNZ’s, Deputy Chief Executive, Ken Law;
“…you’ve been under a pretty difficult financial situation for 5 or 6 years now. I notice in the questions that you gave back to us that you’ve managed to make some savings of around $2 million in the last year, but how much longer can you cut your cloth until there is no more cloth to cut?”
Law, responded;
“I would suggest that that funding will have to be externally generated. But we have been very successful. We’ve made a number of
savings, particularly in production systems. We have some excellent expert staff in audio production. They’ve made some major savings in audio production systems and procedures. We’ve taken out some of the resilience or some of the duplication in transmission networks. That’s been a very calculated risk, but one that we think we’ve been able to manage and we can manage into the future. But really your question—how much longer? Not much longer.”
That was review was held around 8 May 2014. Despite putting on a brave face to the Parliamentary Committee and voicing up-beat comments, Radio NZ’s executives are clearly concerned that they are fast running out of cost-saving options.
Also noteworthy is that, in an attempt to cut costs, managerial decisions have been implemented to cut “some of the resilience or some of the duplication in transmission networks“.
Law described cut-backs to “resilience” as “a very calculated risk”. This can be taken as to mean that Radio NZ’s technical infrastructure has been undermined and compromised for cost-saving purposes.
“Sustainability” and job losses looming
Minister Adams’ also explained what she meant by the term, “sustainable choices” and in what sense was the broadcaster a “business”, considering it is non-commercial, and has no revenue-income to speak of;
“With regards to the term ‘sustainable choices’ as used in my previous
correspondence, I meant choices about fiscal policy that keep government debt at
prudent levels and manage fiscal risks. As mentioned above, when Ministers make
decisions about agency funding they have to prioritise initiatives from across the
state sector to achieve this.[…]
Although RNZ is not a commercial business, the Crown expects commercial disciplines
to be applied to the use of public funds and for RNZ to act in a professional and
business-like manner.”
Minister Adams’ candour was startling. She was admitting that her use of the phrase “sustainable choices” referred not to Radio NZ – but to National’s own attempts to balance it’s Budget and post a surplus.
Like other areas of the State sector – health, education, housing, police, etc – National has been cutting budgets to meet Budgetary demands. Those demands were exacerbated by National’s tax cuts of 2009 and 2010. Using the Minister’s phraseology, those tax cuts were ultimately “un–sustainable choices“.
A year and a half after Ken Law’s fateful words to the Commerce Committee, Radio NZ’s chief executive, Paul Thompson, announced that the broadcaster would be shedding jobs;
RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson confirmed staff had been sent memo outlining the proposed changes at the state-owned broadcaster on Tuesday.
Newsreaders and producers at Radio New Zealand are in the gun, with the national broadcaster planning to shed jobs in their push into digital.
RNZ chief executive Paul Thompson confirmed staff had been sent memo outlining the proposed changes at the state-owned broadcaster on Tuesday.
This included cutting the overall headcount at RNZ from 283 to 270 by July next year, with 20 jobs disestablished and seven new digital roles created.
“We are having to find some savings which is no surprise.”
National’s on-going refusal to adequately fund Radio NZ has predictably been “un-sustainable“.
The Prime Minister’s Office confirms doubling of their Budget
Having heard nothing since 15 October, when the Broadcasting Minister’s office transferred part of my OIA request to the Prime Minister’s Department, follow-up enquiries were made on 23 October as to what progress they were making;
“It is my understanding that Radio New Zealand’s funding has not increased since 2009,
when it’s budget was set at $31,816,000.With it’s funding frozen, and no means of other revenue, it has effectively had a funding
cut after inflation and salary increases are taken into account.Can you explain why Radio NZ’s budget has not, at the very least, been inflation-indexed?
Can you explain why Radio NZ’s budget has been frozen whilst at the same time, the Prime
Ministers Department has had a budget increase since 2008 from $25,470,000 to $49,298,000
in 2015/16 – a near doubling in just seven years?”
By 12 November, a month after Minister Adams’ office had transferred part of my OIA request to the Prime Minister, no reply had been forthcoming and I asked again whether I could expect a reply.
A little over twentyfour hours later, I received a two-page response from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (The full text of the document is available for viewing here.)
In response to my questions;
“Why has Radio NZ’s funding been frozen since 2009 – whilst funding for the Prime Minister’s Department has doubled since 2008 from $25,470,000 to $49,298,000 in 2015/16?”
“This [funding] constraint does not seem to have been applied to the Prime Minister’s Department, with funding increases every year since 2008. Can you shed light on why Radio NZ’s funding has been frozen, but the Prime Minister’s Department has not?”
– the answers were “interesting” to say the least.
Anne Shaw, Director of the Office of the Chief Executive, confirmed that the budget for the DPMC had doubled since 2008 from $25,470,000 to $49,298,000 in 2015/16.
She described the doubling of the Prime Minister’s Department as taking on “new responsibilities“;
“The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) serves the Executive (the
Governor-General, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) through the provision of high
quality impartial advice and support services. DPMC is comprised of five business
units: Cabinet Office, Government House, Policy Advisory Group, Security & Intelligence
Group, and Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management. The functions of DPMC
have changed significantly over the period of time covered by your request with taking
on new responsibilities. The changes in funding largely reflect this.”
Interestingly, Shaw refered to political management and the Civil Defence bureacracy as “business units”. Are those “business units” run with the expectation of commercial disciplines to be applied to the use of public funds and to act in a professional and business-like manner” – as Minister Adams demanded of Radio NZ?
Shaw then provided alleged examples which appeared to justify the doubling of funding for the Prime Minister’s office.
However, Budget documents are not always clear as to what “additional fundings” were made from the Prime Ministers Department (DPMC), as purported by Shaw. In several instances, there was no apparent reference to any increase for a given purpose;
(1) “Additional funding” for the “conservation of Government House in Wellington” between 2009/10 and 2010/11:
Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet 2009/10 Budget: $20.1 million
Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet 2010/11 Budget: $17.4 million
Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet 2011/12 Budget: $1.1 million
Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet 2012/13 Budget: $1 million
(2) “Payments made as a result of the September 2010 and February 2011 Canterbury Earthquakes, including support for response and recovery as a result of the 22 February 2011 Canterbury Earthquake“. There were no payments found for “support for response and recovery activities” relating to the earthquakes within the 2010/11, 2011/12, or 2012/13 Budgets.
(3) “Relocating the intelligence and security functions to a new purpose-built facility for the New Zealand intelligence community” 2010/11. There were no payments found for any such “relocation” within the DPMC Budget.
However, the Budget for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence increased massively during the 2010/11 period which Shaw claimed as justification for the DPMC’s budget increase:
Vote Communications Security and Intelligence 2008/09: $49.368 million
Vote Communications Security and Intelligence 2009/10: $59.142 million
Vote Communications Security and Intelligence 2010/11: $73.926 million
Any increase for “relocating the intelligence and security functions to a new purpose-built facility for the New Zealand intelligence community” appears to have come from Vote Communications Security and Intelligence, not Vote Prime Minister’s Department.
(4) There is no reference to expenditure for “Cabnet” or establishment of the National Cyber Policy Office within the 2012/13 Budget for Vote Prime Minister’s Department. If it exists, it was “buried” under one or another classication.
(5) Shaw also referred to costs incurred for “depreciation funding for the refurbished Government House“. These entries do exist in each DPMC Budget.
“Funded depreciation” is described as “… a fixed asset management method that helps a company set aside funds to renew machinery and equipment that it uses in operating activities“.
It is highly unlikely that any government will be building a new Government House any time soon.
(6) Shaw gave another explanation to the ballooning Prime Minister’s Department’s budget; “In April 2014, the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management (MCDEM) became part of the DPMC. This meant an additional funding increase in 2013/14 with the transfer of civil defence and emergency management functions from Vote Internal Affairs and an additional 39 staff“.
Ms Shaw is correct, and the cost of transitioning – according the the 2013/14 Budget – $1.354 million.
Even with three related costings included, the sum reaches only $3.6 million. This hardly explains why the PM’s Department’s budget has doubled since 2008.
(7) Ms Shaw’s final explanation for the budgetary increases for the DPMC was perhaps the most galling, citing “an increase in 2015/16 reflecting the expected costs of supporting the process to consider changing the New Zealand Flag“.
However, Shaw’s explanation is not convincing. The 2015/16 Budget reveals a figure of $4.4 million for the DPMC’s “Supporting Flag Consideration Process” – not the full estimated costing of $26 million.
Even so, considering that Ministers have consistantly fetishsised the “need for fiscal restraint”, it is hard to see that funding the flag referendum is a necessity that excuses the need for on-going “fiscal restraint”.
Especially when agencies such as Radio NZ have not had funding increases for seven years.
It appears that money can be readily found when John Key needs it.
Solutions?
On 17 September, broadcasting spokespeople for Labour, the Greens, and NZ First were approached for comment on Radio NZ’s funding.
The Greens and NZ First did not provide any response.
Labour’s Clare Curran responded and said;
In October I released a private member’s bill to put to an end Radio New Zealand’s punishing
sixyear funding freeze that matches funding to inflation and population growth and assists
the broadcaster’s transition to a multimedia public service networkThe Radio NZ (CatchUp Funding) Amendment Bill, which has been placed in the private
member’s bill ballot, provides for an 11 per cent increase based on total inflation and an
overall population increase of 6.7 per cent from June 2009 to June 2015.Current NZ on Air funding for Radio New Zealand for the 2015/16 year is $31,816,000. The
oneoff ‘catch up’ for the 2015/16 year would be an increase of around $6.5 million.The Bill provides for the catchup funding to be sustained and for inflation and population
adjustments to occur annually. It is the first step in a broad strategy by Labour to improve the
quantity and quality of New Zealand voices in broadcasting.Public service broadcasting is gradually being eroded in New Zealand. Despite the population
of New Zealand growing ever larger and more diverse, the range of voices in broadcasting is
narrowing.This bill is a stake in the ground on the importance of public interest media.
Ms Curran also replied to several specific questions I put to her, if Labour was to be part of the next government, post-2017;
Frank Macskasy: Will you make an immediate capital-injection into Radio NZ, to take into account inflation since 2008?
Clare Curran: Labour’s broadcasting policy for 2017 is yet to be announced. However I draw your attention
to the private member’s bill in my name which provides for an immediate funding increase
for RNZ based on inflation since 2008 and population increase.FM: Will you inflation-index any subsequent funding for Radio NZ?
CC: Bearing in mind we haven’t announced formal policy I think you take that as a yes.
FM: What strategy do you have, if any, to entrench regular funding increases for Radio NZ to take such funding decisions away from ministers and eliminate/reduce potential covert political interference by chronic under-funding?
CC: This is an excellent question and one that Labour takes very seriously. We are undertaking
community engagement as we speak about these very matters. As Broadcasting
spokesperson, and as a former journalist, I believe editorial independence from ministerial
interference is a fundamental tenet of democracy. Recent events inside Maori TV have raised
serious questions about the ability of a Minister to influence programming decisions which he
doesn’t like. Political party That’s deeply concerning no matter which political party is
involved.I don’t believe our publicly funded media is arms-length enough from government. What’s
happening in Australia with the ABC and even in the UK with the BBC is testament to that.In order for true democracy to flourish, commercial –free public interest media is an essential
pillar. Just as we have established and entrenched the watchdogs of government in the
Ombudsman, Auditor General, Human Rights Commission, Privacy Commissioner etc.. so
must we ensure that our public media entities are given a public mandate to operate
independently from state influence, overtly or surreptitiously. As you rightly point out,
removing funding decisions from ministers may be an important mechanism to do that.However, I make the point that it must be a political policy decision to move in that direction.
I signal that Labour will move in that direction.
FM: Would an independent decision-making body, such as the Remuneration Authority which rules over MP’s salaries, be a practical solution to this problem?
CC: This is a matter for further discussion which I welcome and will participate in, in any forum.
Clare Curran’s response was appreciated.
It also gives hope that a future progressive government will not only restore Radio NZ’s funding – but will implement a policy that will entrench and safeguard this taonga from covert under-mining by unsympathetic governments.
The job of media is not to serve up infantilised ‘pap’ for an increasingly disconnected audience. The job of media is to hold truth to power, full-stop.
A democracy simply cannot function without a flourishing, well-resourced, critical media.
Governments without a watchful media is authority without brakes. It is political power without independent over-sight. It is dangerous.
At a time when print media is “down-sizing” (ie, sacking) skilled, experienced staff, and electronic media serves up a daily evening diet of superficial “current affairs” and even more vacuous “news”; gormless formulaic “reality shows”; and a never-ending stream of stomach-churning crime “drama” – Radio NZ is the last bastion of serious, professional media.
It is the last institution left standing. It is holding the line.
But only barely.
Note1 – Minister Adams responded to my OIA in one and a half weeks. This is an outstanding achievement for any National Minister’s office. Most National Ministers take weeks, if not months, to respond.
.
.
References
Fairfax media: Maori Television journalist Mihingarangi Forbes quits
The Daily Blog: Dita de Boni axed from the NZ Herald – any more room left at RNZ?
Wikipedia: 1999 Election Results – Wairarapa
NZ Herald: Media – Hosking plugs car and Key
TV3 News: Blogger Bomber banned from RNZ for criticism of Key
Radio NZ: Mediawatch – Helping hands skew the news overseas? (alt link)
Radio NZ: Mediawatch Extra July 2014
NZ Herald: Editorial – Cries of bias will not stop reporting
Wikipedia: NZ on Air
NZ on Air: New Zealand’s own world-class public broadcaster
NZ on Air: Radio NZ Funding Decisions
Reserve Bank: Inflation Calculator
NZ Treasury: Budget 2008 – Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet
NZ Treasury: Budget 2009 – Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet
NZ Treasury: Budget 2015 – Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet
Email: To NZ On Air CEO, Jane Wrightson
Email: Response from NZ On Air CEO, Jane Wrightson
Email: To Minister of Broadcasting, Amy Adams
Beehive.govt.nz: Bill to update Radio NZ charter passes second reading
Parliament: Commerce Committee 2012/13
Fairfax media: Newsreaders and producers could go at Radio New Zealand
Email: Response from Prime Minister’s Department on Radio NZ funding
EHow: Definition of Funded Depreciation
Parliament: Radio New Zealand (Catch-up Funding) Amendment Bill
Additional References
NZ on Air: The Board
NZ on Air Annual Report: 2008
NZ on Air Annual Report: 2009
NZ on Air Annual Report: 2010
NZ on Air Annual Report: 2012
NZ on Air Annual Report: 2013
NZ on Air Annual Report: 2014
NZ on Air Annual Report: 2015
Additional
The Daily Blog: CBB supports Private Members Bill to increase funding to Radio NZ
Labour: Labour bill to stop stealth cuts to Radio NZ
The Standard: David Cunliffe on the state of the media in New Zealand
Parliament: Radio New Zealand (Catch-up Funding) Amendment Bill
Previous related blogposts
TVNZ7, Radio New Zealand, and distracting trinkets.
Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session
Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session – part rua
NZ media; the Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very, Ugly
Talkback Radio, Public Radio, and related matters
Budget 2013: Radio NZ and politicians
The fabulously talented Kim Hill
Radio NZ’s new CEO is announced
The Curious World of the Main Stream Media
Radio NZ – Mediawatch for 24 May 2015 – TV3’s Mark Jennings interviewed re Campbell Live
Friends, Kiwis, Countrymen! I come to praise John Campbell, not bury him
The Donghua Liu Affair: One Year On
MSM under-mining of new Labour Leader already begun?
.
.
It did not take long.
In fact, on the same day that Andrew Little won the Labour leadership*, the first media reporter was already asking if he would be stepping down if Labour failed to lift in the all-important polls.
On Radio NZ’s Checkpoint, the usually uber-sensible, Mary Wilson asked these gormless questions of Andrew Little,
@ 4.35
Wilson: “And in terms of your accountability though, if at the end of 2016, there is no movement [in the polls] there is no change, what happens then?”
@ 4.47
Wilson: “Is there any point during the next few years where you will say, ‘Ok, this hasn’t worked; I haven’t done what I set out to achieve; I’m leaving’.”
@ 5.00
Wilson: “And if you’re not there by the end of 2016, would you step aside?”
Now bear in mind that Radio NZ is not part of the ratings-driven, advertising-revenue-chasing corporate MSM of this country – but still those questions were put to Little.
How long before the corporate MSM – sensing sensational headlines and potential advertising revenue – begin baying for blood and drafting stories which begin to portray Little in a negative light?
It was the relentless attacks on Cunliffe from all quarters of the MSM (including non-commercial Radio NZ) which contributed to under-mining his leadership in the eyes of the voting public.
The public’s perception of a political figure is determined largely by how he is portrayed by the media. Fairness and accuracy can play little part in reporting stories targetting a political figure. As the Donghua Liu Affair, in the NZ Herald showed with disturbing clarity, even a non-story can be spun in such a way as to totally destroy a man’s credibility and reputation.
Note: As an aside, in defending the Herald’s story on the 13 year old Donghua Liu-Cunliffe letter, Editor Tim Murphy stated in June this year (in an email to this blogger), that “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“. Nothing further has been produced by the Herald to back up it’s assertions since it was forced to make retractions on 25 June.
The Donghua Liu Affair was part of an ongoing, targetted, smear campaign against David Cunliffe. The non-story, involving a 13 year old letter; a non-existent $100,000 bottle of wine; and an alleged, yet-to-be-discovered, $15,000 book, painted Cunliffe as untrustworthy, and the Labour Party as dodgy.
The new Labour leader will have to keep his wits about him and use every media-related connection and employ the best possible media minders to counter an MSM that can no longer be trusted to report the basic truth. With the likes of Patrick Gower and Mike Hosking competing to be the “baddest bad asses” on the Media Block, accuracy and truth play third-fiddle behind egos (#1) and ratings (#2).
TV3’s Patrick Gower has already had a ‘go’ at Little’s victory, referring to the democratic selection process as “the great union ripoff”;
“It’s a backdoor takeover by the unions. Simply, Andrew Little would not be Labour leader without the unions. He is the unions’ man; Little is a union man, and the unions have got their man into Labour’s top job.”
The TV3 on-line article is bizarre in itself with TV3’s “Online Reporter”, Dan Satherley, reporting TV3’s Political Reporter, Patrick Gower’s, utterances. Journalists interviewing each other?
They just can’t help themselves. In an ‘Interstellar‘-quality vacuum of any meaningful news reporting, media-hacks like Gower will blather on about any silliness that enters their heads. Far be it for him to actually interview Andrew Little and ask him questions like;
What’s on your agenda if you become Prime Minister?
What’s your point-of-difference to National?
What do you hope to achieve, legislation-wise, in the First 100 Days of a government you lead?
You know, real questions that real journalists used to ask, in real interviews, with real people.
At the same time, the same brickbat used to beat the MSM around it’s collective head should be generously applied to the Labour Party hierarchy’s backside.
When Labour president Moira Coatsworth made this statement in the NZ Herald, congratulating Andrew Little;
Labour president Moira Coatsworth, who announced Mr Little’s victory, said he would lead a reinvigorated party into the 2017 election campaign.
“Andrew has the leadership skills and the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders and take Labour to victory in 2017. I have no doubt he will go on to become a great Labour Prime Minister who builds a stronger, fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.”
– it was the same gushing enthusiasm she voiced for David Cunliffe last year;
“The Labour Party congratulates David Cunliffe on his win. David has been elected by a robust and democratic process and has won on the first round with a clear majority. This gives him a strong mandate as leader and he has the full support of the Labour Party.
[…]
David Cunliffe has the leadership skills and the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders and take Labour to victory in 2014. I have no doubt he will go on to become a great Labour Prime Minister who builds a stronger, fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.”
– and before that, David Shearer, in 2011;
“I congratulate both David and Grant and look forward to working closely with them as we build towards a Labour victory in 2014.
David and Grant bring a fresh approach; a breadth of skills and a strong commitment to rebuild for a Labour win in 2014.”
The repetitive nature of Labour’s revolving-door leadership leaves the voting public scratching it’s collective head, wondering WTF?! As I blogged on 2 October;
If the Labour caucus don’t support their own leader – especially when times are tough – why should they expect the voting public to take their leadership choices seriously? After all, with four leaders gone in six years, it would appear to be a temporary position at best.
And earlier, on 25 September, I wrote to the NZ Herald;
If Labour keeps changing it’s Leader after every defeat, then I put the following questions to them;
1. How will a Labour Leader gain experience, if they’re dumped every couple of years?
2. How can the public be expected to get to know a Labour Leader, and develop trust in that person, if their presence is fleeting and disappear before we get to know him/her?
3. How will a Labour Leader learn to handle victory, when s/he first won’t be allowed to understand defeat? Humility is learned in failure, not success.
I also pointed out in the same letter-to-the-editor;
The Greens have leaderships that are stable and long-term, irrespective of electoral success or failure. That is because the Party has faith and confidence in their leadership choices.
Even pro-National columnist for the NZ Herald, John Armstrong stated the obvious on 18 November;
“The public should warm to him. But that will take some time.”
Meanwhile, on the day that Andrew Little won the leadership contest, John Key made this astute observation;
“What this process has shown is that there are deep divisions within the party, they’re a long way away from agreeing with each other or even liking each other.
Andrew Little has the task of unifying a group of individuals who historically have shown they have very low levels of discipline.”
He has a point. Labour’s lack of internal discipline is in stark contrast to National’s public facade of unity. Both parties have their own factions – but National is the one that has succeeded in keeping in-fighting private and behind closed doors.
There is a weird irony to this. Labour is supposedly the party that espouses an ideology of collective action whilst National is the party of unfettered individualism.
Yet it is the Nats who work collectively and collegially for their number one goal: power. Any factional agitation and cat-spats for dominance is kept well away from the public and media gaze.
By contrast, Labour appears to be a party of rugged individualists that would make ACT look like an Ohu commune from the 1970s.
Labour could do well do learn from their rivals.
The alternative is more dissent and dis-unity within Labour; more leadership changes; and a National government stretching into the 2020s, with Max Key taking the reigns of Prime Ministership from his father, and assuming the dynastic role of “Little Leader”.
Personally, I prefer a “Little Leader” to emerge from a Labour-led government, and not a future National regime.
Andrew Little’s success will be our success as well.
.
* Disclaimer: This blogger is not a Labour Party member, nor has any preference who should be Leader of that party.
** Acknowledgement to Curwen Rolinson for his perception and pointing this out on his Facebook page.
.
References
Radio NZ: Little man for the job of Labour’s big rebuild
Radio NZ Checkpoint: Little says narrowness of his win not a problem (audio)
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
TV3 News: Gower – Little’s victory ‘the great union ripoff’
NZ Herald: ‘He has the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders’ – Andrew Little elected Labour leader
Interest.co.nz: David Cunliffe wins Labour leadership contest, defeating Grant Robertson and Shane Jones
Scoop Media: Labour Party President congratulates new leadership team
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – Andrew Little’s first job – drown out Winston Peters
MSN News: Labour is still divided – Key
Te Ara Encyclopedia: Communes and communities
Facebook: Curwen Rolinson
Previous related blogposts
Letter to the editor: the culling of Cunliffe
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 November 2014
.
.
= fs =
Polls, propaganda, and Tracy Watkins
.
.
1. A bit of personal history…
Since I became more and more politically active, part of the growth of my political consciousness was an awareness that the media – whether print or electronic – was not always a clear reflection of what really was happening.
The first time I became starkly aware of the disconnect between a media story and reality was in 1989, when an associate and I made a submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee on the Classifications Bill. The Bill was aimed at replacing the old, antiquated Censorship Act.
There were some aspects of the Bill which we took exception to (from a liberal viewpoint) and we put together a submission, and requested an opportunity for a supporting oral submission.
We were due to ‘appear’ near the end of the day, and thus had an interesting opportunity to listen to all the submissions made by various groups, organisations, and individuals. Submitters ranged from the Nurses Organisation; Film Directors Association, NZ Law Society, etc.
I took note of the tenor of each submitter, and it was roughly 50/50 toward strengthening the proposed Classifications Act or liberalising it.
The following morning, the Dominion featured two stories on two submitters – both from the “pro-censorship” camp.
A critical submission from the NZ Law Society, regarding an aspect of the Bill which they deemed to be fatally flawed, was not reported. Neither did the Dominion report an astounding comment by then-MP, Trevor Rogers, who threatened to “change officials of the Courts” who could not, would not, implement the new law, whether flawed or not.
Had I not attended the Select Committee hearing personally, I would have assumed that all submissions were of a similar nature; would not have been aware of opposing views; would have been unaware of the Law Society’s views; and been oblivious to a Member of Parliament threatening to interfere with the judicial system of this country.
After 25 years, the incident remains vividly clear in my memory.
That was my very first lesson – not just in Select Committees – but media (mis-)reporting.
Since I began this blogging lark in July 2011, I have found no reason to lessen my wariness of media reporting, accuracy, and fairness. In fact, sadly, quite the opposite.
2. Once upon a time, in a fairy-tale land called Fairfax Media…
So begins this analysis of a recent Fairfax-Ipsos Poll which, upon closer scrutiny, is a fantasy lifted straight from the pages of Brothers Grimm.
A very recent Ipsos poll was taken over a five day period, starting from Saturday, 30 August – the day of Judith Collins’ resignation from her ministerial portfolios (though not from Parliament itself).
.
.
The infographic shows National at 54% and the Labour-Green bloc at 38%.
Right?
Wrong.
The above poll infographic was taken from a Research International poll, commissioned also by Fairfax Media – and released on 23 November, 2011 – three days before the General Election, three years ago.
The actual current, September 2014 poll results from Fairfax and it’s “newly” commissioned polling agent, Ipsos;
.
.
Compare the two polls above.
Two “different” polls. Two different polling companies. Three years apart. Almost exactly same figures.
Now let’s chuck in the actual election results for the 2011 Election;
.
.
In the 2011 poll, Fairfax’s polling agent over-estimated National’s support by a staggering 6.69 percentage points – well outside the stated margin of error by Research International (3.1%).
Considering that other mainstream polling companies have National ranging from 45% (Roy Morgan) to 46.4% (NZ Herald-Digipoll and TV3 News) to 50% (TVNZ News), it could be safely argued that the Fairfax-Ipsos results are in Wacky-Doodle Land.
The figures are not only dubious – but Fairfax buries an important fact;
The undecided vote remained steady at 13 per cent, which is higher than in some other polls. [my emphasis]
That statement is buried near the bottom of Vernon Small’s article, “National soars without Collins – poll“.
Incredibly, Small then adds – almost seemingly as an after-thought;
Benson said if Ipsos included those who said they were undecided, but when pressed were leaning towards a particular party, that number dropped to about 7 per cent and saw National’s vote come in about 2 percentage points lower.
Anything else we need to know, Vernon?!
The problem here is not just Fairfax presenting dodgy polling figures over two consecutive election periods – but the fact that Vernon Small, who wrote a story covering the poll, was thoroughly accepting of the results – and made no effort to question the veracity of the figures. Some comments from Small;
Two weeks out from the election National’s popularity has soared after the dumping of justice minister Judith Collins, putting John Key on course for a thumping victory on the evidence of a new Stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll.
[…]
Assuming all the small parties hold their current seats, but independent Brendan Horan is not returned, National would have a dominant 70 seat bloc in a 125 seat Parliament.
Small also quoted Ipsos pollster Matt Benson without any real critical analysis;
Ipsos pollster Matt Benson said the poll followed the first televised leaders’ debate and straddled the resignation of Collins. ‘‘Despite a difficult week for National the poll shows support rise for the National Party, and John Key as preferred PM has also increased to 51.7 percent.’’
He said the rise may have been caused by wavering voters, uncomfortable with Collins, swinging in behind Key for finally taking action against her.
In no way could this poll and associated story be considered critical political analysis or news in the traditional sense.
Little wonder that, after only ten comments, Fairfax closed down posting on it’s comments section, at the end of Small’s article;
* Comments are now closed on this story.
– Stuff
The criticism of Fairfax must have been excoriating!
The problem here, as I see it;
Firstly, Ipsos is paid by Fairfax to conduct it’s polling.
Therefore, Fairfax has an inherent, undeclared financial interest in the source of “story”. Fairfax is not reporting on a story from the point of view of an impartial, disinterested party. They have a vested, commercial stake in promoting Ipsos’ findings.
As such Fairfax would be as critical of Ipsos as the Editor of the Dominion Post would commission an investigative piece on sub-editors being made redundant from his own newspaper (the redundancies happened – the story reporting the event never materialised).
In fairness, it should be pointed out that Fairfax is by no means unique in this obvious conflict of interest. The NZ Herald, TVNZ, and TV3 all have their own contracted pollsters. None of them will question the accuracy of their respective polling agents.
Secondly, because Fairfax (and other media) have a vested interest with their respective pollsters, they are locked in to using that sole company as a source for polling “news”. Hence, each media outlet’s authoritative reputation rests on pushing up the credibility of their respective polls. They must not question their own polling for fear of damaging their reputation for “authoritative political analysis”.
Regardless if their own polling is hopelessly implausible, it must be presented as factual and inarguably credible.
Even if it is clearly not.
3. Radio NZ – an oasis of information in a desert of pseudo “news”
The non-commercial Radio New Zealand not only reports polling results from various pollsters, but is currently running a Poll of Polls;
“The POLL of POLLS is an arithmetical average of the four most recent major polls since mid-June from among: TV1 Colmar Brunton, TV3 Reid Research, Fairfax Media-Ipsos, NZ Herald DigiPoll, Roy Morgan New Zealand and UMR Research, which is not published.”
– and is well worth keeping an eye on.
Off the main pollsters, the most accurate one to keep an eye on is Roy Morgan, as it alone calls respondents on cellphones. All others rely solely on landlines to contact respondents.
4. Tracy Watkins
Associated with Vernon Small’s front page article on the Dominion Post on 5 September, was a side-bar “opinion piece” by the paper’s political editor, Tracy Watkins. This is the on-line version;
.
.
“Two weeks down, two weeks to go and on today’s stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll it’s all over bar the shouting.”
I was stunned when I read that comment. In effect, Watkins has elevated Fairfax’s 3 September public opinion poll to supplant the up-coming general election and accept a National Party victory based on Ipsos’ findings.
I put this issue to Neil Watts, blogger (Fearfactsexposed) and long-time commentator/critic of Fairfax Media and it’s policies. I asked him about the credibility of Fairfax’s polling and he replied,
“Having watched Fairfax Media make an art form of National Party propaganda for many years now, nothing they publish surprises me anymore. Their polls are notoriously, willfully unreliable, and they blatantly use them to manipulate rather than inform the electorate.”
This would certainly seem to be the case, as it should be noted that two different polling companies contracted by Fairfax consistantly over-rated National in their results. Neil had definite thoughts on why that might be. He said;
“Their political coverage is partisan, anti-opposition, anti-democratic, and their spin consistently comes from the exact same angle that the National Party are taking via Crosby Textor.
In fact, this is so reliable, that I only bother to read stuff.co.nz these days to find out what the Government’s spin will be on any given issue.”
When I pointed out Watkins’ piece, “All over bar the shouting”, Neil was scathing about her lack of impartiality;
“Political editor Tracy Watkins is clearly enamored with the Prime Minister and unprofessionally close to him. After several international trips with John Key and a substantial back catalogue of journalese ‘love letters’ to him, she really has zero credibility as an objective reporter.
To the informed reader, her copy is generally one-eyed, propagandist tripe. The weight of evidence is in their reporting, but I have heard from sources within Fairfax Media that their blatant goal is to get Key’s Government re-elected.”
If true, and the Fourth Estate has become a mouth-piece for The Political Establishment, it may explain why people are turning away from the mainstream media as well as politics. The previous general election had the lowest voter turn-out since 1887 – no feat to be proud of, and seemingly indicative of a growing malaise of alienation, apathy, and disconnection from our heretofore strong civic pride.
It simply beggars belief that a journalist such as Ms Watkins with many years experience could publish such an off-hand comment that effectively undermines current efforts by the Electoral Commission, trade unions, political parties, et al, to encourage people to enroll and to vote.
The Commission is spending tax payers’ money to encourage voter turn-out – and Watkins’ casual, flippant, remark that “it’s all over bar the shouting” undermined that campaign with half a dozen words. The fact that the Dominion Post reinforced that off-the-cuff remark by placing the Fairfax-Ipsos poll-story on the front page of the edition reinforced her comment with a subtle message; “don’t bother voting – National has won – it’s all over bar the shouting”;
.
.
Note the heading in big, black, bold lettering,
Poll sees Nats in command
“In command“? Was the election held on 5 September?! Did I miss it?
Note also the hidden subtext of an image of the PM, John Key, twice the size of his opponant, David Cunliffe. Note the victorious look on Key’s face – and the open-mouth “petulance” of ‘disappointment’ on Cunliffe’s.
The impression is clear; Key has “won” the election.
Cunliffe’s annoyance validates Key’s trimphant expression.
This is not reporting the news – it is manufacturing it.
Meanwhile, with more than a hint of irony, the real news of election-related events are buried within the newspaper;
.
.
Little wonder that Neil Watts summed up Fairfax’s agenda thusly,
“For a media corporation to be effectively aiming for oligarchical rule in New Zealand is a gross abuse of power and position. At the very least, they should be honest and open about their political loyalties, so that ordinary Kiwi voters can make an informed choice about where they source their news.”
I see nothing to disabuse me of the notion I began to develop in 1989, that a healthy dose of skepticism is required when presented with information from a media source.
Their agenda is no longer to present news.
Their agenda is to manufacture it; embellish it; use it to sell advertising; and to further political goals.
How else does one explain naked propaganda-masquerading-as-“news”?
Because looking at the full-blown story on the front page, I can see no other interpretation than the conclusion I have arrived at.
According to the Dominion Post, the election is done and dusted and the Nats are “in command”. So don’t bother voting. It’s all over.
Bar the shouting.
.
References
Fairfax media: National still cosy in polls after tea break (2011)
Fairfax media: National soars without Collins – poll (2014)
Wikipedia: New Zealand 2011 General Election
Roy Morgan: ‘Dirty Politics’ muddies the water for major parties in New Zealand
NZ Herald: National or Labour could form a Government – poll
TV3 News: Key could need Maori Party post-election
TVNZ News: National unscathed by Dirty Politics – poll
Radio NZ: Election 2014 – Poll of Polls
Dominion Post: All over bar the shouting
Massey University: Massey commentators preview key election issues
Dominion Post: Tracy Watkins on politics
Additional
Fairfax media: Ipsos Polling Station
Previous related blogposts
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (part tahi)
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (Part rua)
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 7 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ Debate: Bill English vs David Parker
.
.
Check out this excellent debate between National’s Bill English and Labour’s David Parker. Well worth listening to;
.
.
Alternative link: Listen to Bill English and David Parker debate the economy on Nine to Noon
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Thank you, Geoff, and best wishes for your future…
.
Morning Report co-host, Geoff Robinson
Photo Acknowledgement: Sunday Star Times
.
Tomorrow (1 April) see the last day for one of New Zealand’s best media presenters; Radio New Zealand’s Geoff Robinson. It will be a sad day, and somewhere in the back of my mind, I am hoping that this is some kind of quirky “April Fool’s” joke from the good people of Radio NZ.
In all seriousness, I will miss Geoff’s steady voice and hand. As I wrote 23 November, last year,
Geoff Robinson had been a part of my mornings since I “discovered” Radio NZ in the early 199os. He had been part of my mornings since then, outlasting several partners/lovers, and being there as I had my brekky and first of umpteen coffees.
His style was professional and reassuring. He asked the questions and voiced pertinent points from his guests that screamed from my own thoughts. He always sounded chatty and “laid back” – but his subtle questioning could be deceptively edgy and insightful.
It’s a cliche, I know, but he will be a tough act to follow.
All things must end. But with the certainty of change also come human feelings of loss and sadness.
As I also wrote last year; I will miss him terribly. Like a family member who hangs around, never really imposing himself, but always with something interesting to say.
All the best, Geoff!
.
*
.
Previous related blogpost
.
.
= fs =
Coming up on Radio NZ: Party Leader interview with David Cunliffe
.
.
9:05am Tuesday 25 February
Labour leader David Cunliffe is in the hot seat in the second of Nine to Noon’s election year, scene-setter interviews. Kathryn Ryan asks Mr Cunliffe what Labour needs to do to gain traction in the polls to prevent National from gaining a third term in office and his policy priorities.
On Nine To Noon, Radio NZ.
.
.
= fs =
“Moral mandates”, “mass medication”, and Mayors vs Ministers
.
“Moral mandates”
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Nats look to 2014 governing options
.
What was that about “moral mandate”, Dear Leader?
Key said the largest party had the “moral mandate” to govern.
“If National was to go out there and poll 46 per cent or 47 per cent – very similar to the result in 2011 – and not form the Government I think there would be outrage in NZ.”
So Key now believes in large numbers and percentages?
Interesting.
Because he certainly paid no heed to the Will of the Electorate when the majority (up to 75% in some polls) opposed partial privatisation of State assets.
Nor did Key pay any attention to the finer points of the results of the 2011 election. The majority of Party Votes went to parties opposing asset sales,
.
| National , ACT, United Future Party Votes | Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, Mana, and Conservative Party votes |
|
National – 1,058,636
|
Labour – 614,937 |
|
ACT – 23,889
|
Greens – 247,372 |
|
United Future – 13,443
|
NZ First – 147,544 |
|
Maori Party – 31,982
|
|
|
Mana – 24,168
|
|
|
Conservative Party* – 59,237
|
|
|
TOTAL – 1,095,968 |
Total – 1,125,240 |
.
So even though the Conservative gained no seats in Parliament (*because of the 5% threshold), they gained over double the electoral-support for ACT. The Conservative Party, it should be noted, opposed asset sales.
It certainly did not matter to Dear Leader on the issue of public opposition to asset sales. He was more than willing to ignore the majority of New Zealanders who opposed his privatisation agenda.
Key’s claim that “morally” he should lead the next government post-2014 because National may be the largest Party in Parliament – he should remember one thing; size doesn’t always count.
Key’s assertion on having a so-called “moral mandate” to govern post-2014, is obviously a message directed at Winston Peters.
His message to Peters is simple – ‘if we’re the biggest party, then we are the rightful government. And we will push this meme in the public consciousness which will make life difficult for you if you don’t co-operate’.
This is the kind of deviousness which National’s party strategist (taxpayer funded, no doubt) has come up with, to ensure a third term for John Key.
It now falls upon Peters to see if he’ll cave to pressure from the Nats.
Other Blogs
The Standard: Moral mandates
The Pundit: On coming first, yet losing
*
.
“Mass medication”
.
.
A curious event took place on Monday 1 July on Radio NZ’s Jim Mora’s panel…
His guests that afternon were left-wing, Labour supporter, Dr Brian Edwards and right wing, National supporter, Michelle Boag.
One of the topics of discussion was fluoridation of urban water supplies. As is usual on issues like this, the debate became passionate.
But curiously, it was the position taken by each guest, Brian Edwards and Michelle Boag, that I found curious.
Usually, a left-winger will argue from a position of Collective action and responsibility. Like the issue of Food in Schools, the Lefts supports the stance that raising children, and ensuring their well-being, is a community responsibility.
The Right usually argues from a position of Individual choice and responsibility. On the issue of Food in Schools, the Right reject any notion of collective responsibility and instead hold to total parental responsibility as a default position.
I expected the same in the fluoridation debate between Brian and Michelle – only to find their positions reversed.
Brian was advocating from a Libertarian position of individual choice. He opposed flouridation.
Michelle was supporting the Collectivist position for a socialised benefit. She supported flouridation.
Their debate can be heard here:
Such complex creatures we humans are…
.
Mayors vs Ministers
.
Eqypt is not the only country wracked with coup d’états.
On 30th March 2010, National seized control of Environment Canterbury, postponing elections, and three weeks later appointing seven, un-elected Commissioners to run the body. The new Commissioners were vested with new powers to implement regional plans for Canterbury that could not appealed to the Environment Court (except to the High Court on points of law).
Roger Young, a trustee of the Water Rights Trust, suggested one of the prime movers for central government seizing control of ECAN was the vexed problem of water rights in the Canterbury region,
“After the commissioners’ own recommendations for a mixed member governance model at ECan post-2013 were ignored by the government, we see ECan now as simply a puppet to the bidding of a government which appears determined to increase irrigation and intensive farming in Canterbury despite the first order priorities in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.
The slow pace of change behind the farm gate means that we will still have rising stocks of dirty water at a level that will haunt Cantabrians for decades.”
Acknowledgement: NBR – ECan ‘just a puppet to government bidding
The Canterbury Central Plains Water project is a half-billion dollar project, and National Ministers wanted to ensure that the money was spent according to their agenda. As we all know, farmers tend to vote National.
Three years later, and National has extended it’s power in the Canterbury region “to oversee the Council’s consents department”. We are told that this was by invitation by the CCC. I am reminded of puppet regimes that, once installed by a Super Power (former-USSR, US, China, etc) , duly “invited” their sponsor to send troops to help prop up the proxy government.
Was the Christchurch City Council “persuaded” by Gerry Brownlee to “invite the Minister for Local Government, Chris Tremain, to put in place a Crown Manager to oversee the Council’s consents department“? Were there back-room dealings where Mayor Bob Parker was issued an ultimatum by Brownlee;
‘Invite us to take over; save face; and save your arse at the up-coming local body elections – or we’ll take over anyway; you have egg on your face; and Lianne Dalziel takes over as Mayor in October – Your call.’
Is that the discrete conversation that took place between Bob Parker and Gerry Brownlee?
I suspect so.
Central Government: 2
Local Government: nil
Another recent announcement had John Key confirming central government’s support for Auckland Council’s rail loop and other transport plans.
Len Brown was, understandably, ecstatic. Christmas has come early for the Auckland Mayor,
“I am delighted the government has agreed to support this project…
… I want to acknowledge Aucklanders for being very clear in their support for this project.”
However, the Nats are not ones to offer something without expecting something else in return,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – City’s shares eyed for rail
.
So central government will pay up a few billion bucks to upgrade Auckland’s transport system – but the Nats expect Auckland City to privatise their community owned assets?
Cheeky buggers.
Draw: 1 all
When it comes to Nanny State, National out-performs the previous Labour government in spades. Labour hardly ever engaged to this degree of interference in local government affairs. Executive power under National is growing, and impacting more on our lives.
With National intending to increase the powers of the GCSB and force telecommunications companies to store and hand over data to police and the spy agencies, the state’s influence in our lives grows day by day.
By comparison, Labour was practically a hands-off, “libertarian” style government.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 5 July 2013.
*
References
Sharechat.co.nz: Environment Canterbury elections cancelled as commissioners appointed (30 Match 2010)
Fairfax Media: Environment Canterbury commissioners named (22 April 2010)
Ministry for Primary Industries: Government funding for Central Plains Water Irrigation (18 Feb 2013)
NBR: ECan ‘just a puppet to government bidding’ (14 March 2013)
Interest.co.nz: Auckland Mayor celebrates Government’s agreement to support rail loop (26 June 2013)
NZ Herald: City’s shares eyed for rail (1 July 2013)
Interest.co.nz: PM Key says IANZ decision to strip Christchurch Council of consenting power is ‘unprecedented’ (1 July 2013)
Christchurch City Council: Council to invite Crown Manager to oversee consenting (3 July 2013)
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ’s new CEO is announced…
… and it is Paul Thompson, replacing outgoing CEO, Peter Cavanagh.
.
Paul Thompson.
.
The appointment of Paul Thompson was (is still?) a bit of a worry. His background, as Radio NZ disclosed in a Scoop.co.nz press relelease is firmly rooted in the world of commercial media,
Paul Thompson is currently the Group Executive Editor of Fairfax Media in New Zealand and a former award winning editor of the Christchurch Press and the Nelson Mail.
Acknowledgement: Scoop – Appointment of Radio NZ Chief Executive and Editor-in-Chief
Why is this of concern?
This report, in the NZ Herald, five months ago, for starters;
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Radio NZ on the hunt for next chief executive
.
Note the references made by Herald reporter, John Drinnan,
However, a source said the board was expected to appoint a new chief executive more amenable to change, particularly over sponsorship income…
[…]
… Critics say that has been at the expense of innovation and by resisting Government calls for new funding sources.
Acknowledgement: IBID
Radio NZ is one of the few state entities that earns very little income (if any); makes no profit; and requires constant funding by the government of the day.
It is anathema to a right-wing party such as National – which instead prefers to lavish tax-payer funded largese on private corporation such as Warner Bros.
As such, Radio NZ’s annual budget of $31,816,000 has not changed since 2009, after National’s election to power the previous year.
Despite a successful Save Radio New Zealand Facebook campaign in February 2010, there is still considerable apprehension that National has a dark, neo-liberal agenda for Radio NZ. The Nats want Radio NZ commercialised. Commercialisation would ‘gut’ the broadcaster and turn it into a radio-version of TVNZ.
And we all know what TVNZ serves up to it’s audience…
.
.
Pressure is also coming from right-wing bloggers and “columnists”, such as this piece of propaganda BS from conservative Karl Du Fresne, RNZ’s bias needs to be tackled. (Du Fresne’s allegations of “left wing bias” is strange, considering that he and several other right wing commentators are often guests on various Radio NZ programmes, such as Jim Mora’s 4-5 Panel. See previous related blogpost: Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session)
The commercialisation of Radio NZ can only be achieved if, at first, the broadcaster’s leadership is changed, and someone more ‘amenable’ to National’s destructive monetarist ideology, is appointed.
Paul Thompson would seem to fit that bill perfectly.
However, there is a glimmer of hope that the last bastion of non-commercialised public broadcasting will not be corrupted by a National Party stooge. If Paul Thompson is being straight up with us, and his comments can be taken at face value, then he is no stooge of this shabby, incompetant government,
“I think any form of commercialisation of any of the stations or the content would be a bad thing.
The funding is what the funding is, and lets hope in future at some stage that changes. In the mean time I’m sure that we can continue to do a very good job.”
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Incoming RNZ head rules out sponsorship
For more on Paul Thompson’s comments on this issue, Listen to Paul Thompson on Morning Report
Let’s hope Mr Thompson is a man of his word. I think it is no exageration to say that the fate of one of New Zealand’s best known iconic institutions lies in his hands.
Don’t stuff it up please, Mr Thompson.
.
*
.
Related blogpost
Talkback Radio, Public Radio, and related matters
.
.
= fs =
The fabulously talented Kim Hill…
… has ended her two week stint as co-presenter on Radio NZ’s Morning Report.
.
.
I think more than a few folk will miss her considerable presence on the Morning Report segment of Radio NZ’s programming. Her no-nonsense, commanding style of interview delves past the BS, and demands answers to questions which we, the public, are entitled to know, but unable to put to those in positions of authority. (And when we do put questions to those in Authority, our efforts are “rewarded” with fob-offs; bullshit, or ignored entirely.)
Kim is one of the best interviewers we are currently blessed with, with more talent in one finger than a regiment of reporters.
Note: Kim Hill will still have her own segment on Saturday Mornings.
.
.
= fs =
11 June – Issues of Interest
A look at issues that’ve hit the headlines (or not)…
.
.
Hekia Parata – grasping at straws
.
Acknowledgment: Radio NZ – National standards pass rates rise
.
So let me get this straight. After only one year of National Standards – which is supposedly nothing more than a means of measurement – Parata is claiming that ” new figures show students are doing better at reading, writing and maths”?!?!
Even die-hard National sycophants would look askance at the claim.
Parata is so desperate for good news that she’s willing to invent it. Some call it “political spin”. In the Real World, we refer to it as bullshitting.
However, the above Radio NZ report is sadly lacking in detail.
The NZ Herald headline was far more realistic and damning; Parata: Concerning trends in National Standards data. In the Herald piece, Parata concedes the reason for a slight increase in increased achievement,
“We have a range of support in place to help children including Reading Recovery, Reading Together and targeted programmes to accelerate progress in reading, writing and mathematics.”
Acknowledgment: IBID
So it wasn’t ‘National Standards’ that have increased achievement. It’s the hard work of teachers in classrooms slogging their guts out and implementing “Reading Recovery, Reading Together and targeted programmes to accelerate progress in reading, writing and mathematics”.
Well, that’s nice to know.
Even Parata acknowledgment the role of teachers in raising achievement;
“It’s a credit to our teaching profession to see progress being made child by child and school by school.”
So, nothing to do with National Standards then, Hekia? As usual, it’s the professional’s quietly working away in the background, while you trot out unworkable policies and spin bullshit to make it look good?
Got it.
Acknowledgment: IBID
Time for some Frankly Speaking Standards Report Card:
Teachers: A+
Parata’s spin: F – fail
Radio NZ’s reporting: C – can do better
Winston Peters and those emails
Up until the weekend, Winston Peters has been straight-forward in his responses to media questions on the Dunne-Kitteridge Report-Vance Affair. Peters claims to have possession/access of Peter Dunne’s incriminating emails.
Since the weekend, however, his “yes” and “no” answers have given way to evasiveness and obfuscation. No more straight “yes” or “no” answers.
Peters ‘performance’ on Campbell Live yesterday (10 June) was a frustrating exercise in typical Peters evasiveness to straight forward questions. At one point, John Campbell brought up Peters sharply when the wily old politician tried to pull a ‘swiftie’,
.
Acknowledgment: TV3 – Campbell Live 10 June 2013 (at 7.50)
.
This morning (11 June), Peters was no better on Radio NZ’s Morning Report, giving Simon Mercep the royal runaround. Listen: Radion NZ – Morning Report – Winston Peters bats away PM’s suggestion of a bluff
Conclusion? Peters does not have the emails in his possession. If he had them;
- His answers would be more decisive (you can tell when Peters is bending the truth)
- He would be drip-feeding them to the media by now
As our American cuzzies so poetically put it, he ain’t got nuthin‘,
Kim Hill on Morning Report
Listening to Kim Hill interviewing political figures on Radio NZ’s Morning Report is simply electrifying. The woman has more journalistic talent than those on Q+A, The Nation, Third Degree, et al, combined. She holds nothing back.
Check out her interview with John Key on 10 June on Morning Report; John Key responds to claims from Winston Peters
Powerful stuff. Excellent interviewing.
John Armstrong; the NZ Herald,Greens, and media voice for the Nats
Ever wondered what a state-sponsored media voice would be like?
Check out John Armstrong’s pro-National spin on the recent Green Party conference and his petty bagging of Russell Norman. More here, on The Daily Blog; Sparks fly with yet more shocking right wing nuttery…
Armstrong hasn’t got a leg to stand on to criticise The Greens, so he focuses on the most trivial, pointless, and childish issues to pick on. This isn’t media independence – this is being a mouth-piece for the National Party. It’s Soviet-era Pravda and Izveztia, right here in New Zealand.
Demeaning rubbish.
John Key, GCSB, Prism, and denials
As reported in the NZ Herald today, Key denied using the “Prism” system to circumvent New Zealand law to gather information on New Zealanders,
“I can’t tell you how the United States gather all of their information, what techniques they use, I just simply don’t know. But if the question is do we use the United States or one of our other partners to circumvent New Zealand law then the answer is categorically no.”
Acknowledgment: NZ Herald – Key: No GCSB legal loophole
Whut?
And remind us all, Mr Key, why we should believe you?
Especially when we already know that the GCSB has spied on 88 New Zealanders, despite Section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 distinctly prohibiting such activities on New Zealand citizens and permanent residents. (See related blogpost: The GCSB law – Oh FFS!!!)
As well, John Key’s reputation for brain-fades, mis-representing facts, and outright lying, is now legendary.
I wouldn’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.
And finishing on a positive note…
Bryan Bruce on his Facebook page, Inside Child Poverty New Zealand, today wrote,
I don’t know about you but I ‘m getting really tired of people who say “Yes … but.” They agree something is a good idea … but find a reason for justifying their inactivity.
Yes.. paid parental leave is a good idea… but we can’t afford it.
Yes feeding our kids healthy meals at school is a good idea … but.. it’s too expensive….
No it’s not. It’s about priorities.Do you want mothers to be able to look after their babies or force them to earn a few dollars so that strangers can look after them?
Do you want Roads of National Significance or Children of National significance?
No more Yes… buts.
If it’s YES..if it’s morally right… if it’s sensible… then let’s just do it.
And Yes we can find the money for these things … we could put Company tax back up to 30%, we could make more effort catching tax cheats who rob us of up to 5 Billion dollars a year ( any idea how that happened Mr Dunne?) we could put a tax on all non-personal Bank transactions and get companies run by Charitable Trusts to pay tax on their profits and apply for rebates on the good works the ACTUALLY do.
Just say Yes… no more buts please.
Acknowledgment: Inside Child Poverty New Zealand
.
.
.
= fs =
10 June – Issues of Interest
A look at issues that’ve hit the headlines (or not)…
.
.
Beware of Think Tanks bearing “solutions”
Ex-politician and right wing ‘pundit’ Michael Bassett appeared on TVNZ’s Q+A on 9 June 2013, promoting something called the ” Priced Out” study (see: TVNZ – Q+A – Dr Michael Bassett on housing affordability)
.
.
The report blamed local government bodies for being part of something called the “compact cities cult” and supposedly being unduly restrictive in zoning policies that would free up land for development to build more housing.
“Having compact, dense inner cities is fine but often that is prioritised at the expense of urban development. Most people want to live in suburbs.”
Sourse: New Zealand Initiative – Priced Out
One of the report authors, Luke Malpass, stated,
Malpass also notes that the peak of new homes in the 1970s was fuelled by government welfare policies after World War II that subsidised and promoted house construction.
“The New Zealand Government basically printed money for about 50 years to pay for those policies, which is why no-one is really considering them now.”
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Cult of compact living blamed for high prices
Interesting comments… And they sounded strangely familiar. The ‘tut-tutting’ of State investment in housing; criticism of local body regulation; the promotion of free market “solutions”…
Who/what is the “New Zealand Initiative” I wondered?
Why, it’s no less than a reincarnation of the right-wing NZ Business Roundtable, merged with the right-wing ‘think tank’, the New Zealand Institute. (see: Roundtable and NZ Institute morph into new libertarian think tank)
Well that explains where Bassett and Malpass are coming from – a far-right “think tank” that advocates more lunatic “reforms” that would benefit the top 1% in this country.
Yes, we have a housing shortage in this country.
But as per usual, right-wing fanatics find others to blame for the failure of the marketplace to meet social needs. The New Right steadfastly refuse to take any responsibility for the failure of their screwy policies – the ones that have been in place since 1984.
It’s funny how the Q+A programme and Fairfax report both neglected to inform the viewer/reader that this was a product of the Business Roundtable.
And by the way, why did the BRT change it’s name?
Perhaps because the “Business Roundtable brand” is somewhat tarnished?!
See also:
Evening Post: Poor better off than before: Kerr (7 Nov 1996)
Otago Daily Times: Poor not poorer, Kerr (12 June 1999)
NZPA – Kiwis urged to take responsibility – 12 August 1999
National cares? Whodathunk it???
From the Dominion Post on 28 May, 2013,
Mr Key told the National Party’s northern conference at the weekend that it was a “myth” that the party did not care about the less-well-off.
Acknowledgment: Dominion Post – Scheme may see kids clothed as well as fed
Also not myths, according to Dear Leader, are the Loch Ness monster, flying saucers, and Sasquatch.
Of course, it’s only a sheer coincidence that the Nats have been engaged in wide-spread beneficiary-bashing at a time of high unemployment caused by the Global Financial Crisis.
The same GFC that Dear Leader automically falls back on to excuse National’s poor performace with the economy;
“We did inherit a pretty bad situation with the global financial crisis. We have had three terrible earthquakes in Christchurch. We have had the collapse of finance companies. We have had to bail out what is, in terms of the earthquakes, the single biggest economic impact on a developed economy as the result of a disaster. The public don’t agree with every decision… but I think they believe on balance it’s been a tough three years and we’ve handled most things well. The second thing is it’s all relative. Yes, our unemployment went to 7 per cent and now it’s 6.5, but in America it’s 9 per cent officially and 14 per cent unofficially and in Spain it’s 20 per cent... ” – John Key, 11 September 2011
National using the GFC as an excuse for poor economic performance: ok.
Unemployed, solo-mums, and other beneficiaries doing likewise: not ok.
Abusing animals for drug-heads
Green Party MP, Mojo Mathers sez,
“A pack of gorgeous beagles and their human companions helped deliver to me a 60,000 strong petition calling for the ruling out of animal testing in legal high regulations. I’m sure many of you signed this petition so thank you.
Some of these beagles were rescued from an animal testing facility and I have been working hard to make sure their voices are heard by MPs who are making decisions on the safety testing regulations for legal highs.
If we don’t specifically rule it out, animals will be used to test the safety of legal highs, even though those tests are cruel and unnecessary. I have been meeting with other parties to gather support for my amendment to the Bill to rule out animal testing. “
As demanded by law, if retailers of synthetic cannabis want to peddle their ‘wares’, like this crap,
.
.
– they need to test their products on animals like these,
.
.
– to prove their safety.
Now, I have difficulty at the best of times with the knowledge that we already test products like shampoos, soaps, toothpaste, and other stuff we humans “need” to hide our natural body odours.
But causing harm, pain and eventual death to animals to test “herbal highs” so that a bunch of hedonistic party-goers can turn on, tune out, and trip Up is a step too far.
There is something terribly wrong with out humanity and so-called compassion when we can even contemplate such an atrocity. This is evil.
.
.
= fs =
Budget 2013: Radio NZ and politicians
.
Acknowledgment: RNZ board concerned over budget freeze
.
At a time when state sector workers have received little or no pay increases, perhaps one of the worst cases of worker exploitation is at Radio New Zealand.
This year, yet again, there was no provision in this Budget to give a pay rise to Radio NZ staff. Not one cent.
In fact, Radio NZ staff have not recieved a pay increase since 2009,
The Government froze funding despite an independent “baseline funding review” from accountancy firm KPMG, which showed Radio NZ was underfunded and understaffed, and underpaid its employees.
The review – commissioned by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and which the Herald obtained under the Official Information Act – was initially withheld by the Government.
Published in November 2007, the KPMG review said Radio NZ – which broadcasts Radio NZ National and Radio NZ – needed $7 million to $7.6 million to meet commitments in 2008-2009 and was short of 25 employees. The shortfall would grow to $8.6 million to $9.5 million and 40 staff by 2010-2011.
The Labour Government last year increased Radio NZ’s funding by $2.4 million. But an insider said that money had been taken up by inflation and Radio NZ faced essentially the same problems to sustain services as in 2007.
Acknowledgment: Pay freeze tipped as Radio NZ slashes costs
Interestingly, Statistics NZ states that salary/wage rates (including overtime) for the public sector rose by 1.6% in the year to the June 2012. (see: Labour Cost Index (Salary and Wage Rates): June 2012 quarter) Obviously Radio NZ staff recieved none of that increase and the 1.6% figure is probably made up mostly of executive’s generous increases on their already bloated salaries.
Just a few of the state sector executives who have recieved salary increases, as reported last year;
- Albert Brantley – CEO, Genesis Power – $1.18 million (up 22%)
- Don Elder – CEO, Solid Energy – $1.4 million (up 11%)
- John Allen – MFAT – $620,000-$630,000 (up from $580,000-$590,000, 2011)
- Doug Heffernan – CEO, Mighty River Power – $1.8 million (up 34%)
- Tim Lusk – former CEO, Meridian – $1.22m (up 42%)
And MPs are not shy at accepting regular pay increases. As the Herald’s Adam Bennett reported last December (2012);
MPs will receive a 1.9 per cent pay increase, the Remuneration Authority confirmed this afternoon.
The salary increases are deemed to have come into effect on July 1 this year meaning MPs will receive back pay for the last six months. That works out to $1400 for backbench MPs and $3895 for the Prime Minister…
[…]
… Since 2009 general salaries and wages had risen by 5.6 per cent while parliamentary salaries excluding the $2000 and $5000 increases to make up for he loss of travel perks, had risen by only 2.9 per cent, the authority said.
Acknowledgment: NZ Herald – MPs get 1.9 per cent pay rise
It’s self-evident how politicians view issues surrounding pay increases for themselves and executives, as opposed to staff at state owned enterprises.
What makes the zero pay increase for Radio NZ staff even more problematic – and downright reeking of surreptitious political interference – is that Radio NZ is the only remaining public broadcaster left in this country after the demise of TVNZ7 last year.
Judging by the high number of National ministers who refuse invitations to be interviewed by Radio NZ journalists, it is abundantly clear that right wing politicians fear and loathe the public broadcaster. Aside from a few gutsy journos (eg, Patrick Gower, John Campbell, and Guyon Espiner) on TV3, there are few left in corporate electronic media willing to risk the ire of this current government.
National ministers simply don’t have the balls (except maybe Judith “Democracy Crusher” Collins) to close down or privatise Radio NZ.
Strangling it with lack of funding and underpaying staff is a safer, sneakier way to achieve that goal.
It’s pretty much like killing a potplant you got as a Christmas present from your Aunt Dotty. You can’t throw it out because Aunty would notice, so you “do the deed” by denying it water.
How else to explain that politicians have been awarded substantial annual salary increases – whilst Radio NZ staff have received nothing?
.
Annual Salary Increases: 2009 – 2012
|
MPs % Increase |
Radio NZ % increase |
|
| 2009 | nil |
nil |
| 2010 | 10% |
nil |
| 2011 | 1.5% + $5000 payment to compensate for lost international travel perk |
nil |
| 2012 |
1.9% (backdated 6 months) |
nil |
.
This is not just about the “politics of envy” – this is about the principles of equity. We simply cannot afford to let a taonga such as Radio NZ wither and die.
Easy Solution?
The easiest solution? Tie ALL salary adjustments of state sector employees, management, executives, as well as the judiciary and elected representatives, to determinations by the Remunerations Authority.
If a salary increase is good enough for members of Parliament, then it’s good enough for everyone else paid by the taxpayer.
As John Key exhorted in 2009,
“I think it is wholly appropriate that the Government leads by example.”
Acknowledgment: Key urges restraint on MP salary rises
Indeed, Mr Key, indeed.
Now would be a good time to show that you mean what you say.
.
*
.
References
Beehive: Key urges restraint on MP salary rises (22 Jan 2009)
Radio NZ: RNZ board concerned over budget freeze (16 May 2012)
Statistics NZ: Labour Cost Index (Salary and Wage Rates): June 2012 quarter
Additional
NZ Herald: Pay freeze tipped as Radio NZ slashes costs (31 Aug 2009)
TV3: Govt accused of pay rise double standards (26 March 2012)
NZ Herald: CEO Pay Survey: Salaries stall for NZ’s top bosses (8 June 2012)
NZ Herald: Top public sector pay packets revealed (11 Oct 2012)
NZ Herald: MPs get 1.9 per cent pay rise (20 Dec 2012)
Previous related blogposts
Why the Remuneration Authority just doesn’t get it
TVNZ7 – Picking at the body before it’s cold
21 May – Public meeting: TVNZ7 gets the big tick!
.
.
= fs =
Talkback Radio, Public Radio, and related matters…
A radio talkback host finally discovers her audience?
On 17 February, NZ Herald columnist, Kerre Woodham, wrote about NZ First MP Richard Prosser and his tedious racist ranting in a little-known, trashy, magazine called “Investigate”,
.
Acknowledgment: NZ Herald – Bigotry lurks below surface
.
“Investigate” is a right wing/”Christian”/pro-gun/climate-change-denying/anti-Labour rag that goes where no intellgent media cares to go. In short, a perfect vehicle for the likes of the Richard Prossers of the world.
Woodham, a talkback radio host on Newstalk ZB, expressed her views forthrightly on her nightly talkback slot. To her surprise and mine, she wrote,
“ But the first three or four callers out of the blocks all thought Prosser had a point and came up with the same sort of ignorant generalisations. All male Muslims marry 10-year-old girls. They all wish the West harm. They stone women to death. They. They.”
As if all 1.6 billion people have exactly the same beliefs, values and attitudes.
“ It was incredible. I had no idea people really thought like that – yet they walk among us.”
Really, Kerre?
I’m somewhat surprised that she has only just discovered the feral nature of so many talkback callers?! The fact that anonymity protects these callers only emboldens their unsophisticated, bigoted worldview.
Once upon a time, bigots would express their rants only in smoke-filled tearooms up and down the country’s factories or the old-style booze-barns, where alcohol disconnected their last remaining brain-cells, whilst at the same time lubricating their tongues into uncontrolled warp-drive.
Not any more. Since commercial radio hit our shores, bigots have been provided with a ready-made podium that reaches across the country, and in their mad rantings, validate each others’ crazy beliefs. Much like Fox has it’s own viewers in the US.
So it kind of staggers me that she’s only just realised this? Extraordinary.
One can only assume that Kerre mentally ‘zoned out’ (as I do when ads are on television) during her caller’s rants, and only returns her attention when they stop to draw breath. Or their caregivers are urging them to take their meds.
Worse still, even some radio hosts contribute to this swirling sewer of prejudice. I think we all know who I’m referring to.
Regarding Prosser. He’s a distraction.
And I really can’t be arsed writing any more about him any further.
Radio NZ – How helpful is the NBR really trying to be?
The National Business Review (NBR) published a piece on alternative funding, written by Peter Griffin on our last remaining non-commercial public broadcaster, Radio NZ (see: The NPR model and what may be in store for Radio NZ).
Martyn Bradbury has dissected and deconstructed most of the Griffin’s op-ed here: Why the NBR are wrong about Radio NZ.
Essentially, Peter Griffin’s piece boils down to shifting funding from the State, to private donations – a form of quasi-privatisation. It is typical neo-liberal, Libertarian bullshit to further “remove the State from our lives”. (Ignoring the fact that many/most of us actualy like having the State providing certain services.)
It also means further reductions in government spending, thereby allowing for more tax-cuts.
That’s what it usually always boils down to; tax cuts. More money for the One Percenters, and for Middle Class aspirationists (aka, The Terminally Deluded).
It’s a money thing for people like Griffin and other Friedmanite Fellow-travellers.
It’s hardly ever a value thing.
Oscar Wilde once said, “What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” That observation describes neo-liberals to perfection.
The NBR article reports that Radio NZ has an annual budget of $31,816,000. Which, by the way, has not changed since 2009.
That’s $7.24 (approx) for every man, woman, and child in this country. Per year. Or 14 cents a week, per person.
Well, bugger me. 14 cents a week, per each New Zealander?!
It occurs to me that for 14 cents a week, we’re getting a pretty damned good service for our money.
Could I really, really, really be radical, and suggest… pauses… that we raise it to… pauses 20 cents a week?!
Jeez, most of us probably have that stuck down the backs of our sofas!
If 14 cents a week is what troubles Mr Griffin, then I seriously question his priorities. In fact, if I sent Mr Griffin a cheque, for 14 cents, every week, I doubt he’d take the time and effort to go down to the bank and deposit them into his account. But who knows – maybe he needs the cash? Especially since he’s currently on some junket study in the “US on a Fulbright-Harkness Fellowship to study innovation in media”.
I suspect “innovation in media” is a crude code for further commercialisation and lessensing of state involvement in media matters.
What is deeply troubling is that National has a not-so-secret agenda to commercialise Radio NZ.
Radio NZ has the biggest viewing audience in the country. But it doesn’t feature in radio ratings because it has no advertising and thus no revenue. Commercially-speaking, it is ‘invisible’.
The barbarians at the gate, National, want to change this. They want Radio NZ monetised, mongrelised, and earning bucks so the Nats can balance their books and probably cut taxes again and again and… (See previous blogpost: NZ media; the Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very, Ugly.)
In return we get a dumbed down State radio. Like TVNZ. Imagine ‘Seven Sharp’ on Radio NZ, instead of ‘Checkpoint’. The rumbling you just heard was my stomach turning.
Which is why Peter Cavanagh is being “encouraged to move on” at the end of this year.
.
Acknowledgment: NZ Herald – Radio NZ on the hunt for next chief executive
.
Make no mistake. This is the current agenda.
As Jonathan Coleman revealed in 2010,
Broadcasting Minister Jonathan Coleman says he has not threatened Radio New Zealand board members with removal, but has made his expectations for their performance clear.
Documents released under the Official Information Act to One News show that Dr Coleman has told Radio NZ not to expect any new funding for the foreseeable future.
Radio NZ costs about $38 million a year to run, but the Government is demanding a shake-up to counter rising costs.
In meeting notes from last November, Dr Coleman was advised that replacing the board was an option if they could not find a solution.
“A defensive approach to wait out for the next year or two in the expectation that it will again be business as usual is not an option.
“Members of boards who are not able or prepared to meet these expectations might need to move on or be replaced by members who can.”
Dr Coleman wrote to board chairwoman Christine Grice at the start of the month asking for a list of the options being considered.
“We have to be prepared for an environment where there may be no new funding available for a number of years,” the letter said.
“This may require a change of mindset on the part of the board and senior management, one that embraces open-minded consideration of alternative revenue models, as well as a thorough examination of options for reconfiguring services.”
This morning, Mr Coleman told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report programme board members were aware they had no option but to deliver cost-saving measures like other Government-funded organisations.
“What I have said to the chair (Christine Grice) is that there is a significant challenge here and I do need reassurance that you feel you have the right personnel on the board, and that you personally are up for the challenge,” he said.
That challenge involved looking at all operational options including staffing numbers, sponsorship arrangements and studio budgets. (Source: NZHerald.co.nz.)
And thus, the National Business Review’s funding suggestions are indeed helpful – to their neo-liberal masters.
The attack on Radio NZ – our last public, non-commercial broadcaster – takes on new and disturbing dimension. It takes Dumber and Dumber to it’s final conclusion.
An Open Message To a New Incoming Government
This has to end.
No, I don’t mean outlawing National (tempting… tempting…) as an anti-social gang. I mean that it is time that a new centre-left government took measures to protect the assets that we, as a nation and people, have built up over the years and decades.
National governments come and go every three years – but the damage they do to our state assets and services can have on-going, lasting effects that lock-in negative consequences, for the foreseeable future.
As Geoff Bertram stated on 13 February, when he addressed an anti-asset sales rally in Wellington;
.
.
“Here’s the problem. Electricity was once an essential service provided to households at the lowest price, consistent with covering the industry’s costs.
Since 1986 the sector has been corporatised and part-privatised, and it’s pricing has been driven by the quest for profit by giant companies that have the market power to gouge their consumers.
As the owner of three of those companies, the New Zealand government has therefore become a predator. And now the Treasury wants to cash in on that rort by selling out half the government’s stake.
What that means in terms of the options for the future, for government to turn around and come back from the predator model, and return to a social service approach for energy supply, is being closed off.” (See previous blogpost: Wellingtonians rally to send a message to the Beehive! (part rua))
If neo-liberal governments can take action to close off future policy changes which could potentially return State services to “a social service approach” – then surely it is not beyond the wit and means of centre-left governments to do likewise. But in the opposite direction.
It is incumbent on the next centre-left government that it must look at ways and means to entrench and protect our state assets. Whether those assets be roads, hospitals, an airline, power companies – or a non-commercial broadcaster – it is time that the potential for market-based “reforms” is closed off – once and for all.
Is it possible to entrench legislation?
Yes, it is.
I. Entrenchment
Section 268, sub-section 2, of the Electoral Act 1993, states, in part,
2) No reserved provision shall be repealed or amended unless the proposal for the amendment or repeal—
(a) is passed by a majority of 75% of all the members of the House of Representatives; or
(b) has been carried by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll of the electors of the General and Maori electoral districts…
If the Parliamentary term can be entrenched for three years, requiring either “a majority of 75% of all the members of the House of Representatives… or… by a majority of the valid votes cast at a poll” – then surely we can use the same mechanism to lock-in and safe-guard public ownership of our remaining state assets.
That should include Radio NZ and an accompanying legal charter guaranteeing its funding and non-commercial structure.
II. Funding
How does one protect and guarantee funding for a particularly vulnerable entity such as Radio NZ?
There is one mechanism already in place, and which has been operating at arms-length from success governments since 1977; the Remuneration Authority (see: State Services Commission – Remunerations Authority).
The Authority’s role, as outlined on the SSC website,
The Authority
Under the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, the Remuneration Authority is responsible for annually considering and determining the remuneration and allowances of Members of Parliament and the Judiciary, as well as specified statutory officers and members of local authorities and community boards. The Authority also determines the fees for the appointees to Independent Crown Entity boards. The Authority is made up of a Chair and two members; all of whom are part time. The Authority is supported by an executive officer.
We have the tools, we can re-build it…
It should be a simple matter to amend legislation to insert the following,
The Authority also determines the fees for the appointees, and operating-budget increases in line with ministerial salaries, to Independent Crown Entity boards.
Those are two suggestions.
No doubt a Labour (or Green)-led Coalition government has far more intellectual/institutional fire-power at its disposal to dream up ways and means to protect future funding for crucial state-owned entities such as Radio NZ.
This should be a top priority, along with addressing child poverty and unemployment in this country.
Otherwise, this term we lose 49% of Solid Energy, Meridian, Genesis, Mighty River Power, and further sell-down of Air New Zealand. And when the Middle Classes get another rush of blood to their heads and re-elect the Nats again (say, 2020 or 2023), they’ll sell the rest. And then sell 49% of TVNZ. And six years later sell the remaining 51%…
It’s a cut to our state companies and services by gradual degree. Until there is nothing left. And power prices end up soaring so most low-income neighbourhoods are in darkness and our state hospitals are over-flowing with the sick, as infectious diseases run rampant.
And Radio NZ sounds like ‘The Rock’ or ‘The Edge’.
A new centre-left government must make this a priority.
There is no alternative.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 February 2013.
.
.
= fs =
Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session – part rua
.
Continued from: Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session
On 27 march, Karl Du Fresne had a bit of a public melt-down over Radio NZ, complaining,
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – RNZ’s bias needs to be tackled
.
He accused Radio NZ on being a left wing organisation;
But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists.
Kim Hill is the worst offender. This is a problem for whoever runs RNZ, because she’s also its biggest name.
Chris Laidlaw lists to the Left too, as does Jeremy Rose, a journalist who frequently crops up on Laidlaw’s Sunday morning show. Rose appears to be on a lifelong mission to convince people that there are humane alternatives to nasty, heartless capitalism.
Acknowledgement: IBID
Part of the problem is that National Ministers regularly refuse to front on Radio NZ to explain government policy. An example this morning was typical of National ministers ducking for cover whenever negative stories hit the media.
The Salvation Army will be closing services and making staff redundant, as government funding is cut for critical social services;
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Salvation Army warns of cuts to budgeting services
.
Cuts to services – such as provided by the Salvation Army – will hit the poorest; most down-trodden; people and their families, in our society. It would be like stealing coins from a blind beggar on the footpath.
All the while, National spends-up large on Tim Groser’s job-hunt at the WTO;
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – NZ First calls on Groser to refund travel costs
.
And National’s colossal spend-up on consultants and witch-hunts is now legendary;
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – ‘Consultancy culture’ cost $525m last year – Labour
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – PM defends money spent on MFAT leak
.
The above stories all reflect badly on National. But is it the fault of state-owned, Radio NZ? Is the broadcaster “left-leaning”, as Du Fresne charges?
Or, is the reason somewhat more prosaic?
So, Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett, was invited to appear on Radio NZ’s “Checkpoint” this morning (29 April) to explain why funding for social services for organisations such as the Salvation Army, will be cut.
When Bennett was invited to front on “Checkpoint” – she refused. Instead she provided a written statement. (Well, wasn’t that ‘big’ of her?)
Hear: Radio NZ – Checkpoint – Labour speaks out against recession funding cuts
.
Paula Bennett – too un-nerved to front on Radio NZ?
.
This is not the first (nor last) time that National Ministers have refused to front on Radio NZ. It happens with annoying regularity (with Dear Leader John Key being the worst offender).
On the other hand, Labour’s spokesperson on social issues, Jacinda Ardern, accepted an invitation to take part in the story.
.
Jacinda Ardern – accepted Radio NZ’s invitation to take part in interview.
.
If Ministers like Bennett, Ket, et al, – whose salaries are paid by taxpayers – do not have the courage of their convictions to appear on TV, radio, or other media to explain their policies – then they are not worthy of our electoral support nor attention. They are a waste of space.
And right wing munters like Karl Du Fresne should have nothing to whinge about.
.
.
= fs =
Karl Du Fresne has a public baby waa-waa cry-session
.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – RNZ’s bias needs to be tackled
.
The right wing, it would be fair to say, dislike the media. Or, most of the media. Fox News, religious programming, and Rantback Radio are acceptable.
But nothing that challenges us to think.
.
Kark Du Fresne’s recent outpouring of grievance in Fairfax Media’s ‘Manawatu Standard‘ made it plain and obvious to the reader that he has a problem with Radio NZ.
Du Fresne referred to RNZ as “left wing”. And then listed all those people whom he thinks are guilty of being “left”. People like,
Kim Hill
Chris Laidlaw
Jeremy Rose
Kathryn Ryan
Obviously, these people all need to be brought before Parliament’s House Committee for Un-New Zealand Activities. (Which, we don’t have – yet – but I’m sure one of Mr Du Fresne’s right wing colleagues such as Maggie Barry could easily organise one. More on Maggie Barry in a moment.) Then the H.C.U.N.Z.A. can ensure that Hill, Laidlaw, Rose, and Ryan never work in this town again.
Our American cuzzies did that in the 1950s, during what we now refer to as the “McCarthy Era“,
Senator Joseph McCarthy
So what were Du Fresne’s allegations?
So what might the new RNZ chief executive do to enhance the organisation’s standing in a political climate that is less than favourable? One obvious step is to take a tougher line against the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes.
Which would be interesting to consider – except that Du Fresne doesn’t actually spell out where “the editorial bias that still permeates some RNZ programmes” actually lies.
He tells the reader that “the editorial bias” is there – but not where, precisely. It’s all rather… nebulous.
Du Fresne then claims that,
“Public broadcasting organisations, by their very nature, tend to be Left-leaning.”
Really? What “nature” is that, I wonder?
Perhaps Du Fresne is refering to Public broadcasting organisations challenging peoples’ thinking – whereas right-wing media tend to reinforce preconceptions and prejudices?
He goes on to say,
“It’s not hard to understand how this comes about. Journalists distrustful of capitalism naturally gravitate toward state-owned media organisations, seeing them as untainted by the profit motive.”
Now that is an intriguing claim to make.
Especially considering that Maggie Barry (who I referred to above), was the morning presenter on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report” in 1986, and hosted “Nine To Noon” show in 1990.
Later, in November 2011, Ms Barry stood as a political candidate in the general election, and won the seat of North Shore.
She stood as a National Party candidate. National being New Zealand’s main centre-right political party,
.
.
And then there’s Richard Griffin, Radio NZ’s one-time political editor, who worked for National Party ex-Prime Minister Jim Bolger, as his press secretary in the late 1990’s.
National, as I understand it, being New Zealand’s main centre-right political party.
Then there are the regular guests on Radio NZ – who are well noted for their National or ACT Party affiliations, or who simply express right-wing views;
- ex-National President, Michelle Boag;
- National & ACT supporter and anti-MMP campaigner, Jordan Williams
- rightwing blogger and National Party apparatchik, David Farrar;
- ex-ACT MP and Party President, Rodney Hide;
- ex-ACT and later, ex-National MP, Stephen Franks;
- former speech-writer and press secretary for National and right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooten;
- and former police officer and front-person for television’s “Police Ten 7“, Graham Bell (who holds right wing views on many issues).
There are probably others I’ve forgotten to list.
So what is the “... ideological mindset that permeates the entire organisation” that Du Fresne refers to?
We don’t know. Again, he doesn’t tell us.
But I wonder what Ms Boag; Mr Farrar; Ms Barry; Mr Williams; Mr Hide; Mr Franks; Mr Hooten; Mr Bell, and Mr Griffin might say about Du Fresne suggesting that,
“This becomes self-perpetuating, since the more Left-leaning an organisation becomes, the more it attracts other people of the same persuasion.”
Perhaps Radio NZ might not appear so “left-leaning” if National ministers – especially John Key – actually bothered to take up invitations to front for interviews?
On almost every occassion when government policy is under scrutiny, or when National is being heavily criticised, National ministers almost always refuse to be interviewed, to present their side of things.
The result is that National’s critics often accept invitations to be interviewed – thereby giving an impression of anti-National bias.
But it’s only an impression of bias because National Ministers refuse most invitations for interviews.
One then has to shake their head when Du Fresne then demands,
“But publicly funded broadcasters have an obligation to make programmes that reflect the views and interests of the entire community – not just those the broadcasters happen to favour.”
Bollicks. Anyone can read between the lines and understand what he is really saying. Let me “fix” the above statement so we clearly understand what Du Fresne is actually demanding of Radio NZ,
“But publicly funded broadcasters have an obligation to make programmes that reflect the views and interests that I’m comfortable with – not just those the broadcasters happen to favour for the rest of New Zealand who are a bunch of leftie, pinko, mung-bean eating, hippies.”
And this bit really takes the proverbial cake,
“This is explicitly stated in RNZ’s charter, which commits the organisation to impartial and balanced coverage of news and current affairs.”
Really, Mr Du Fresne?
Du Fresne’s demand that Radio NZ fulfill it’s Charter requirements (though he yet again omits to tell us how Radio NZ has been derelict in it’s duty) is in contrast with his views on TVNZ’s (now defunct) charter,
“The Clark government saw where things were going and tried to arrest the decline by imposing on TVNZ a public service charter, which was largely ignored. Today, the unremitting diet of banal, so-called reality shows and American crime dramas on the two publicly-owned channels is indistinguishable from the offerings on their privately-owned rivals, and disillusioned viewers have been driven into the welcoming arms of Sky TV. ” – 16 October 2010
Acknowledgement: The Spectator – Time to sell off TVNZ
“The notion of the public service broadcaster survives in the form of Radio New Zealand, but otherwise it’s in peril. TVNZ is in the process of being released from its obligations under the public service charter introduced under Labour. Its sole objective in future will be to return a dividend to the government (not that viewers will notice much difference, since the charter was largely ineffectual).” – 23 July 2011
Acknowledgement: Karl du Fresne – The changing TV landscape (sorry, media ecology)
No demand anywhere amongst his writings that TVNZ abide by it’s Charter. Just a resigned acceptance. And usually followed by none-to-subtle hints to privatise TVNZ.
Perhaps the most pertinent point of Du Fresne’s whinge-session is this remark,
“Overall, RNZ presents a more balanced range of perspectives than it used to. But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists.”
Bingo!
There we have it; “Overall, RNZ presents a more balanced range of perspectives than it used to”.
And then, “But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists”.
And then states that “Kim Hill is the worst offender“.
To put it bluntly – Du Fresne seems utterly confused in what he is demanding. On the one hand he states,
“But publicly funded broadcasters have an obligation to make programmes that reflect the views and interests of the entire community
[…]
This is explicitly stated in RNZ’s charter, which commits the organisation to impartial and balanced coverage of news and current affairs.”
But he also admits that,
“Overall, RNZ presents a more balanced range of perspectives than it used to…”
Whilst then stating,
“But on some programmes, a stubborn Left-wing bias persists.”
What Du Fresne has omitted to say is,
“But on OTHER programmes, a RIGHT WING bias IS PRESENTED.”
Because, my fellow New Zealanders, when people like Stephen Franks, Rodney Hide, Michelle Boag, or David Farrar are guesting on Radio NZ and expressing their right wing views – that is when Radio NZ is meeting it’s Charter obligations and presenting the Right Wing point of view.
For example, listen to Stephen Franks (if your stomach can bear it) on Jim Mora’s 4pm Panel on 8 April. Franks is ranting some right-wing rubbish, as usual, on people’s “reliance” on insurance,
The Panel with Stephen Franks and Tino Pereira (Part 1)
I think we all know what is going on here. Du Fresne isn’t interested in “balance” at all. He is demanding unquestioning, Stalinist-style, fealty to the current National government.
He even let’s it slip, near the end of his diatribe against Radio NZ,
“The second, more pragmatic, reason is that the Left-wing bias apparent in some of RNZ’s programmes is hardly likely to endear the organisation to the politicians who control its fate.”
Why would a supposedly independent public broadcaster need to “endear” itself to the government-of-the-day?
And does that logically mean that when Labour is in power, that Radio NZ must “endear [itself] to the politicians who control its fate”?
Du Fresne does add this caveat, though,
“In saying this, I’m not suggesting for a moment that RNZ should become a tame government puppet. That would be far worse than the status quo.”
Bullshit. That is precisely what Du Fresne is calling for; becoming a tame government puppet.
Ironically, four years ago, Du Fresne had this to say about Radio NZ,
“Another commenter sneered at my statement that the news media functioned as a marketplace of ideas, claiming this was a meaningless slogan typical of “faded old neoliberal ideology”. Really? Perhaps I’m imagining all those lively and informed expressions of opinion and exchanges of ideas – exchanges that help shape public opinion on the issues of the day – that I see every day in newspaper stories, opinion pieces and letters to the editor, or hear on talkback programmes and interviews on Morning Report. Priggish leftists hate this stuff because it permits the dissemination of views they disapprove of.” – 30 May 2009
Acknowledgement: Karl du Fresne – Why leftist academics hate the media
So back in May 2009, Du Fresne was positively gushing with adoration at Radio NZ?!
So what’s changed?
Plenty.
In 2009, the msm* were in love with Dear Leader and the six month old National government could do no wrong. The Media-Key “honeymoon” was just beginning. Media reports critical of Key were minimal. Everyone loved Key and National.
Now, four years on, as the “honeymoon” has ended and a bitter “divorce” is in progress, the media is reporting one scandal after another. National policies are drawing heated criticism from all sectors of society. National poll ratings are gradually falling. And Dear Leader is no longer as popular as he once was.
That is the nub of the issue here. The Right are beginning to feel defensive and threatened. Like a cornered wild beast, they are lashing out at their critics – especially the media,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – John Key calls media ‘Knuckleheads‘
.
And people like Karl Du Fresne – an unrepentant Right Wing political commentator – is bitter. He’s not feeling the love anymore, folks.
On a final note; Du Fresne complains that Radio NZ is biased and left wing.
Perhaps we might take him more seriously if his own columns were less biased and right wing.
.
*
.
References
Wikipedia: McCarthyism
Wikipedia: Kim Hill
The Listener: Karl du Fresne
Notes
* msm = mainstream media(newspapers, radio, televison broadcasters – as opposed to “New Media” such as bloggers, websites, youtube, etc)
.
.
= fs =
Talkback Radio, Public Radio, and related matters…
Coming to “The Daily Blog” on 1 March…
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
