Banned for criticising Key

151 comments on “Banned for criticising Key ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   9 October 2011 at 11:08 am

   RNZ like poodle opinions from poodle Lefties. Anything else and you end up in the dog box.

   What a farce of a democracy we live in.
   • PozzoCapone 1.1

     10 October 2011 at 5:19 am

     Unlike all those other non-farcical democracies around the world
   • Mark 1.2

     10 October 2011 at 1:09 pm

     @Colonial Viper: Your comment makes no sense, and doesn’t add to the discussion. Troll somewhere else
2. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2

   9 October 2011 at 11:12 am

   I wish they’d banned him for the childish rants he reads out word for word and for being so tasteless as to think it is funny to have a name that celebrates violence.

   But I will take any ban of that talentless moron.
   • Carol 2.1

     9 October 2011 at 11:27 am

     Bomber does tend to do some biting and emotive partisan political rants, but usually there is substance behind them and evidence to support his views. The same can’t be said of much of the uninformed politically partisan opinions often expressed by guests on the Panel. But, it seems the step to far by Bomber was that he strongly criticised the PM and didn’t inform RNZ in advance that he was going to do that. So do all the Panel guests inform RNZof their highly partisan views that they express in the Panel slot that asks them to talk about what’s bugging them?
     • Penny Ashton 2.1.1

       10 October 2011 at 8:40 am

       FYI, We generally tell them what we will discuss, Bomber did indeed tell them he would discuss John Key and the Chamber of Jumpers moment in advance. We usually give the topic but nothing more than that.
     • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 2.1.2

       11 October 2011 at 11:27 am

       Bradbury got nailed for (1) simply reading out his blog postings (time and time again, which he was warned about), and (2) talking over the host (in that absurd squeaky voice of his).

       Neither of his actions are conducive to the quality programming that most people want.

       To claim he got jacked for criticising Key is disingenious to be polite.
       • fmacskasy 2.1.2.1

         11 October 2011 at 11:37 am

         So, MC, freedom of speech doesn’t apply if you read from a pre-prepared statement?

         Wow – there goes every single politician who read from a pre-prepared speech, out the door!

         No doubt you’ll be applying this same rigorous standard to Dear Leader next time he stands up to an audience with – a pre-prepared speech!!

         As for your suggestion,

         Bradbury got nailed for (1) simply reading out his blog postings (time and time again, which he was warned about)…

         And you know this, how?
   • swordfish 2.2

     9 October 2011 at 5:07 pm

     RICK: “Well, you can just about blimmin well shut up ! Because if you’ve got anything horrid to say about Bomber Bradbury then you can just about blimmin well say it to me first !”

     THE GORMLESS FOOL FORMERLY KNOWN AS OLEOLEBISCUITBARREL: “Rick, I just did.”

     RICK: “Oh you did, did you ! Well, I’ve got a good mind to give you a ruddy good punch on the bottom for what you just said !”
3. alex 3

   9 October 2011 at 11:12 am

   RNZ? What the hell? You are meant to exist as a public forum for debate. I have always been a massive supporter of their continuation, now I’m not so sure.
   • mickysavage 3.1

     9 October 2011 at 4:17 pm

     Agreed.  I have thought that lately Hooton has been really bad talking over everyone and running CT attack lines but put up with it as it was all in the name of “balance”.  But banning Bomber?

     What offence did he commit?  Breaching state secrets? 

     It seems that the reign of terror this Government is waging on the Public Service has started to affect their decision making. 
4. Afewknowthetruth 4

   9 October 2011 at 11:21 am

   Discussion of unpalatable truths connected with reality is ‘an unacceptable breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial policies’.

   That’s why I stopped listening to RNZ years ago. It’s all disaster-as-usual, pro-corporate bullshit wrapped up in a blanket of ‘balanced reporting’ which simply is not.
5. ianmac 5

   9 October 2011 at 11:29 am

   (From Open mike)I missed that panel discussion and tried to get it on replay radio but Part 2 was not hung up. Now I know why.
   Ever heard Matthew Hooton talk over both Katherine or whoever is the Left commentator? And he promotes some pretty nasty stuff. To be consistent Hooton would be banned but surprise surprise? Not.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 5.1

     9 October 2011 at 11:57 am

     At least Hooten puts himself out there to take the hits. He even fronts up to Citizen A replacing Whale (when he had enough). I’d give him some credit for that.
   • Carol 5.2

     9 October 2011 at 12:04 pm

     Yes, Hooton is equally guilty of talking over others/Ryan, but there is someone from the left present to give an opposing view point. If only one side does the talking over others, it does skew the balance though. And it’s a tactic National MPs seem to perfect in radio, TV and online debates… eg Nikki Kaye debating Jacinda Ardern on Bomber’s show. The host needs to be extremely vigilant to keep that in check.
   • Vicky32 5.3

     9 October 2011 at 5:29 pm

     Ever heard Matthew Hooton talk over both Katherine or whoever is the Left commentator?

     From what I have heard, she used to allow it, then last time I heard her, she was seriously pissed off at him, and told him off.. Great!
      
6. thejackal 6

   9 October 2011 at 11:39 am

   Bomber did not need to inform RNZ of the topic about what he was going to speak, because it is a major story. RNZ should have realised that it was open for discussion.

   The fairness and balance aspect is up to RNZ, as they are in control of who appears on their shows. It was their responsibility to ensure a balanced viewpoint was given by providing somebody who could debate Bomber accordingly, on the side of John Key.

   The fact they they could not do that speaks volumes. Despite what RNZ believe, Bomber is representing a large sector of the community with his remarks. It would be unfair to not have the disgust at John Key’s throat slitting action and remarks within mainstream public broadcasting.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 6.1

     9 October 2011 at 11:54 am

     Actually I haven’t seen anybody defending Key for his actions- better just to change the subject and discuss his charisma. This is going to be the classic distraction election.
     • thejackal 6.1.1

       9 October 2011 at 11:59 am

       Apart from his spin doctors who tried to say John Key made the statements in reference to Labour criticizing his DPS 2010 budget blowout of $750,000. Perhaps they’ve realised that wasn’t such a good argument and will now just STFU.
       • Tigger 6.1.1.1

         9 October 2011 at 1:31 pm

         Jackal is right, as the broadcaster RNZ must balance anything requiring balance. Bomber’s style and position is well known, as is Hooten for example whose views would require balance the opposite way.

         This smells off, Bomber banned just before the election, very convenient…
         • the sprout 6.1.1.1.1

           9 October 2011 at 1:42 pm

           If you listen to the interview John Bishop provides a ‘balancing’ critique of Bomber’s comments then and there on the same show.
           Can’t see how banning Bomber is necessary for this ‘balance’ the RNZ Board speaks of.
           • mike 6.1.1.1.1.1

             9 October 2011 at 2:11 pm

             Can’t seem to find it. Can you link me sprout?
             • the sprout …

               9 October 2011 at 2:20 pm

               there’s a link further down in the comment from hutch (Comment 11)
               • mike …

                 9 October 2011 at 2:51 pm

                 Yes just noticed it and listened ta.
         • Carol 6.1.1.1.2

           9 October 2011 at 1:43 pm

           But isn’t part of achieving balance achieved by airing an opposing view on a controversial/political issue on a given programme within the near future, and not necessarily on the same day. Like isn’t it within the requirements that they could have had a pro-Key view on the issue aired the next day? And if Mora couldn’t stop Bomber interrupting, isn’t that Mora’s weakness?
       • RedLogix 6.1.1.2

         9 October 2011 at 1:51 pm

         Yes… there are two aspects to this nasty little episode that have have really gotten my attention.

         The first was immediate and un-staged response to the gesture from the Labour front benches . After all they were the people closest to it; they were the people Key was aiming it at and they were the ones who knew immediately and exactly what Key was doing. Most telling was King’s use of the word ‘scumbag’, used in a visceral, disgusted tone.

         Now we have the Beehive swinging into damage control mode. This tells me that the incident was real and was ugly. They know they have to hose it down this close to an election because it has the potential to rip the scab right off the Brand-Key relaxed nice-guy image. They really don’t want too many folk looking at the full video, not just because of the throat slashing moment… but because for a few telling seconds Key looks not just frightened, but craven and vicious.
         • mike 6.1.1.2.1

           9 October 2011 at 2:28 pm

           A lot of people have altered their opinion of Key after seeing that video. I saw a blog comment “I am now a former National voter.” I showed it to my dear mum who said she thought he was a ok guy, she was shocked and said he looked nasty, vicious, deceitful and slimy. I hope Bomber’s little rant encouraged people to take a look for themselves because the camera doesn’t lie.

           Who would like to bet against John Key’s office having put pressure on RNZ to take this action?

           Annette King said she’s never called anyone a ‘scumbag’ before. And she’s not apologising for it.
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.2.1.1

             9 October 2011 at 7:30 pm

             I have several friends in their twenties who are multi-time National voters. All good types who unfortunately believe that National has the better economic plan and superior economic aspirations for NZ.

             But they’ve all gone very quiet about Key since they saw the cut-throat gesture news pieces on him.
7. Salsy 7

   9 October 2011 at 11:43 am

   Have they any idea that they have poured high octane jet fuel over political dynamite? Stifling bomber will only give him the legs and the ammo that he needs. I suspect we will now see him shift into overdrive.
   • mike 7.1

     9 October 2011 at 2:30 pm

     Please folks send him messages of support and encouragement to that end.
8. Jumbuck 8

   9 October 2011 at 12:01 pm

   Lockwood’s main argument is that if people were allowed to take photos of the public gallery, then people would protest there regularly, and the “floodgates would open”. We all know about moralistic prohibition style laws (Don’t talk about sex and the kids won’t do it! Say no to drugs!). If you’ve ever been to a local council meeting, you’ll know there are often dog and pony shows that are photographed and no one in the public really cares. No one feels any more empowered or motivated to protest their pet causes since you do actually have to possess a skerrick more concern for the issue than just random irritation to take it that far. Yes the press would abuse the priveledge nine times out of ten, but it would also make our parliament more transparent. In my opinion the S.O.s relating to this matter should change to reflect the changing society that our politics exists within.
   Lockwood also says his speakers position has nothing to do with National and explains rules are rules and should be upheld at a conceptual level because they are rules. He’s a smart guy and a politician and if you’ve ever lived with a politician you’d know they are never anything but a politician. Lockwood is a National MP. He doesn’t go home and become “Locky”, no matter how much he smiles, laughs or whatever brand of booze he drinks. There is no time off. Ever. That’s what you have to be to politic at a national level. He didn’t join National because it was the only opening going. HE must inherently believe and support their ideas. Do you honestly believe Helen Clark would re-enter politics as an ACT MP just because the career path was possible and for the “challenge”? Politicians cannot be objective, they can only operate on a level where they know they are not being objective. And that comes some ways after not knowing they are not objective.

   Anyway, enough of my opinions. If you have the time to listen to the Mediawatch audio, they back up Bradbury’s claims with the dry sarcasm that has become a euphemism for the “balance and fairness” that RNZ wants to uphold. They rip strips off National in an intellectual, but hardly subtle, way. As far as I can tell, Bradbury transgressed their standards of elegance. Those who prefer the same story as RNZ but with more passion can check out Citizen A (I am not paid to plug his show and do not work with him – or even agree with his ideas sometimes.)
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 8.1

     9 October 2011 at 12:08 pm

     Bomber never claims to be balanced “as fair and balanced as Fox News” is his motto.

     If Radio NZ didn’t know that- more fool them.
     • AAMC 8.1.1

       9 October 2011 at 9:05 pm

       “Bomber never claims to be balanced “as fair and balanced as Fox News” is his motto.”

       Exactly, he’s a bloody Left wing commentator, possibly it’s most overt provocateur. How did they expect him to talk about Key’s antics?

       More reason to learn the lessons #occupywallstreet are teaching us. Network and communicate ourselves, don’t count on 20th century media for anything other than to cheerlead 20th century thinking.

       http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/index.html
   • mike 8.2

     9 October 2011 at 2:37 pm

     31:30 in the audio – Reporter: “By virtue of being the prime minister doesn’t that make you eminently political?” Key: “I don’t think so.” Me: big LOLZ.
9. the sprout 9

   9 October 2011 at 12:11 pm

   Richard Griffin’s (Former National Chief Press Sec) appointment to the RNZ Board is taking it’s toll.

   So too are the ongoing cuts to RNZ’s budget that National are imposing – $1.5M cut this year after years of no increases to match inflation.

   RNZ staff are running scared of their bullying, anti-democratic masters. Can’t say I blame them really. This government is vindictive as hell.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1

     9 October 2011 at 12:26 pm

     Becoming Radio Boring and Bland is hardly likely to save them either. Seroiusly some of those people on the panel could be marketed as a cure for insomonia. At least Bomber and hsi over the top rants are a bit more interesting and thought provoking.
     • Colonial Viper 9.1.1

       9 October 2011 at 12:32 pm

       Becoming Radio Boring and Bland is hardly likely to save them either.

       Of course that is all part of the long term plan for RNZ to start failing and for the ‘discipline’ of ‘commercialisation’ or ‘privitisation’ to be touted as the cure.
       • Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1.1.1

         9 October 2011 at 2:46 pm

         If they (the govt) want them (radio nz) to become more like the private sector you would think they would want them to improve their product. Becoming the English Rugby team of Radio (safe and boring) hardly is the recipe for ratings.
         • lprent 9.1.1.1.1

           9 October 2011 at 2:54 pm

           It means you get done by the french?
     • Matthew Hooton 9.1.2

       9 October 2011 at 12:38 pm

       Zaphod: What on earth are you talking about? Didn’t you hear John Bishop talking about his new mashed potato recipe on Thursday? Why, I plan to try it out this very evening.
       • lprent 9.1.2.1

         9 October 2011 at 1:10 pm

         Stop throwing the inflammatory mashed potatoes on to the debate in a such a strident and anti-kumura fashion. You never know it might actually ignite some discussion (and John Key might get upset)

         Ummm my RNZ imitation needs work.
       • Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1.2.2

         9 October 2011 at 1:14 pm

         Matthew you’re so anti-PC. Don’t you know that Potatoes are an expression of British Colonialism? Didn’t they introduce that fungus that wiped out the Irish Potato Crop in the 1840s?
         • RedLogix 9.1.2.2.1

           9 October 2011 at 1:18 pm

           So ‘mashing and whipping’ the spuds is an expression of the ugly oppression of colonialism? Yuk… all these years and I never thunk.
10. RedLogix 10

    9 October 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Well as a moderator here at The Standard, will it be ok if I now start banning people for being “strident and partisan”?

    I have a little list….
    • lprent 10.1

      9 October 2011 at 1:07 pm

      Nope. If I can’t do it, then you may not as well.

      Besides that type of moderation will eventually reduce the number of people on to the site to a well satisfied but quite lonely one…
      • RedLogix 10.1.1

        9 October 2011 at 1:14 pm

        Exactly… so what does this say about editorial control at RNZ? Not very pretty when you think about it.
        • lprent 10.1.1.1

          9 October 2011 at 1:17 pm

          Not much that is any good. It would appear that National’s appointments to the board are having the desired effect.
      • pollywog 10.1.2

        9 October 2011 at 1:41 pm

        that type of moderation will eventually reduce the number of people on to the site to a well satisfied but quite lonely one…

        …and then it’d be just like Rusty Brown or Cacky Kate’s sites

        *yawn*…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
11. hutch 11

    9 October 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Listen for yourself while the program is still there. link There is no link on the RNZ website though…
    • RedLogix 11.1

      9 October 2011 at 1:12 pm

      This was nothing I haven’t heard on RNZ before; I can only conclude that RNZ has been directed by the Beehive to ban Bomber because the throat cutting incident really was an appalling slip of the mask and damage control has swung into action.

      It’s a message to the rest of the media to shut up about it.
      • lprent 11.1.1

        9 October 2011 at 1:20 pm

        I listened to it as well. It is pretty standard Bomber and not much different to what I have heard him say before in the same manner.

        I suspect that you are right – it is the damage control.

        Perhaps I should put the bomber rants up here every week, dedicating them to Richard Griffin?
        • the sprout 11.1.1.1

          9 October 2011 at 1:27 pm

          put the bomber rants up here every week, dedicating them to Richard Griffin

          yes please!
    • mike 11.2

      9 October 2011 at 2:54 pm

      Bomber’s rant commences at 7:30. Stuff that got him banned starts at 9:26. Just so peeps can skip to there if they like.
12. the sprout 12

    9 October 2011 at 1:22 pm

    I hope there will be online petition, links anyone?

    Here’s the link to RNZ to tell them what you think:

    rnz@radionz.co.nz

    I’m also now feeling inclined to lodge BSA complaints ANY AND EVERY TIME I feel there’s been a lack of fairness and balance on The Panel.
13. Draco T Bastard 13

    9 October 2011 at 1:27 pm

    Being fair and balanced means reporting the facts without bias. It doesn’t mean getting two sides to a story as there usually isn’t two sides. There’s the facts and there’s the lies. Reporting both isn’t balanced.
14. Samuel Hill 14

    9 October 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Welcome to the Dictatorship of the Stupid, New Zealand.
    • Colonial Viper 14.1

      9 October 2011 at 2:15 pm

      It appears that NZ is indeed welcoming this dictatorship. So strange that the MSM has not raised a hue and cry over how “undemocratic” this action by RNZ is.
      • Samuel Hill 14.1.1

        9 October 2011 at 2:41 pm

        Is Martyn Bradbury the Colin “Uncle Scrim” Scrimgeour of our times?

        Will Labour speak out???
        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 14.1.1.1

          9 October 2011 at 3:39 pm

          “Will Labour speak out???”

          No. The guy is an unpleasant, self-important windbag who thinks he is much cleverer than he is. Even Labour can see that.
          • the sprout 14.1.1.1.1

            9 October 2011 at 3:49 pm

            He criticizes Labour too when it’s warranted. I doubt Labour will have the balls to stick up for him.
          • lprent 14.1.1.1.2

            9 October 2011 at 4:17 pm

            The guy is an unpleasant, self-important windbag who thinks he is much cleverer than he is.

            Umm sounds like Whaleoil, DPF, Paul Henry, Tamihere, and really almost every talk show host it has been my misfortune to listen to.. etc etc Then of course there are the TV hosts..

            I hardly think that disqualifies anyone from being on media. Labour as a party has seldom commented on media or the people working in it. It tends to come around and bite you on the arse later on.

            None of those restrictions apply here. I personally don’t like bombers style (and haven’t since first hearing him on BFM). But that is rather beside the point. I didn’t like Paul Henrys style either and didn’t decide that I wanted him off my screen until his behavior put him right over the bounds of acceptable behaviour.

            However I also cannot see any reason for him being pushed off the RNZ panel apart from political pressure from Key’s people. That I find objectionable and worth doing something about.

            So far my working title for a series of posts is “National’s Muzzle” with a graphic of Richard Griffen putting a dog muzzle on someone out of the picture. Then give one of Bombers rants (probably War on News) the wider distribution we get off this site (if Bomber agrees).

            Anyone have better ideas?
            • Samuel Hill 14.1.1.1.2.1

              9 October 2011 at 5:31 pm

              Sounds like a good idea. Bomber is also set to host a nightly show on Stratos throughout the election campaign.
15. Blue 15

    9 October 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Being banned from an opinion section for being too opinionated is completely farcical.
16. CentreOfLeft 16

    9 October 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Oh that is just bullshit
    I remember listening to it and Mora followed up basically saying “I didn’t see it myself but…” and went on a spiel defending Key
    Stop.
    Just stop right there.
    If you didn’t see it then you have no opinion.
    Isn’t this his job? To at least have done some research into the topics that are going to be discussed and have already been decided on so that he at least comes off as having the faintest clue about what he’s opining on?
    But yeah… Bring Back Wayne Mow… I mean, Bomber
    • Carol 16.1

      9 October 2011 at 2:23 pm

      I didn’t myself see the actual grounding of the Rena, the dropping a bomb on Hiroshima, the death camps of the Third Reich, Daniel Carter’s groin injury, the explosions at Pike River Mine….. but I do have some informed views about them.
      • CentreOfLeft 16.1.1

        9 October 2011 at 3:09 pm

        How hard would it have been?
        It was carried on a number of websites and the previous night’s broadcasts by that time, all it takes is a few clicks and a couple minutes watch for Jim to come back and say “Well I wouldn’t go that far, Bomber, but…”
        I guess now we’re just going to have to put up with more Graham Bell-moralising on The Panel

        Wait… what’s your view on Carter’s groin-injury?
        • Carol 16.1.1.1

          9 October 2011 at 3:19 pm

          Ah, sorry, I didn’t realise that Mora hadn’t actually seen the videos and done any research on it. I thought he was talking about not being there in the House to see it in person. I totally agree about there being plenty of evidence available.

          Carter can’t play anymore in the RWC – seems straightforward to me.

          I rarely listen to the Panel anymore – too much of the boring, conservative, and ill-informed opinions. Balanced? Pah!
          • Jum 16.1.1.1.1

            9 October 2011 at 4:49 pm

            Carol,

            You should have heard the RNZ panel discussion on the train passengers. Talk about the peg on the raised nose, and the elitist comments on the types of people who frequent trains and buses.

            By doing so they were judging old(er) ladies and gentlemen who use the trains and buses; uni students from families across the political and financial divide; school pupils too young to drive; tourists – Tourists would love to know what the upper fuckwits of New Zealand society, including the Cameron Brewers and the John Keys etc., think of them because they use our public transport system to see New Zealand.

            I actually mentioned that panel discussion a few months ago on here and quoted the particulars of its airing.

            Nasty operators on some of those panels that Jim Mora arranges? Does he arrange them or does someone else; they are mainly stacked with rightwing types, like Michele Boag NAct’s stooge, Black NAct’s Listener stooge, Jane Clifton the ‘claytons’ objective journalist, etc.

            Mary Wilson is excellent with her objective interviews in which she investigates everyone’s inner workings.

            However, in many aspects NZRadio is still streets ahead of the voodoo doctors on radio live and co.
            • Carol 16.1.1.1.1.1

              9 October 2011 at 4:57 pm

              Yes, I remember, Jum. And also disabled people who can’t drive, of which I am one, at the moment, due to a significant injury.

              So now public transport is my main means of getting around (apart from walking and rides by family & friends), and I see many of the people you have mentioned. I have also found my local bus drivers to be very helpful re- my injury, and towards many of the elderly, especially those with mobility limitations.
17. Jum 17

    9 October 2011 at 2:20 pm

    We bloggers had better have a plan to take to the streets if this government intends to instruct our New Zealander-owned communication channels/stations to shut down democratic dissent or to sabotage left-leaning blogs.

    Sid Holland did it in 1951; look-alike John Key will do it this year if he can get away with it.

    Banning journalists for ridiculous periods of time is one.
    Banning a left-leaning commentator (Bomber) for being passionate about the interference by the rightwing to shut down democratic dissent is another.
    There will be more.
    • Gareth 17.1

      9 October 2011 at 5:17 pm

      Bomber? left leaning? He’s as far left as Cactus and Whale are right…. Calling any one of those 3 left or right leaning is an insult, they are all died in wool proponents of their political beliefs….
      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1

        9 October 2011 at 6:52 pm

        Not sure why building a political-economy that all New Zealanders can fully participate in is even considered a “belief”, or why it should be regarded as “far left”. Its simply what this country needs to stand tall and proud again.
        • Gareth 17.1.1.1

          9 October 2011 at 7:50 pm

          On the whole I wouldn’t say that, it’s just to me to use leaning implies someone to be mostly centreist but with ideals in either a left or right direction. The examples I gave were people I beleive are entrenched as either left or right, also it is not a comment on how far in either direction they sit merely that they are clearly defind as left or right.
          • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1.1

            9 October 2011 at 7:56 pm

            The whole L vs R thing is antiquated anyhows, but I do see the point you are making.
          • felix 17.1.1.1.2

            9 October 2011 at 8:07 pm

            I tend to agree, how can Bomber be described (on that spectrum) as anything but a lefty?

            The language around this stuff has been a bit bastardised by the desire of various actors to be perceived as “centrist”, people seem afraid to use the words “left” or “right” unless prefixed by the frequently misleading “centre-” or appended by the redundant “-leaning”.

            Worst example IMHO is ACT being constantly referred to as “centre-right”, as if there’s anything to the right of them except the you-know-whos.
            • Jum 17.1.1.1.2.1

              10 October 2011 at 12:45 pm

              Gareth, Colonial Viper and Felix,

              Instead of you three discussing the finer points of ‘left’ and ‘right’ at the expense of the major point I was trying to make in my post……..

              I’ll repeat it:

              ‘Jum 17
              9 October 2011 at 2:20 pm

              We bloggers had better have a plan to take (our message on paper) to the streets if this government intends to instruct our New Zealander-owned communication channels/stations to shut down democratic dissent or to sabotage left-leaning blogs.

              Sid Holland did it in 1951; look-alike John Key will do it this year if he can get away with it.’
    • AAMC 17.2

      9 October 2011 at 9:21 pm

      Networking. It’s time for Gen X & Y to relegate corporate media to the scrap heap.

      Twitter, Facebook. Get as much good info, links and doco’s etc, in front of all of the people you know, encourage them also to post and to network, do so convincingly and it will grow exponentially. We have the tools, we just have to use them. Look how confused the MSM is in USA over the growing uprising, without any help form the mainstream.

      And keep it simple, a picture ir shot clip tells a thousand words.
18. Mika 18

    9 October 2011 at 3:29 pm

    This global situation where anyone who talks about the govt of their own country and gets banned, imprisoned, isolated… Or worse ‘become invisible’ is weakening … Thanks bomber… Don’t ever stop talking – I am shocked by RNZ, I understand u are govt funded but I believed you were govt exempt to be impartial… Sadly I now understand, with sadness, that RNZ are civil servants working for the Govt.
19. dazed & confused 19

    9 October 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Bomber is so OTT that it would not surprise me if his ban comes on top of many, many complaints. No matter where you sit on the political spectrum his brand of stridency and myopic commentary on the panel is offensive.
    • Colonial Viper 19.1

      9 October 2011 at 4:03 pm

      Bomber is so OTT that it would not surprise me if his ban comes on top of many, many complaints from the Prime Minister’s office.

      Fixed that for ya.
    • the sprout 19.2

      9 October 2011 at 4:18 pm

      good correction CV.
      I sit on the left of the political spectrum and find Bomber to be a rare voice of calling a spade a spade. Unlike most on the airwaves he isn’t too chickenshit to call National when they behave like out of control fascists.
      I also appreciate his critcisms of Labour when Labour deserves criticism.
      So yeah, he’s not OTT by any stretch, unless you consider holding political parties to account with cutting commentary OTT.
      • Colonial Viper 19.2.1

        9 October 2011 at 4:38 pm

        So yeah, he’s not OTT by any stretch, unless you consider holding political parties to account with cutting commentary OTT.

        Given that TVNZ and most MSM appear to have made decisions to eliminate political satire completely it seems that they do consider cutting political commentary OTT.

        Fascist PC’ism.
        • the sprout 19.2.1.1

          9 October 2011 at 4:54 pm

          Fascist PC’ism

          now there’s a mind bender
      • AAMC 19.2.2

        9 October 2011 at 9:31 pm

        I enjoy reading and watching Bomber, I agree that WHAT he say’s is not OTT, he’s been calling the financial crisis more accurately than most since it began, and as has been stated, he doesn’t pull his punches with Labiur ir the Greens either.

        It’s his delivery which is OTT, I don’t mind it, because I agree with a lot of what he says, but many who on closer consideration may in fact agree with him, turn off because of the delivery.
    • mike 19.3

      9 October 2011 at 5:57 pm

      “No matter where you sit on the political spectrum his brand of stridency and myopic commentary on the panel is offensive.”

      Would appear to be demonstrably false given that there are plenty of people here alone clearly support his comments.
    • George D 19.4

      9 October 2011 at 5:58 pm

      Pretty much. I’ve agreed with him for the last 15 years. I’ve found his style unbearable, and this is a particularly bad example.

      “Banned for being a dick” is a much more accurate summary of this story.
      • felix 19.4.1

        9 October 2011 at 6:08 pm

        I’ve always felt pretty much the same as you about Bomber.

        I wouldn’t have a problem with him being banned for his presentational style, which probably doesn’t really suit the Afternoons programme regardless of his views. When I heard him reading his opening rant my first thought was “Isn’t this supposed to be a discussion show?”

        So yeah, I wish I could agree with you. But, as the post notes, this is not the case:

        RNZ CEO Peter Cavanaugh declined to be interviewed, but said that the breach was with respect to the requirements for “fairness and balance”.

        So yeah nah.
        • Zaphod Beeblebrox 19.4.1.1

          9 October 2011 at 11:18 pm

          I think he means fairness and balance to the sensitivities of conservative, white, anal over-50s who appear to be their target market.

          Have they ever had anyone on the panel less than 40? The main joke seems to be how bad they all are at using Twitter. No one finds the social climbing chit chat of the Michelles or David all that interesting BTW.
          Mora has spent the last 2 1/2 years bagging Goff- when is he going to have an original thought?
          What are they going to do when their main demographic starts dying out?
20. Carol 20

    9 October 2011 at 4:12 pm

    Bomber’s getting messages of support on Twitter:

    http://twitter.com/#!/search/%40citizenBomber

    http://twitter.com/#!/CitizenBomber
21. Lanthanide 21

    9 October 2011 at 4:34 pm

    Next up to be censored and/or censured: Media Watch.
    • Tigger 21.1

      9 October 2011 at 4:45 pm

      Or cancelled to ‘save costs’…which would be a tragedy, Colin’s show is always fair and probing.
    • the sprout 21.2

      9 October 2011 at 4:53 pm

      yes i was thinking the same

      just imagine if someone investigated John Key’s personal wealth 3 years after coming to office 😉
22. Mike Smith 22

    9 October 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Immediately Bomber has finished his amsuing rant the other studio guest replied critiquing his comments. Seemed balanced enough to me.

    Big error of judgement by RNZ CEO Peter Cavanaugh.
23. rod 23

    9 October 2011 at 5:19 pm

    RNZ is run by the Tories, for the Tories, and financed by the taxpayer. end of.
    • Colonial Viper 23.1

      9 October 2011 at 5:29 pm

      Maggie Barry anyone?
24. randal 24

    9 October 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Whats the name of that guy who runs the outfit now? he is a tory thorugh and through. Fair and balanced is another one of those fox weasel words that means exactly the opposite of what it purports to say. I bet griffin and his mates are laughing their heads off on this one.
25. randal 25

    9 October 2011 at 5:29 pm

    p.s. if RNZ is fair and balanced then who are they going to balance all their tory manques with now?
    • felix 25.1

      9 October 2011 at 6:09 pm

      One tory manque of equal mass on each side of the scales.
26. the sprout 26

    9 October 2011 at 5:31 pm

    Fearfacts puts it eloquently

    NZ descends further into Rightwing dictatorship as last bastion of independent media forced to tow National Party line

    http://fearfactsexposed.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/bradbury-banned-from-radio-new-zealand-for-criticising-john-key/
    • RedLogix 26.1

      9 October 2011 at 7:20 pm

      forced to tow National Party line

      The latent grammar nazi in me just can’t help it. It’s “toe the line”…

      http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html
      • Neil 26.1.1

        9 October 2011 at 9:30 pm

        Thanks for the sub…
        Amendments made 😉
27. Jum 27

    9 October 2011 at 6:36 pm

    I saw this line on FearFactsExposed and thought my nightmare really had happened.

    ‘http://thestandard.org.nz/banned-for-criticising-key/’

    read it again guys…: thestandard.org.nz banned for criticising key…

    Bad for my blood pressure until I looked again, of course recognizing it as a website thread!
    • felix 27.1

      9 October 2011 at 6:41 pm

      Shhh, don’t give them ideas.
28. randal 28

    9 October 2011 at 6:43 pm

    Everybody on this blog should get their own blog on Blogger and start broadcasting to the world. and name names. They cant sue you if you have no money and the last thing they want is for the worlds search engines to start picking out their crimes and broadcasting them to the msm and believe me this will happen if enought people just do it! These people have beenhiding beihind a cloak of anonymity re-inforced by the poodle press in NZ for too long but once it gets out it’s very hard to stop.
29. seeker 29

    9 October 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Have just listened to the broadcast- thankyou Hutch @ 12.44pm

    I think John ( Bishop is it)? should be banned for taking Jim Mora seriously and talking about “Moonbeam” the cat after Bomber’s on the nail, articulate and factual report of John Keys distasteful activities this week.

    How can you ban people for reporting facts?

    Bishop should also be banned for :

    a) helping Mora ‘s effort in trying deflect from commenting on something really serious and get someone /anyone to comment on Key’s cat
    b) for actually commenting, almost at length, and in deeply thoughtful tone on the poor mog
    c)for his ‘children in the play ground’ throw away pontification as if he knows all and has seen it all before when he had apparently not winessed a great deal -oh except an apparently common occurence of someone throwing themself over the balcony in Parliament
    d)for not listening to Bomber’s excellent account of what had actually happened (witnessed by so many of us by now).
    e) dismissing Bomber’s really truthful account (if somewhat highlighted at times but pertinently so) as a rant!

    Bomber certainly did the import of the ‘happenings’ justice. Thankyou Bomber as I too was appalled and disgusted.

    Bishop did not even do the cat justice and should be removed for intoning ‘dirty dishwater grey’ coloured reactionary opinion. And finally, he should be put out to pasture for incompetence as a broadcaster in that he wasted at least 3mins of my brain’s time on this planet listening to him!

    * I hope I have attributed the correct names to the 3 individuals I heard speaking, as I have never listened to this broadcast before – and I shan’t again if this is the standard. Shame on you RNZ.
30. fmacskasy 30

    9 October 2011 at 7:27 pm

    This is not a good day for freedom in this country.

    The media “love affair” with Key has moved from one-hour radio shows that are blatant promos for the PM – to now silencing one of his critics, Martyn Bradbury.

    If we cast our minds back to July 2009, two solo-mothers (Natasha Fuller and Jennifer Johnston) also “got it in the neck,” from Paula Bennett over the canning of the Training Incentive Allowance. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10585365

    It seems that Dear Leader and his minions do not take kindly to criticism.

    I will be doing my bit to make some noise on Bomber’s banning.
    • Draco T Bastard 30.1

      9 October 2011 at 10:26 pm

      Next they’ll be bringing back lese-majesty.
31. randal 31

    9 October 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Radio New Zealand needs a complete clean out anyway, doesnt it.
    all of them think they know more than the person they are interviewing because the reearch staff has presented them with a whole sheaf of facts haven’t they. They dont let people speak for themselves do they? All their interviewers keep putting words into the interviewees mouths dont they? they use all interoogatives all the time dont they. They dont know that using interrogatives is an invalid mode of argument do they. They have become just another gang of poodles with logorhea haven’t they?
32. tc 32

    9 October 2011 at 7:39 pm

    There you have it folks such a blatant and arrogant use of power and influence by the nats by reshaping the board led by their good mate griffin, jettisoning the prickly plunket and ensuring the teeth are removed ever so subtly by a toothless morning report, mora’s Prozac zone and Kathryn Ryan hardly ever has true lefties on to balance out the ever increasingly toxic hooten and co.

    Absolute mastery of the message kids, watch and learn….bravo CT and Joyce you gotta hand it to them. Bomber does have his quirks but he’s got plenty of kindred spirits on the opposite side who all still have their soapboxes….some we fund.
33. ianmac 33

    9 October 2011 at 8:07 pm

    I sent my email of protest to rnz@radionz.co.nz
    • fmacskasy 33.1

      9 October 2011 at 9:40 pm

      Thanks for that email address, Ianmac – I’ll use it for what I have in mind.
34. donna 34

    9 October 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Bomber’s left-leaningness, his bigheadedness or otherwise, blah blah, is all beside the point. The point is that the theoretically politically neutral state broadcaster has censored someone who dared to hold the government, more particularly the Prime Minister, to account.
    If Radio NZ was really interested in fairness and balance they’d take hacks Joanne Black and Michelle Boag off the Panel straight away. And let’s not forget former National flunky and now chairman of the Radio NZ board Richard Griffin was a regular panelist as well.
    Fair and balanced – as long as it doesn’t offend National and Radio NZ gets to keep its funding stream (because that’s what this is about). We deserve better than this crap.
    • felix 34.1

      9 October 2011 at 9:23 pm

      +1
    • the sprout 34.2

      9 October 2011 at 9:49 pm

      hear hear

      going by the number this post has generated so quickly and the number of fb likes, i suspect RNZ have just bought themselves a bit of a scrap a-la-reverso-Henry. Good job – well deserved.

      I hope Peter Cavanaugh was counting on some migranes in the lead up to the election.
    • mike 34.3

      9 October 2011 at 11:44 pm

      Well said donna. If Bomber had said something false or misleading about John Key there could be a case against him. But he just told it like he saw it, he gave his opinion. Last time I checked that’s the the piont of the panel, giving an opinion. And RNZ can’t pretend they don’t know Bomber’s style. John Bishop critiqued his comments, so there was balance. People can watch the video and listen to what the witnesses had to say, and make up their own mind.

      Bottom line is Bomber dared to call a spade a spade, and he got censored for his opinion.

      Voltaire said “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
      It’s called freedom of speech.

      RNZ says “People who have certain opinions will be silenced.”
35. AAMC 35

    9 October 2011 at 9:39 pm

    +1
36. hoom 36

    9 October 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Listening to it its probably what I thought without listening to it: He stated the incident was a suicide attempt.
    Talking about suicide by media is verboten.
    You can talk about ‘sudden death’ and ‘tragic incident’ etc but can’t say ‘suicide attempt’.
    ————–
    Certainly any argument that it was unbalanced is ridiculous. I’ve heard similar stuff from Bomber on The Panel before & John Bishop was provided ample time to say his counter-points.
37. fmacskasy 37

    9 October 2011 at 11:23 pm

    This is getting more and more stalinist.

    RNZ has removed Part 2 of Jim Mora’s segment, which features Bradbury’s “offending comments”: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/20111006

    Note that Part 1 is given, but not Part 2. (There is a break for the 4.30 news update.)

    Compare that with Wednesday 5 October: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/20111005

    Parts 1 and 2 are given on this day.

    Talk about Big Brother revising history!!!

    Damn, if this isn’t enough to get us angry and let Cavanaugh know that his actions are politically obscene, then we might as well close up shop and go home.
    • felix 37.1

      9 October 2011 at 11:31 pm

      I don’t think they ever put it up. I couldn’t see it there on the day and others have said the same. RNZ audio usually goes up within the hour.
      • fmacskasy 37.1.1

        9 October 2011 at 11:49 pm

        You may or may not be correct, Felix – I couldn’t say. But does it mitigate RNZ’s actions whether Part 2 was ever put up, or was deleted later on?

        The point is that, except for an excerpt on “Mediawatch”, Bradbury’s comments have been excised; deleted; “vapourised” from history.

        Dunno about you, but this is sending shivers up and down my spine.
      • mike 37.1.2

        10 October 2011 at 12:05 am

        I tried to find it on the same day, part 1 was there but not part 2. Looked again the next day same deal.

        What was the main character’s job in Orwell’s 1984 again? Oh that’s right he was responsible for altering or deleting old news articles that made the government look bad.
    • hutch 37.2

      9 October 2011 at 11:53 pm

      It’s still there for now, as per my earlier post. I repeat, however, that there is no link to the program on the RNZ website.
      • fmacskasy 37.2.1

        10 October 2011 at 12:00 am

        Apologies, Hutch, I missed your post.
      • mike 37.2.2

        10 October 2011 at 1:54 am

        Forgive my ignorance here hutch, but how is it that I can listen to the item by using the thingee on your post but there’s no link to it on the RNZ website? What do you mean it’s still ‘there’?
        • felix 37.2.2.1

          10 October 2011 at 5:50 am

          It means the actual file exists on the RNZ server but RNZ haven’t linked to it on their webpage. To find it you’d need to know – or guess – the address of the audio file itself and type it into your browser. And seeing as the address for “…/xxx_part_1.mp3” is no secret, it’s probably not too tricky to figure out the address for “…/xxx_part_2.mp3”.
          • mike 37.2.2.1.1

            10 October 2011 at 4:37 pm

            Ah I see thank you.
        • lprent 37.2.2.2

          10 October 2011 at 8:39 am

          The file is on their site’s filesystem, but there is no link to it on the webpages.
38. Puddleglum 38

    9 October 2011 at 11:53 pm

    Radio New Zealand needs to explain why Martyn Bradbury’s comment stepped over a mark that other comments by him and many other comments by other panelists have not, apparently, stepped over.

    Banning somebody in this way is a remarkable step to have taken in the lead up to the election. RNZ clearly have a deliberate policy of choosing panelists who either have some local profile or have well-identified political positions (some being members of political parties – e.g., Boag, Franks, etc.).

    To choose people on the basis of their political position and then ban one of them for manifesting that position shows the farcical duplicity of the very basis of ‘The Panel’ and the cloying, conservative shallowness of its objectives. 

    I find this action deeply disturbing as it amounts to banning someone for expressing political views. It’s blatantly political in motivation. 
    • fmacskasy 38.1

      9 October 2011 at 11:58 pm

      Agreed, Puddlegum. My blog’s mainpage has been altered accordingly.

      I hope other bloggers take note of this incident and commit to a course of action they deem approppriate.

      I never thought I’d see this day in NZ. The implications of this are truly frightening…
      • RedLogix 38.1.1

        10 October 2011 at 12:35 am

        The implications of this are truly frightening…

        Yeah but somehow I’m not expecting “DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK” in big black letters all over the front page of the Herald anytime soon.
39. Carol 39

    10 October 2011 at 7:21 am

    Bomber has posted his explanation/understanding of the banning.

    http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2011/10/banned-from-radio-nz-for-criticizing.html

    I was phoned last Friday morning and told that my criticism of John Key was over the top and as such I had broken RNZ editorial policies. I thought they were joking.
    […]
    I was wrong, this was no joke. I was told I would be banned, I asked if that was for life and was left with the impression that a Labour-Green Government would be in power before i was ever let back on the station.
    […]
    I also want to clarify some of the spin Slater is using at the moment to suggest I didn’t inform RNZ of my opinion topic, giving them the justification to ban me. As usual Slater is wrong. I emailed RNZ at 2.38pm with my topic of John Key and before the show even began, when Jim was asking me about my topic off air, I read the first paragraph from my piece and we all had a laugh.
40. Chris 40

    10 October 2011 at 7:44 am

    Balance shouldn’t have to mean only bland opinions are allowed, RNZ.
41. Mike Smith 41

    10 October 2011 at 9:33 am

    more effective is to contact RNZ CEO Peter Cavanagh. peter.cavanagh@rnz.org.nz
    • fmacskasy 41.1

      10 October 2011 at 10:22 am

      That email address doesn’t work, Mike.

      Try: peter.cavanagh@radionz.co.nz
42. Puddleglum 42

    10 October 2011 at 9:39 am

    At the risk of scratching an old scab, how is it that Martyn Bradbury can be banned for providing provocative political commentary after having been chosen because he is someone who provides provocative political commentary yet, some weeks previously, a prominent New Zealander provides a completely unexpected, unprompted political endorsement of John Key but, so far as I’m aware, has not received a ban from RNZ?

    Surely, if the former incident did not meet ‘balance and fairness’ standards then the latter did not come within cooee of such standards.

    Perhaps ‘Bomber’ can still appear on ‘non-current affairs’ RNZ shows and, who knows, suddenly erupt with an endorsement for Labour, Greens or Mana and everything would be fine?? 
43. Bring back Bomber 43

    10 October 2011 at 9:45 am

    I just spoke to RNZ CEO’s PA who put me through to John Houson (she said he was responsible for the banning) who told me Bomber was actually banned for making defamatory statements about the prime minister, and that Key might sue Bomber for defamation. He couldn’t tell me what statements were defamatory, told me to look at the script.
    • fmacskasy 43.1

      10 October 2011 at 9:57 am

      So, a dissident can be banned merely because the PM threatens a lawsuit?

      Nooice.

      In effect, we might as well close down every media in this country, except for Whaleoil and Kiwiblog blogs. They might be safe.

      I have emailed my contacts and spread the word.

      I hope the storm gathers. This cannot be left unchallenged.
    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 43.2

      10 October 2011 at 10:19 am

      How does the RNZ CEO know that Key might sue?
      • freedom 43.2.1

        10 October 2011 at 10:40 am

        pillow talk?
    • ianmac 43.3

      10 October 2011 at 1:53 pm

      If that interferance from the PM can be verified then that could be a major issue! The Dark side of Key strikes again. Abuse of power.
44. freedom 44

    10 October 2011 at 10:25 am

    Bomber’s comments were made as an opinion on an editorial-based show, correct? Are not the defamation laws difficult to apply to editorial/opinion pieces?
    Won’t that be really expensive?
    Oh right, Key won’t be paying, we will !
    • Jum 44.1

      10 October 2011 at 12:53 pm

      Freedom,

      We already are – with the $43million loan to Media Works to advertise in the herald with huge photos of people like Paul Henry and co, the talk back hacks, to encourage people to listen to their station so that when Key gets on the radio for his talk about cats, while New Zealand’s independent radio broadcaster is being emasculated/spayed/neutered, everyone is there listening to their privately owned but ‘government’ subsidised radio station and not at the beach watching the tide of oil rolling in.
45. hoom 45

    10 October 2011 at 11:18 am

    I was phoned last Friday morning and told that my criticism of John Key was over the top and as such I had broken RNZ editorial policies. I thought they were joking.

    O_O
46. ianmac 46

    10 October 2011 at 3:27 pm

    Consider how long it took for TV1 to react to Paul Henry. RNZ much quicker like hours. John Key sure has control.
47. Jenny 47

    10 October 2011 at 7:30 pm

    .
    Bradbury needs to lay a complaint with the Employment tribunal.

    On grounds of unfair dismissal.

    Until RNZ release the grounds for Bradbury’s banning and dismissal, the damaging inference left in the public arena is that Bradbury’s claims on the PM’s behaviour were untrue.

    Bradbury could rightly claim that the dismissal and banning are damaging to his professional reputation as a media commentator.

    Bradbury also needs to lay a complaint with the broadcasting authorities, of unfair and unbalanced behaviour by RNZ.
    • lprent 47.1

      11 October 2011 at 12:59 am

      It is unlikely he was in an employee relationship with them. I do not think that th employment tribunal would look at it.
      • Jenny 47.1.1

        11 October 2011 at 6:32 am

        You are probably right. On the other hand there is nothing to stop him making a complaint to the Broadcasting authority.

        Depending on the outcome of his complaint Bradbury could have grounds for damages.
48. freedom 48

    11 October 2011 at 2:00 pm

    this turned up on the RNZ FB page
    http://www.facebook.com/RadioNewZealand

    The crap is gonna keep flying now if the first few comments are anything to go by. Pretty soon RNZ will have to give Bomber his own show 🙂 They are being complete dickheads in their ongoing protection of the PM and his not so innocent manipulations of the truth. Do RNZ forget it was the good people of NZ who went to bat for them so many times the last few decades. If people ever do get the power back, this is the sort of behaviour that will be remembered when it comes time for re-distribution of employment.

    There is nothing in the statements from Martyn Bradbury that could even loosely be called defamatory when put against a large stack of precedents sitting in the RNZ archives.

Links to post

1. Bradbury banned from Radio New Zealand for criticising John Key « fearfactsexposed: posted on 9 October 2011 at 5:22 pm
2. Censoring criticism of Key « The Standard: posted on 10 October 2011 at 10:01 am
3. Champions of free speech MIA « The Standard: posted on 13 October 2011 at 2:19 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS