Written By: - Date published: 11:44 am, June 27th, 2008 - 59 comments
Categories: john key, national, spin -
Tags: hollow men, misdirection
There’s a technique that sits at the heart of conjuring tricks called misdirection the act of drawing attention away from the trick itself. You all know how it works: the conjurer will flourish a brightly coloured handkerchief in one hand, while the trick is quietly taking place unnoticed in the other.
The same thing happens in spin when a politician wishes to draw attention away from an issue, and National are particularly adept at it. Yesterday’s example of producing a decontextualised quote about the treaty from Cullen in order to draw attention away from Key’s comments was a classic example of misdirection in action, and was very similar to when Key was caught out claiming the Iraq war was over and then tried to claim Labour had said similar things.
But the mother of all misdirections, the one which is probably framed and hanging on Crosby Textor’s office wall of fame, is the ‘stolen emails’ misdirection. Remember that?
Rather than discuss the content of the emails that featured in the Hollow Men, National’s response was to make a huge fuss over the fact that they were ‘stolen’ and make that the story instead. The fact that there has been no evidence produced to prove this and the police believe it was an inside job is irrelevant now because like all of National’s spin their misdirection sits within a greater framework of hit and run PR and they are confident (with considerable reason) that the memory hole will take care of the story if they can get just past it in the short term.
So just remember, when National are making a big song and dance about something it probably pays to watch their other hand.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Why was a court ‘obliged’ to accept anything that was ‘heresay’?
At least we’re getting somewhere with this, I take it back, you seem to have some idea of the concept, even if you are playing pretty fast and loose with it. So now we’re into the facts.
Now you have to demonstrate that:
a) There was always the intention to pass the bill under urgency, and
b) Someone lied to deliberately trick the high court into not urgently looking at the case, and
c) that there was a definitive advantage gained.
And even if you can do that, it’s not misdirection! It’s not raising a tangentially connected point to divert attantion away from the main point. So hopefully you can see why this blog post was necessary, as your original point disputed…
As for the rest of it, maybe not arrogance raising its ugly head (I don’t want to have to get into another debate over definitions), but suffice to say it’s simply behaving like a pratt.
Whather you raised that point on purpose is irrelevant – it wasn’t misdirection in the first place.
Matthew, that’s not very nice, why can’t you follow previous advice and keep it civil?
you know teh ancient Chinese had a system for solving disputes – they would alow the two people to argue in front of a crowd as much as they liked, and whoever struck the first blow would be deemed to have lost the argument.
‘breathtaking arrogance was perhaps a ‘feint to the left’, but ‘pratt’? Well –
you have struck the first blow, my friend. That indicates to me that you are not as sure of yourself as you would have us believe. Same applied to Bill, by suggesting I’m not very bright..
I now feel impelled to fine you one Guinness.
Monkey boy, most people who comment on blogs would consider you to have struck the first blow when you started insisting you were right, and demanding drinks as a result. When you behave on the blog worse than I’m sure you do under the depths of intoxication (if you imbibe) it’s rich to claim innocence!
Might I mention you put words in my mouth along the lines of calling Key a ‘tosser’. Slippery, untrustworthy perhaps, but these are titles he has earned and probably wears with pride. Your crude epithet has no value.
I’m not ‘very sure of myself’, if I were I’d have no reason to come here and test my ideas and ideology; without wanting to sound like a grumpy old bastard, I can’t be bothered putting up with people trying to start flaming and petty scoring. You might notice how much more productive debate can be without all the extra shenanigans.
Make mine a Framingham ’06 Select Riesling.
Historian says Key’s comments are accurate
Press Release by Auckland University of Technology at 3:10 pm, 27 Jun 2008
AUT University Professor of history Paul Moon has come out in support of National Party leader John Key’s comments about New Zealand being a nation that came together peacefully.
“If you look at New Zealand’s history during the 1830s and 1840s”, says Professor Moon, “Key’s comments reflect accurately the way in which the country emerged as a nation. It did not take place at the point of a gun, but with the broad consent of the peoples living in the country.”
Moon has written books detailing the events of both decades, and says those attacking Key may have fallen victim to historical revisionism.
“Some people have argued New Zealand was conquered by the British in the 1840s, and that deceit and threats of force were relied on to trick Maori into accepting British rule. But this is simply bad history. All the evidence shows an enormous amount of co-operation and mutual goodwill between Maori and Europeans in the period following the signing of the Treaty.”
Moon believes the criticisms of Key’s comments probably have less to do with historical accuracy and more to do with political point-scoring.
ENDS
Ha, stupid Standard.
[so, now he did mean the words? Because for the last day they've been trying to get away from the words and claim his meaning was different. But if one academic says his plain meaning is correct, I guess you'll take that too. Will you be so accepting of other academic opinions in future? Come to think of it, aren't you a climate change denier? SP]
“…producing a decontextualised quote about the treaty from Cullen in order to draw attention”…
Do we have access to the full Key quote and context, anyone got a link for it…..?
….sounds a strange thing for Key to say…hell, I think I got the jist of NZ history by about age 12….
Anyhow, nice post Bill, save the (almost) faux-shock that this, or any other technique doesn’t exist day in day out in the fields of PR or corp commuications….
People in grass houses shouldn’t stow thrones…
…and no, I’m not going to entertain a “provide examples” retort – seriously, no-one expects any different, this is standard armoury for any party, government, civil service and corporate, including Labour….if it weren’t then I suspect there’d be a fair few people out of work in Bowen House/Beehive….
Good grief, someone lurks in the Halls of Academia and is possessed of an independent, non-socialist viewpoint!
Quick, chaps, grab your pitchforks! Altogether now… “Burn him… burn him…!”
““Burn him burn him !’”
We can’t anymore – carbon emissions and all that.
Please don’t tell me that Richie cheats at the breakdown too!
It’s funny, the same bloggers who complain that the opposition oppose everything the Gummit does (that’s why they’re called the opposition) are the same people who find wrong in everything that Key does.
Perhaps it all reflects how desperate the left is getting about the fact that the writing is on the wall.
Rex – I think that’s now two academics who posses an independent, non-socialist viewpoint or at least are willing to challenge revisionist thinking.
He’s not moving away from his words, Steve, and it isn’t honest of you to claim that he is. John Key is sticking by the entirety of his original statement, not the conveniently edited version that you continue to print to propagate your nonsense. John Key was referring to the peaceful way that led to the signing of the treaty of waitangi, and termed it a defining moment in New Zealand’s history, as opposed to the experience of other countries, which were annexed or faced revolution.
Clinton, how can you deny something that isn’t true? Are you a Climate Change make-believer?
Also, I do follow science, and I object to your pessimism. For your leisure: http://www.climatescience.org.nz
Cullen and co were very quick to point out the inaccuracies of what Key said, and here is proof that Cullen sucks at his history as much as he does at economics.
Keep rooting for Labour, Clinton. You’ll make an ounce of difference one day.
Skeptic: Ah yes – it was peaceful in the aftermath of the total exhaustion of the musket wars. Those were the most terrible wars that had happened in NZ until that time.
There is a brief synopsis here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars
Tell me where did the muskets come from? One of the main reasons that Maori were interested in the treaty was to stop the supply of arms to different parties. The crown claimed that they could do that by controlling the European traders.
Now personally I’d have said that it wasn’t a civil war or a rebellion. However the treaty was not a result of peace – it was a result of arms trafficking by the Europeans. Hardly peaceful.
I think that both you and JK really need to read some history. Try Belich.
Ah Hooligan: I see you’re pushing the idiots guide to paleoclimatology.
From what I remember about the people behind this site (last time I looked) is that there really aren’t people trained in or working in the field. There are chemists, meteorologists, and other unrelated disciplines plus a whole pile of corporate money.
When I can see some people that work in earth sciences, paleogeology, paleoclimatology, or climatology and I can have a peek at their work rather than bloody press releases for the uninformed. Then I’ll start to treat the site and the people with a bit more respect.
At present I’d treat it and anyone who tries to use it as an authority with the contempt that it deserves.
I’d discuss the evidence with you, but I suspect that you have a basaltic brain density of a university wall rather than a science student.
Thank you for the history lesson Lynne. Yes I’ve read Belich, and Orange, and Bassett, and Ward, and Maxwell, and Cowan, and Adams, among others.
Your point about the musket wars might hold more water if it wasn’t the point that Michael Cullen was making. He pointed to the land wars following the signing of the treaty as evidence that New Zealand did not come together peacefully and without conflict. John Key’s statement specifically referred to his pride in New Zealand negotiating the Treaty in a climate of peaceful and wilful negotiations between Maori and the crown.
And your argument also doesn’t hold water in light of Michael Cullen’s statement at waitangi day in 2005, when he said New Zealand was “a country with a continuous political tradition unbroken by civil war or revolution for over 150 years – something a bare handful of countries can celebrate”.
But nice attempt to be pompous Lynne.
But nice attempt to be pompous Lynne.
Oh – I love it – you adopt a pompous tone in order to criticise someone’s supposed pomposity. Is that like self-referential? Are you like, employing the flat irony of the pastiche? Dude you’re a goddamn postmodern revelation! Can I use you as a case study?
It is interesting that this thread demonstrates the level of misdirection that the right prefers.
I don’t think I’ve seen quite the level of crap since the last time I was in a room full of tech salespeople vying for my attention.
Fair point robin it wasn’t necessary and to be fair I probably started it with lynne a while back. There isn’t a need for it and I will try to desist.
So – what does Cullen’s comment have to do with it?
Aren’t we discussing Key’s ignorant viewpoint on the history leading up to the Treat in 1840? I mean I’ve heard of people looking at life through rose coloured glasses (Elton John?) – but this is ridiculous.
Just taking Key’s explanation as stated – he is still bloody wrong. It was the peace settlement after the worst war in NZ history at that point. About 25 years later war erupted again.
JK’s statements (bearing in mind the populations at the time) are like saying the treaty signed at the end of WW1 was done in a spirit of peace (and not after the needless slaughter of soldiers and civilians).
The guy is pig ignorant of his countries history. Not good if he is to deal with the reverberations that still come from that bloody history.
Well Lynn
New Zealand didn’t actually exist as a state. It was more a series of ‘chieftenates’ that would go through intertribal warfare. To even call it a ‘war’ is stretching it as that implies a single conflict between unified or allied forces when it was plainly local power struggles. We call it ‘the musket wars’ for our modern convenience.
How do you know it was the worst war in NZ history to that date? We know very little about pre European intertribal struggles.
Skeptic: I really don’t mind, and you can stand up for yourself. It does make you about the safest commentator on the blog from the behavioural instincts. I can’t trust them when I’m arguing with someone.
I got in the habit of following up on you after being told to stick to being a tech. That is always a bad idea telling a generalist to do that. I have degrees and papers in almost everything.
FYI: My worst area is tech (which is why I work there). My best areas are management and history – which is why I don’t work there. My first degree was in science – specifically earth sciences. I’m also a voracious reader, and have a 20 year habit of being sarcastic on the nets.
insider: If you go and read the journals of the missionaries prior to 1840, they recorded quite a lot of the oral histories. There were quite a good selection at the Auckland War Memorial Museum library last time I looked (a couple of decades ago).
My recollection is that there was a lot of comment about the brutality that the musket wars brought. Also from memory, I seem to remember that the anglicians sent a petition to the crown in the 1830′s about the trading of arms and its effect.
In any case there is quite a lot of documented evidence that those wars were pretty extreme in the remembered history of the maori oral tradition.
The muskets themselves did not cause tribal warfare … it just made the end result far worse.
A point that is conveniently overlooked is while there was obviously warfare between British and Maori there was also warfare between different Maori tribes which has nothing to do with what Key was saying.
The point here is that plenty here are trying to blame the “right” for misdirection when anyone would reasonably agree it is politics 101.
Helen and Michael always tell the truth … yeah, right!
lprent:
insider: If you go and read the journals of the missionaries prior to 1840,
So what you’re saying is you want us to go and study the missionaries’ position?
*ba-boom… ching!*
Thank you. Please remember to tip your waitress. But then stand her up again.
Hey Mr Pierson, way up the top you accused me of misdirecting myself and that I do it all the time. Someone else said similar yesterday.
What it is in fact is that only certain issues interest me and those are the ones I comment on. They are often peripheral to the main post hence the appearance of misdirecting. I am just commenting on the issue that interests me only. I tend to simply not waste time commenting on issues that dont interest me. Good example is this particular matter – I dont care about the main subject but the issue of the pot calling the kettle black does interest me. Misdirecting isnt intended and I usually acknowledge myself that I am going off topic. Anyway enough of my self-defence…
Rex: rex, rex, rex….
Personally I think your life is likely to be tormented. I’ve forwarded this to some feminist friends (all ex-waitresses). I do this in the spirit of frivolous fridays…
Ever read Dante’s Inferno? What ring will you wear? <EVIL Grin>