Written By: - Date published: 7:13 pm, September 13th, 2008 - 69 comments
Categories: election 2008 -
Tags:
There’s an important difference between negative campaigning and dirty tricks but it already seems the two are getting confused in the media.
Negative campaigning is saying bad things about your opponent that are at least arguably true (eg Clark saying Key was like a tourist at the South Auckland markets).
Dirty campaigning is knowingly telling lies about your opponent (eg the Bush campaign’s lies about McCain in 2000 for example), making attacks on personal issues ie. something that has nothing to do with your opponent’s policies or political persona (eg the attacks on Clark for not having children), or using an unethical practice (eg. telling different audiences contradictory things).
Dirty campaigning should be condemned. Negative campaigning is valid; it is part of contrasting your case for being elected with your opponent’s. It would be better if everyone could just make a positive argument for being elected but the pubic also deserves to know about candidates’ negatives and only their opposition (and, occasionally, the media) will tel us about them. Incidentally, Key says he will not run a negative campaign but does what you hear him say meet that promise? Indeed, every time he say he won’t run a negative campaign he is purposely accusing Labour of being negative. That’s an attack from Key in itself and its usually followed by more hackneyed negative lines about the Government.
While we’re on the topic, when Helen Clark said ‘hard hats on’ to Labour supporters, contrary to what the commentariat seem to think, that did not mean ’get ready for a dirty campaign’. It meant ‘get ready to work hard’. I can see why someone who never has anything to do with manual labouring would get it wrong; they probably equate a hard hat with a military helmet, to be worn when shrapnel is flying. But working class people know you wear a hard hat when you’re on to a building site. ‘Hard hats on’ means ‘get to work’.
[Update: I didn't think this was necessary but appearantly it is: I'm not claiming that either side has a monopoloy on employing dirty tricks.]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
“Negative campaigning is saying bad things about your opponent that are at least arguably true (eg Clark saying Key was like a tourist at the South Auckland markets).”
SP, perhaps Labour could buy 30 seconds of TV advertising to tell Nick Smith to “take his pills” in front of the nation. That would only be negative, not dirty right?
eg the attacks on Clark for not having children indeed.
Do you actually believe what you post?
I can think of another example of “dirty”. Dragging politician’s families through the gutter for personal amusement. That’s pretty dirty isn’t it Dean. How do you post in the thread “On morality” with a straight face?
Interesting post SP, nice clear distinction. It will be interesting to catalogue examples of both negative and dirty tactics as the campaign progresses.
“I can think of another example of “dirty’. Dragging politician’s families through the gutter for personal amusement. That’s pretty dirty isn’t it Dean. How do you post in the thread “On morality’ with a straight face?”
Much the same way as you do, r0b. You obviously think turn about is fair play or you wouldn’t defend Labour with such veracity. Which by the way is my new favourite word after your party’s ex favourite foreign bagman – sorry, generous philanthropist – used it so effectively this week.
A Labour party member calling someone to task over dirty politics. The irony is quite delicious.
Much the same way as you do, r0b.
We both know that’s a lie Dean, and you can’t cite a single example.
You obviously think turn about is fair play or you wouldn’t defend Labour with such veracity.
I defend Labour because they are the anchor of a left wing government for NZ, and that is what is best for the people and the environment of NZ. No other reason.
defend Labour with such veracity.
Incidentally – for the first and probably last time you are correct with that claim (albeit probably inadvertently).
“We both know that’s a lie Dean, and you can’t cite a single example.”
We both know you took one sentence from a paragraph and quoted it in isloation. Sorry, didn’t work. Besides:
“Incidentally – for the first and probably last time you are correct with that claim (albeit probably inadvertently).”
How about it, r0b? Should Nick Smith take his pills? Are Labour guilty of dirty politics?
Take your time. However if you prefer you can instead take a leaf out of SP’s book and call me a dick.
How about:
[03 September 2008
"Young people are a group I?m passionate about,? says Mr Key.
So is Gary Glitter.
Posted by Prog Blog at 1:19 PM]
Is that ‘arguably true’? Is this the common currency in ‘left blogs?’ say what you want about Key, as long as it is not an outright lie?
Set the ‘standard’ then wash your hands of it with semantics?
Monkey-Boy: that would be a joke. Tasteless, perhaps, but nobody with a functioning brain would take it seriously.
As for the Nick Smith jibes, in the House people on National & Labour benches shout stuff at each other. Other parties too, I expect. Some of it isn’t very nice. It has never been any different. If you don’t believe that, start reading your history books. It’s a House of “Representatives”, warts and all.
Everybody who follows politics, and has been around longer than five minutes, knows this. So Dean, you can either play Sanctimonious Maximus, and pretend that It’s All The Other Lot’s Fault S’Not Fair S’Not Fair, or you can credit the rest of us with a bit of sense and stop … well, being a dick.
As for dirty campaigning, that’s another of those tedious “Let’s Ignore the Rest of the World” lines from the embarrassingly insular New Zealand media. Our elections are much cleaner than those in the USA, Australia and the UK, to name but three. Almost pristine by comparison.
John Key will get attacked in the campaign, not because of Dirty Tricks, but for a fully justified reason: he wants to run the country, and he’s not up to the job of Prime Minister. Actually he’s not up to a coherent English sentence.
We both know you took one sentence from a paragraph and quoted it in isloation.
Nothing in isolation Dean, your whole comment, one sentence, here it is:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1454#comment-24082
Dean enjoys dragging politician’s families through the gutter for his own amusement. So he’s perhaps not the best person to comment on matters of morality, or pass judgement on dirty tactics.
(PS – look up “veracity” in a dictionary)
MB, I won’t smear the entire right by pretending they are all as stupid as you. I’ll just ask you.
By what logic can one tasteless shitty post on one blog be representative of the entire left?
How is your comment not a smear on the left? Do you see comments like that one often from the left? How prominent? How much support do they get from lefties? Cites please, or an apology. Take your pick.
Compare that to whaleoil’s photoshops and the support he gets in comments from righties to his more disgusting posts. Or whoever that idiot was that photoshopped Clark’s head onto a hermaphrodite. Or the numerous blogs dedicated to the dycocracy conspiracy mongering, ably led by the popular publisher Ian Wishart.
Tarring ‘the left’ with that single unrepresentative post is an exact example of a dirty tactic.
So thanks for that.
r0b
Thanks for that link, I miss AncientGeek’s comments. There was a righteous dude.
(PS – look up “veracity’ in a dictionary)
spoilsport
I was looking forward to Dean’s uses of his new favorite word.
what really annoys me is the pseuds in the media like fran mouldy who are continually projecting their own infantile id feelings onto the candiadates. Every second thing she says is a perjorative adjective. The electorate can do without these infantilised so called journalists delivering a subjective commentary on everyone they dont like.
Negative or dirty.. depends how you say it really and the look on helens face when she insulted Key was telling.
She is getting very desperate and it was framed by TV1 as such.
The full page pics on the press this morning were priceless too – her dream team partner peters has really taken it out her these past weeks… and more to come apparently, blackjack anyone?
mike that is a barefaced lie. you just heard fran mouldy say that on teevee tonight and until you can back up that assertion with any evidence then you are a liar just like mould.
“Everybody who follows politics, and has been around longer than five minutes, knows this. So Dean, you can either play Sanctimonious Maximus, and pretend that It’s All The Other Lot’s Fault S’Not Fair S’Not Fair, or you can credit the rest of us with a bit of sense and stop well, being a dick.”
I never said that Labour’s opposition weren’t as bad.
Why is everything an us vs them debate with you lefties? Reminds me of a schoolyard.
r0b:
“Nothing in isolation Dean, your whole comment, one sentence, here it is:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1454#comment-24082
Dean enjoys dragging politician’s families through the gutter for his own amusement. So he’s perhaps not the best person to comment on matters of morality, or pass judgement on dirty tactics.”
Nothing in that comment suggested that I agreed with the way Davis has been treated, r0b. It’s not my fault your written comprehension is muddied by your political agenda. I was simply pointing out a truth – the left, such as yourself, like to be offended when such things are mentioned. Yet they’re perfectly capable of ignoring the same from their own bunch.
Which includes you at this point, seeing as you’re avoiding answering wether or not it’s acceptable for Labour MPs to tell Nick Smith to “take his pills”.
I actually expected better from you, but I suppose it is nearly election time so I might have to make some allowances.
impressive piece of hair-splitting. Of course, it allows you free reign on anything that you consider to be true, regardless of whether it is provable or not.
did you actually make any sense out of that macd? as far as I could see it was all yadda yadda yadda then nick smith take ya pills then a typical tory trick of looking down his nose and playing the paternal bestower on the WHOLE world. well dean should realise that Labour is here to make things fair for ‘all’ while the tories seek to appeal to a narrow base of grabbers and snatchits who can barely disguise their rapaciousness in their ultimately failed quest to get elected.
Nothing in that comment suggested that I agreed with the way Davis has been treated, r0b
You really are shameless Dean. First it was quoted out of context. Now it doesn’t mean what it means. Nothing in that comment? How about: “Highly amusing”. Hmmm. So anyway, while you’re giving lectures on morality, why not take a good long look in the mirror.
PB I miss AncientGeek’s comments. There was a righteous dude.
I feel like AG is still with us in spirit bookie!
I was looking forward to Dean’s uses of his new favorite word.
Damn you’re right – I shoulda let it run.
Dean:
“seeing as you’re avoiding answering wether or not it’s acceptable for Labour MPs to tell Nick Smith to “take his pills’”
“Why is everything an us vs them debate with you lefties? Reminds me of a schoolyard.”
I guess I’m one of these ‘lefties’ you keep talking about Dean, and I’m a newbie here, but I will say that I don’t think that kind of taunting is pleasing behaviour on either side. However, the fact that people are so passionate about their political beliefs will always lead to a certain amount of name-calling and point scoring. I would think it naive in the extreme to expect otherwise come campaign time.
Either way I’m voting Labour for their policies and you’re probably voting for one of the blue or yellow lot….
But hey, we agree that name calling is not nice. So count me out of the schoolyard.
I think that some authors on The Standard have been campaigning on a negative/dirty tightrope since its inception last August. I also think that if what has so far passed for ‘negative’ is anything to go by, there is more of the same in the pipeline. There is going to be a concerted effort to intensify the negative/dirty campaigning between now and the election, at least.
Now you can put lipstick on it, and dress it up with a neat little speech about ‘negative/versus dirty, hell you can even put a purdy pink chiffon on it, douse it in Chanel No. 5 and call it Gertrude. It is still a pig.
The post we are discussing is an indication that, as unpleasant and morally compromised as some may feel about the unrelenting shit-fest they are about to unleash, even they have consciences. So there is a chink of light breaking through the turds. But it also renders the post a flip-flop of ethical equivocation. Previous evidence indicates a concerted strategy to destroy Key’s credibility which is only going to get nastier – sorry – ‘dirtier’ – sorry – ‘negativer’. Key has said he will not campaign dirty, but you have indicated you will, but just offer the defence that you are merely being ‘negative’. You just lack the courage of your convictions, that is all.
It could be argued.
She’s a great prime minister. She’s worth twice what Key is.
well if you want to arguer about all that stuff please go somewhere else. this is a serious blog for people to express their point of viw on the subjects put forward by the keepers of the flame. it is theirs just like anything of yours is yours. if you dont like take a hike.
Politics has only really got dirty since Helen Clark took the helm, Cancerous and corrosive are her words I think. It is also another example of the arrogence of the left to accuse others of doing something when they are doing it all the time.eg accusing the Nats on the priveleges commitee for having an agenda as if the Labour MPs don’t, do me a favour what were all the patsy questions. “do you think you could have been talking to his brother Wayne Peters?” What a joke. Well done to the Standard in trying to defend the indefensible.
[lprent: The Standard is a program and has no opinions. There are about 12 people that write articles here, who often have differing opinions. Address it to one of them. ]
It has been great to have a prime minister who has put the interests of the country first, and played a coy game- not swinging in behind any of the zealous foreign policy positions of our era, but not neglecting our duty or interests either.
So she signed a painting for charity. It was for charity, and she’s busy.
Key the other week on Ashcroft- I think someone in National met him. Knowing full well ‘Actually it was me and he has just left’.
Robin- what do the Nats stand for and who do they represent?
Who is going to benefit from ACC being privatised or ‘opened to competition, apart from Australian insurers and lawyers?
That is the difference between Labour and National.
Monkey-Boy
Dirty campaigning? Read your own blog. Look up “hypocrite” in your dictionary. Then look in the mirror.
Robin
Politics has only really got dirty since Helen Clark took the helm
Utter rubbish. Ever heard of Muldoon?
Iwi/Kiwi
This is cancerous and corrosive.
I guess I’m one of these ‘lefties’ you keep talking about Dean, and I’m a newbie here, but I will say that I don’t think that kind of taunting is pleasing behaviour on either side.
Hi DeeDub, welcome aboard. Nice to welcome a newbie – I’ve been here too long.
Yes, agreed, I think that particular incident went over the line. Labour have been running the Government for 9 years, and although their record is excellent, it isn’t perfect.
But compare the occasional stupid comment (Labour) with, as Paul Robeson rightly points out, Orewa and Iwi/Kiwi and the like. Compare it with The Hollow Men. Compare it with running a deliberately deceptive Labour Lite facade to try and conceal your secret agenda and get yourself elected. Compare it with what National will do to this country if they do manage to deceive their way in to government…
r0b
You were starting to froth in your last paragraph.
Nice to see everyone forming into two lines on this post and shouting at each other bit like parliament at question time.
Clinton was right with his view that the get your hard hats comment by the PM meant that she wanted people to get to work but her speech on Friday in my opinion suggests that this years campaigning for the political parties is going to be characterised by playing on peoples fears, smears and character assassination.
As gobsmacked said way back this is pretty much situation normal for politics in most of the countries we are similar to – and the reason why in trustworthiness and popularity stakes politicians and political machines perform rather poorly.
Dirty campaigning? Read your own blog. Look up “hypocrite’ in your dictionary. Then look in the mirror.
Gosh Gobby can’t you take a joke? Just lighten up.
Actually, on reflection you are right, i am not above using sly innuendo or entendre. But have I ever refused to discuss an opposing view? have I ever told anyone they are ‘banned ofr life’ if I do not enjoy their opinions? have I ever been linked to a political party organisation? Did I ever claim I was set up to represent a party or movement, then use the blog as a platform to advocate for something with a tenuous link to that? If that qualifies me as a hypocrite, then guilty as charged.
Actually I was so stung by the accusation gobby – I looked it up: Hypocrite
Noun:
a person who pretends to be what he or she is not [Greek hupokrinein to pretend].
I think I qualify for a sick-pass on this one.
But, everyone! don’t take my word for it go to ‘Monkey with Typewriter’ for my unique take on current affairs and politics with searing insightful political commentary, and make up your own minds. It’s online right now!
Yes! hat’s waht I said! you can make up your own minds!
I dont think I will bother going there if it is the same lackluster stuff that you write here. sorreeeeee…why waste the effort?
Robin Grieve:
“Cancerous and corrosive are her words I think”
Thank you Yoda. Not sure why, but I thought you might ne a left-wing Jedi master?
The right-wirng is the best, honest, brightest place to be. Go Nat’s, save NZ from the brink of oblivion! Let Labour fight dirty, the voter’s will appreciate Key’s much fresher approach!