Open mike 06/12/2012

89 comments on “Open mike 06/12/2012 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. muzza 1

   6 December 2012 at 7:13 am

   NZ Perceived least corrupt 2012

   What a great word to use when trying to fill peoples heads with nonsense..

   I reckon people are seeing through it these days!
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     6 December 2012 at 7:59 am

     That’s actually scary. The corruption in NZ over the last few years has been of the in our face, don’t care variety and yet still people think we’re the least corrupt?

     /facepalm
     • TheContrarian 1.1.1

       6 December 2012 at 9:05 am

       yes Draco knows much better than those silly fools at the international organisation who utilise their expertise and training in a transparent fashion.

       I mean what do these idiots know?
       http://www.transparency.org/whoweare/organisation/board_of_directors/1/

       Draco’s knows best.

       (p.s The report say’s NZ is least corrupt – not that there is no corruption)
       • Jackal 1.1.1.1

         6 December 2012 at 9:43 am

         Well I think the finding is highly questionable… Not only was the Serious Fraud Office predicting a huge increase in serious fraud cases, New Zealand has become one of the worlds favourite places for tax evaders to hide their ill-gotten gains.

         We also have a largely ineffective system to address various types of fraud and you would be hard pressed to find anybody who hasn’t been affected. Not to mention that this is meant to be an annual report that actually gets trotted out around three or four times a year or whenever National needs some good news.

         PS the report says we’re PERCEIVED to be least corrupt not that we are actually least corrupt. So a perception from various institutes with a vested interest and academics from other countries or a perception from New Zealanders… Take your pick.
         • TheContrarian 1.1.1.1.1

           6 December 2012 at 9:48 am

           “Not only was the Serious Fraud Office predicting a huge increase in serious fraud cases”

           Fraud =/= corruption

           Seriously, if you want to know what proper corruption looks like spend sometime in South Africa. I have spent a lot of time there and have witnessed first hand what institutional corruption looks like and NZ doesn’t have it.
           • Jackal 1.1.1.1.1.1

             6 December 2012 at 9:56 am

             Yes! Fraud is a type of corruption TheContrarian. I’m sure you’re right that South Africa has a lot of corruption, but unless corruption has become a lot worse in other countries at a time corruption in New Zealand has become worse according to the Serious Fraud Office, the perception index is wrong! To argue that NZ doesn’t have any institutional corruption is naive.
             • McFlock …

               6 December 2012 at 1:42 pm

               This is true, but the survey is of perceptions in relation to other countries.
                          
               So rewriting the tax codes to some of the lowest levels in the world is unethical, but as long as the majority of people paid the legally required amount, it’s not “corrupt”. 
                          
               Whether NZ is more corrupt than it once was is not the metric of the survey.
                
               • Jackal …

                 6 December 2012 at 2:12 pm

                 So the metric of the survey is whether people can be duped into thinking New Zealand is the least corrupt country 🙂 Glad we figured that one out.
                 • McFlock …

                   6 December 2012 at 2:40 pm

                   Well, it might actually be less corrupt than, e.g. Aus, Greece, Russia or the US. 
                      
                   Whether that means we have an objectively honest population is another matter entirely. But at least we’re not as bad as the French.
                 • TheContrarian …

                   6 December 2012 at 4:07 pm

                   In comparison to most countries NZ does not have a problem with institutional corruption.
                   • felix …

                     6 December 2012 at 4:12 pm

                     100% honest compared to other countries.
                   • Jackal …

                     6 December 2012 at 4:36 pm

                     Here’s some facts from actual research TheContrarian, perhaps you might like to try it yourself sometime:

                     4% of NZ’ers admit paying a bribe to win business (c.f. 0% Denmark; 1% UK; 2% Australia)
                     Only 44% of NZX top 50 companies have anti-bribery policies (c.f. 72% UK; 69% USA; 50% Europe)
                     73% NZ’ers believe corruption is increasing

                     Despite these numbers that show New Zealand shouldn’t be perceived as the least corrupt country in the world, the actual mechanism of institutional corruption is very hard to quantify, and other studies have found that corrupt, fraudulent, coercive or collusive practices in New Zealand are endemic within our institutional arrangements.

                     This being the case, and making note of what the actual research shows, I would have to say you’re categorically wrong TheContrarian… But what else is new?
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     6 December 2012 at 5:23 pm

                     Jackal, all your figures show is that New Zealanders do a lot of business in corrupt countries – I would assume China, Indonesia, and the koha cultures of the Pacific would feature heavily. Not the same thing as New Zealand being particularly corrupt at all. At least that’s what I’m assuming as you haven’t bothered to link to any site that will tell me the context for the data, or even whether you just pulled those numbers out of your arse or not. Cite sources please.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     6 December 2012 at 5:31 pm

                     “I would have to say you’re categorically wrong TheContrarian”

                     Well Jackal I suggest you also send your figures to transparency.org and let them know how wrong they are.

                     “73% NZ’ers believe corruption is increasing ”
                     Argumentum ad populum. Logical fallacy.

                     And yes, sources please.

                     @Felix:
                     “100% honest compared to other countries.”
                     Well yes, it is a comparative scale and no where do they, or I, suggest there is zero corruption in NZ.
                   • felix …

                     6 December 2012 at 5:34 pm

                     “Argumentum ad populum. Logical fallacy.”

                     Doesn’t that apply to the whole thing though? Seeing as it’s only measuring “perceived” corruption?
                   • TheContrarian …

                     6 December 2012 at 5:43 pm

                     Not really, you wouldn’t say because 98% of climatologists agree in Global Warming it is an Argumentum ad populum.

                     To say “73% NZ’ers believe corruption is increasing” therefore NZ is corrupt is an Argumentum ad populum.
                     It is the same as saying most of the population believes in some sort of god therefore god exists.

                     (Though I see your point)
                   • felix …

                     6 December 2012 at 6:02 pm

                     Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what they’re describing.

                     I thought “perceived” referred to the perceptions of ordinary people as measured by corruption experts, as opposed to the perceptions of the corruption experts themselves.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     6 December 2012 at 6:15 pm

                     Lets put it this way

                     A comparative study which publicly announces it’s methodology, results and is considered to be relatively accurately in its representation of real world corruption is much less of an argumentum ad populum than Jackal arguing the study is bunk because 76% of NZer’s said so.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     6 December 2012 at 6:23 pm

                     What does “perception” mean?

                     Hard.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     6 December 2012 at 6:26 pm

                     Well, whatever.

                     I’ll throw my lot in with with well know and well respected international metrics which can be fairly well applied in the real world over Jackal and his unsourced statistics.
                   • felix …

                     6 December 2012 at 6:27 pm

                     Sure, although I don’t actually see a contradiction between those two claims.

                     i.e. we can be perceived as being less corrupt than others while also perceiving ourselves becoming more corrupt than we were.

                     Measuring two completely different things, innit.
                   • Pascal's bookie …

                     6 December 2012 at 6:33 pm

                     innit indeed.

                     And whatever is or isn’t wrong with the 76% stat, you can’t really call it a popularity fallacy, when what you are seeking to find is a perception, even if you do put it in fucking latin.

                     if what your looking for is a perception, then ‘what people reckon’ is what you are looking for. To call that a fallacy would be a category error of some sort.
                   • Jackal …

                     6 December 2012 at 6:33 pm

                     This might be news to you Populuxe1, but New Zealand companies do a lot of business within New Zealand. The research would be similar to the percentage difference between foreign business and local business. I believe local trade still makes up the biggest contributor to our GDP.

                     The statistical source is the Serious Fraud Office. There is other relevant research that backs up my argument btw. Instead of just being a couple of opinionated wankers TheContrarian and Populuxe1, why don’t you look into the matter yourselves?

                     Claiming that these figures should be sent to transparency.org is entirely stupid. Any research agency would be well versed in such information, and as McFlock succinctly points out it’s a perception index, not the reality of corruption within New Zealand.

                     If you don’t believe the opinion of the masses is correct, you must also be arguing against a majority voting in a government TheContrarian. Anti-democratic much?

                     You might note that the figures above the 73% of New Zealanders believing corruption is increasing ie 4% admitting paying bribes and 44% anti-bribery policies, is not Argumentum ad populum. Interesting that the research backs up the New Zealand public perception eh!
   • Bill 1.2

     6 December 2012 at 9:19 am

     The index measures the perception of corruption in the public sector and not the financial sector, but Transparency’s Europe director Anne Koch…

     Yeah, yeah. Possibly a deliberate and misleading point at which to cut the quoted text, but hey.

     The survey, which was first conducted in 1995, draws on a variety of sources that capture perceptions of corruption, including World Bank and World Economic Forum assessments, the African Development Bank’s governance ratings, and Transparency International’s own Bribe Payers Survey.

     http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greece-most-corrupt-eu-country-survey-reveals-8386456.html
2. felix 2

   6 December 2012 at 8:30 am

   Jeebers. Any ladies thinking of voting National should probably have a squiz at this thread and see what they really think of you: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/12/men_only_clubs.html
   • joe90 2.1

     6 December 2012 at 8:54 am

     Troglodytes.

     http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
   • weka 2.2

     6 December 2012 at 9:32 am

     Couldn’t bring myself to read the comments at KB, but I have to say that I’m in two minds about men’s clubs. I think it’s fine for different genders to have their own spaces (I’ve worked in feminist collectives where men are not allowed). The problem with men’s clubs historically is that they’ve been the bastions of the old boys who have been running the show and not willing to share that power and privilege with anyone else – hence the original challenges about membership. I’m guessing that women moving in those circles of power needed membership in order to make headway. The problem now is that they’re like to become bastions of the remnants of the old boy’s networks and/or repositories for the misogyny that’s no longer acceptable in open society (think men’s rights groups also).
      
     Not sure what the solution is there, but the law firm in question, if it had any sense of anything, would hold the party somewhere else.
     • felix 2.2.1

       6 December 2012 at 9:42 am

       Trust me weka, most of the comments had very little to do with men’s clubs.

       And yep, the issue is with the attitude of the Law Society, not with the rules of the club.
       • Pascal's bookie 2.2.1.1

         6 December 2012 at 9:48 am

         I had to give up.

         There is only so much ‘sex advice for Pete George from someone dumber than Pete Geroge’ I can take.

         But there were lolz.
         • weka 2.2.1.1.1

           6 December 2012 at 10:31 am

           Oh come on, you have to link to that now Pb.
           • Pascal's bookie 2.2.1.1.1.1

             6 December 2012 at 10:52 am

             It all starts about half way through the thread felix linked to.

             You were warned. *shudders*
             • vto …

               6 December 2012 at 1:36 pm

               The difference between left and right is quite substantial. This is reflected in the nature of commenting between the standard and kiwiblog. People may appear roughly the same and live in the same types of houses and lead similar lives, but their underlying philosophies and approaches to life are often at opposite and extreme ends of the spectrum. A bit like how two seemingly similar people can live in the same street yet one believes in eternal life and one doesn’t – can’t get more extreme ends of outlook than that.

               What would be interesting is to post the same subject on each site at the same time and see how different the comment streams are. And the one linked to by Felix would be a great one to try it out on.
               • lprent …

                 6 December 2012 at 3:03 pm

                 Done…. Apart from the same time part.
             • David H …

               6 December 2012 at 3:15 pm

               You mean i didn’t go far enough last time ? Aaaaahhhgggggg.
     • karol 2.2.2

       6 December 2012 at 10:37 am

       I read a few comments.  They don’t seem to get the difference between a  single sex sports club or gym and that of an occupational group: the Law Society.
     • Te Reo Putake 2.2.3

       6 December 2012 at 11:03 am

       Well, it looks as though the spam filter at work has a low tolerence for troglodytes:

       Access to http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz has been restricted.
       Reason: Based on a content scan of this URL, it is suspected this site may contain offensive material.
       URL: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/12/men_only_clubs.html
       • Jackal 2.2.3.1

         6 December 2012 at 11:24 am

         LOL! Good job. Doubly funny because Farrar often gets on his high horse about sites that are blocked… Now he can add Kiwibog to the list.
   • prism 2.3

     6 December 2012 at 3:35 pm

     Great to see on DF some of the RW trolls seen here FTTT. It is a good thing to have DF’s blog – gives the blowflies a place to hover and deposit.
3. joe90 3

   6 December 2012 at 10:01 am

   Pablo on Dear Leader.

   If Mr. Key is not clueless on intelligence and security matters, then the “spy” plane response and his other actions show that along with being contemptuous of those who may seek to hold him to account, he is arrogant, irresponsible, disloyal, mean-spirited and vindictive as well. To which can be added one more trait that has emerged in Mr. Key as of late: callous narcissism.

   http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2012/12/familiarity-becomes-contempt/
4. vto 4

   6 December 2012 at 10:45 am

   .
   Draco is right above in that corruption is the in your face don’t care type.

   Perfect example – get Wyatt Creech, an owner in the dairy industry, to write a fucking bullshit report on the state of water regs in Canterbury and use that to claim that democracy itself needs to be ripped out so the lying dirty business farming pricks who couldn’t achieve their business greed through usual business and democratic processes simply thieve what they want. All the while claiming it is something other than that.

   Corrupt.

   Liars and thieves – the farmers, the national government, David Carter, Nick Smith, Wyatt Creech, Amy Adams.

   They should all just fuck off to Zimbabwe
5. Penny Bright 5

   6 December 2012 at 10:47 am

   What is John Key,  Prime Minister of the purportedly (first equal) ‘least corrupt country in the world’ going to do about this one?
   WILL NZ PRIME MINISTER STAND DOWN JOHN BANKS AS MINISTER – WHEN BANKS APPEARS IN THE WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT ON 11 DECEMBER 2012 TO FACE A PRIVATE PROSECUTION FOR ALLEGED ELECTORAL FRAUD?
   http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/peters-powerless-jettison-horan-parliament-academic-dw-133495#comment-598400
   MY COMMENT – yet to be published:
   What is NZ Prime Minister John Key going to do when his MMP coalition partner, ACT Leader and MP for Epsom, John Banks, Minister for Small Business and Regulatory Reform, and Associate Minister for Education and Commerce, appears in the Wellington District on Tuesday 11 December 2012 at 1.45pm to face a private prosecution alleging electoral fraud?
   Is he going to, as a first step, stand John Banks down as a Minister?
   If a Wellington District Court Judge believes there is arguably a case for John Banks to answer – or a summons would not have been issued.
   Or is NZ Prime Minister John Key going to continue to defend the indefensible, and politically protect John Banks?
   Penny Bright
   ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
   http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com
6. Jackal 6

   6 December 2012 at 11:24 am

   Farmers should oppose fracking

   The potential for fracking to pollute pasture and water supplies in Taranaki isn’t just speculation… Documented evidence shows that fracking fluid blow-down pits at the Kapuni site had polluted the groundwater which was no longer fit for human or stock consumption. The BETX (benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylenes) contaminated water also didn’t meet the criteria for irrigation, meaning it was highly toxic.

   Of course Shell Todd Oil Services, which owns Kapuni, and the complicit regional council say there’s no link with the fracking that’s occurred in the area and the groundwater contamination, however BETX has been regularly used in fracking around Taranaki and there’s no other explanation for it to be found in the groundwater other than unsafe storage of well fluids in fracking blow-down pits.
   • PlanetOrphan 6.1

     6 December 2012 at 11:31 am

     And http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/disbelief-120-cows-drop-dead-5265162

     “No Evidence Fracking harms ground water” …. yeah right M8!
     • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1

       6 December 2012 at 11:51 am

       Ha! Nothing to do with fracking, the water was contaminated in the tank it was being held in, which had been previously used for mixing liquid fertiliser.
       • PlanetOrphan 6.1.1.1

         6 December 2012 at 1:20 pm

         Yeah heard that , didn’t strike me as being true, calling vets, good looking animals and he couldn’t be bothered cleaning his water tanker?

         More likely he got the water from a local stream…
         • Te Reo Putake 6.1.1.1.1

           6 December 2012 at 2:06 pm

           Seems its not the fert. But it’s a safe bet it was something in the water. And something pretty potent, at that. Hopefully its not another farmer family jealousy case and just misadventure.
           • PlanetOrphan 6.1.1.1.1.1

             6 December 2012 at 2:23 pm

             True, it’ll be interesting to see the analysis of the water.
   • ianmac 6.2

     6 December 2012 at 12:14 pm

     Jackal. Cue for some dissidents=
     “The existence of fracking is all David Shearer’s fault. Why didn’t he stop fracking!!!” 👿
7. geoff 7

   6 December 2012 at 12:25 pm

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1S_vA0ougg
   • The Woodpecker 7.1

     6 December 2012 at 1:54 pm

     R.I.P Dave. Thanks for the link geoff.
8. Anne 8

   6 December 2012 at 12:41 pm

   Thanks geoff. Forever a classic!
9. karol 9

   6 December 2012 at 12:59 pm

   Within the last hour there was a sudden loud thunder clap right above, that made me jump – freaky!  Now reports are coming in of storm damage out here in west Auckland, including a tornado not far away in the Hobsonville area.

   It seems to be clearing now, with all OK where I am….. but it was pretty scary for a moment.  I hope people in the storm damage areas are doing OK. 
   • karol 9.1

     6 December 2012 at 1:47 pm

     Now we have reports of fatalities, with warnings to stay indoors, maybe more stormy weather about to hit.

     Cunliffe tweet about his west Auckland staff:

     Deeply concerned by tornado and injury reports in West Auckland. My staff can pass damage reports to Civil Defence. Phone (09) 827 3062.  

      
10. Pete 10

    6 December 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Today in history: 1st Labour Government takes office, 6 December 1935.
11. lprent 11

    6 December 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Ummm some kind of bug showing up in the Cloudflare feature

    Mirage/ PRO / BUSINESS / ENTERPRISE/ BETA
    Lazy loader: Automatically turns all images into load-on-demand. Images on your site are not loaded until the visitor scrolls to their location.

    On a couple of webkit renderer browsers (ie Chrome and Rekong) I started getting jams on loading images – probably a advertising image.

    Turned the feature off as it is both beta and doesn’t really seem to speed the page loads.
12. Jackal 12

    6 December 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Russel Norman – Hero of the Week

    There’s no question that Dr Norman articulates himself well and is as dedicated as they come to a future government that will reduce GHG emissions to protect our environment. In fact his ability in the house to show National up for their environmental failures is second to none…
13. tracey 13

    6 December 2012 at 2:39 pm

    Our PM’s electorate!!!! Thankfully he’s never there, he could have been injured!

    [lprent: Off topic moved to OpenMike. ]
14. tracey 14

    6 December 2012 at 2:54 pm

    “A spokeswoman for Prime Minister John Key – the MP for Helensville, which includes Hobsonville – said he is being kept informed of the situation.

    “Emergency services are currently responding. People are being advised to remain indoors and to avoid the area, if possible.”

    She added: “The Prime Minister will continue to assess the situation as information becomes available throughout the day.”

    Later the PM called for a map and was shown where Hobsonville is.

    “Oh” he said” I rememebr now, I used to go to the hot pools at paratai when I was a kid.”

    [lprent: Off topic moved to OpenMike. ]
    • karol 14.1

      6 December 2012 at 3:02 pm

      Meanwhile, David Cunliffe MP for New Lynn, having checked his own electorate, rather than return to Parliament, is heading out west to check the PM’s electorate for him.
    • joe90 14.2

      6 December 2012 at 5:01 pm

      Oh dear, you’ve upset the baby farmer.
    • karol 14.3

      6 December 2012 at 5:48 pm

      Thanks, Lynn.  I was thinking to try to do that myself, but was a bit nervous I’d do some damage.
15. Raymond A Francis 15

    6 December 2012 at 4:57 pm

    I don’t think the last two comments are in good taste, people have died out there, show just a little humanity, you are meant to be Left and for the “people”

    [lprent: Off topic moved to OpenMike.
    Hard to see why? ]
    • felix 15.1

      6 December 2012 at 5:04 pm

      Fuck off Raymond, tracey was simply passing comment on the laziness of a politician.

      You, on the other hand, are trying to politicise a tragedy.
    • karol 15.2

      6 December 2012 at 5:05 pm

      I’m not sure what the baby farmer comment meant.  

      I certainly have concern for those who have died, and been injured.  I am “out there” and was a little scared in the middle of the storm.

      I have yet to see any comment from John Key about his electorate.  i have seen comments and/or tweets from Len Brown & David Cunliffe during the afternoon. They are out here checking on people.   I was not making that up.  Check my link above to one of Cunliffe’s tweets.
    • joe90 15.3

      6 December 2012 at 5:08 pm

      I’m not sure what the baby farmer comment meant.

      Tony doesn’t like people saying mean things about jonky

      http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/setting-low-standard.html
16. Morrissey 16

    6 December 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Bomber Bradbury is banned, but Garth McVicar is not. What gives?

    Susan Couch was the victim of a brutal assault eleven years ago, and it looks like she is now going to be compensated, at long last. Sounds like good news—until you realize that a particularly loathsome jackal has glommed onto her suffering, and milked it shamelessly for his own nefarious ends. I’m sure thousands of Jim’s listeners were dismayed and disgusted to hear Jim Mora interview, sympathetically, the head of the S.S. Trust, Garth “Mac the Knife” McVicar.

    I sent Jim Mora the following e-mail….

    Any decent organization would make Garth McVicar persona non grata

    Dear Jim,

    I am concerned to hear you giving a sympathetic forum to the S.S. Trust’s gruesome leader Garth McVicar. Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury was banned from your programme for daring to comment on the morals of a controversial politician; yet Garth McVicar seemingly has open access, no matter how brutal and vicious his statements.

    You have repeatedly had Garth McVicar on The Panel and called him, absurdly, a “victims’ advocate”. I know that many, probably most, of your colleagues are appalled at this, yet you persist with it.

    Perhaps you could explain on air one day why Bomber Bradbury is banned, yet Garth McVicar is not.

    Yours sincerely,

    Morrissey Breen
    Northcote Point
17. Draco T Bastard 17

    6 December 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Myth Busting: Aucklands Geography

    Myth: Auckland isn’t geographically suited to public transport.

    I’m not sure where this myth even came from but if I had to guess, it would have been from the 50′s or 60′s, the same time that many of our transport myths originated from those looking to justify building the motorways instead of public transport. The theory goes that cities like Wellington are more suited to public transport, and in particular rail, due to the the geography largely forcing development into a couple of long thin corridors. As such, Auckland which extends out in all sorts of directions is said to be more suited to car based transport.

    Great post pointing out how well Auckland is suited to PT.
    • karol 17.1

      6 December 2012 at 6:04 pm

      Good post, DTB.  Auckland can use a mixture of water, and land-based public transport.  It’s a pity they never made a canal down by the Whau, from one harbour to the other.
18. joe90 18

    6 December 2012 at 6:11 pm

    NOAA has released the 2012 Arctic report card.
    • Bill 18.1

      6 December 2012 at 7:06 pm

      ffs. in one of the pdf docs, it looks like the max volume of winter ice (2012) now more or less equals what used to be the summer min (2007).
19. hackerbilly 19

    6 December 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Is there a meme developing about Russel Norman not caring about climate change? Where did it originate from?

    It seems like a crude and obvious attempt to undercut his credibility – with Green Party members and with the wider public. And the timing of it seems odd: just as he’s getting a lot of notice for being an effective politician. Or is it just me?
    • Pascal's bookie 19.1

      6 December 2012 at 6:36 pm

      Not seen anything credible on it.
    • karol 19.2

      6 December 2012 at 6:45 pm

      I don’t dispute his commitment to climate change.  But I am not very happy about the way he his treated these days as the sole leader of the Greens.  I feel this undermines the way Turei is very good on social policies – it marginalises that aspect of the Green Party.
      • hackerbilly 19.2.1

        6 December 2012 at 10:52 pm

        Hi karol,

        Good point. It’s a bit weird: they’re both commenting on areas the National Party are weak on – I’d expect them to both be getting reasonably equal amounts of traction in the media.

        Any theories about the reasons behind the disparity?
        • Jackal 19.2.1.1

          9 December 2012 at 10:55 am

          It’s more likely that Russel Norman simply gets up the noses of the Nats more and they respond, which creates a story. Whereas the Nats try their hardest to ignore Turei, so there’s not so much controversy for the media to latch onto.

          I don’t think there’s any bias within the Greens and the bias you see from the media is something the Greens have little control over. Personally I’m just glad the Greens are getting a little bit of media coverage, although I would like to see more focus of social and environmental issues than who will be the next Minister of Finance.
    • weka 19.3

      6 December 2012 at 8:59 pm

      Jenny, a commenter here on the Standard, has been running that line about Norman for the past few weeks. She’s not getting much traction though. Haven’t seen it anywhere else. Where did you pick it up?
      • hackerbilly 19.3.1

        6 December 2012 at 10:47 pm

        Hi weka,

        I saw Jenny’s comments earlier this week, and then I read The Jackal’s blog-post about ‘Russel Norman – Hero of the Week’. I wondered whether I was seeing the beginnings of a reputational attack, followed by some quickly deployed defence.

        Looks like it might be a more isolated thing, though.
        • Jackal 19.3.1.1

          9 December 2012 at 10:57 am

          I’ve been meaning to write that post for a while. As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing to defend re Jenny’s comments about Russel Norman… They’re entirely ludicrous! Was it a coincidence that the good Doctor was making a speech about climate change on the same day Jenny was saying he never talks about it? Most definitely.
20. Penny Bright 20

    6 December 2012 at 6:54 pm

    “The reality that New Zealand is actually a corrupt, polluted,  tax haven – will be revealed at 11.30am,  Friday 7 December 2012 at Sky City Convention Centre  by  ‘Anti-corruption’ – TPPA ‘stakeholder’  Penny Bright”.

     

    Bright will give her presentation as a  TPPA ‘stakeholder’ at Sky City, on Friday 7 December 2012 at 11.30am.

     

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ah-08yR0ZMDxdEdtcF9yNjNqbnVWSW5uSTRKaURDREE&hl=en&pli=1#gid=0

     

    “Stakeholder Programme: Friday 7 December 2012

    
    

    Your Details

    
    

    Country NEW ZEALAND

    First NamePenelope

    Last NameBright

    OrganisationWater Pressure Group / Anti-corruption campaigner

    
    

    Would you like to make a formal presentation? 

    Yes 

    
    

    Please enter the indicative title of your proposed presentation:

    
    

    The need for transparency, accountability, and an independent ‘cost-benefit’ analysis of the benefits of ‘free trade’ agreements such as the TPPA, and the need for a ‘corruption-risk’ assessment (particularly the form of grand corruption known as ‘State Capture’) for ‘free trade’ agreements such as the TPPA.

    
    

    What areas of TPP are you interested in?

    
    

    Affordable medicines, land, environment (particularly water services) , work rights, the rest of our economy, especially the finance sector, sovereignty. “

     

    ___________________________________________________________________________

     

    “I am  really looking forward to giving this ‘whistle-blowing’ presentation,  particularly since Transparency International has AGAIN ranked corrupt, polluted,  tax haven New Zealand as the first equal ‘least corrupt country in the world’, according to their 2012 Corruption Perception Index.

     

    http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results

     

    Which proves, in my considered opinion,  that Transparency International’s  ‘Corruption Perception Index’.not worth the paper upon which it is written.”

     

    Penny Bright

     

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

     

    Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009

    Attendee: Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010

     ……………………….
     

    (For more background information in the fight against corruption in New Zealand: )

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

    http://www.stopthesupercity.org.nz

     
21. just saying 21

    6 December 2012 at 7:32 pm

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/bloggers-v-journalists-why-cant-we-all-get-along

    An entirely predictable blog from journalist and blogger, Tim Watkin, on the debate about blogging vs journalism, focussing on the divergence of opinions about Gower’s (and other msm reportage) of events at the recent the Labour Party Conference.

    What caught my eye was this comment:

    …..But the complaints still sound disingenuous to me. As best as I can see, Cunliffe got played, out-manouvered. He had ambitions to challenge for the leadership come February. Rather than waiting like a turkey for Christmas, those opposed to him pre-empted the challenge. When Cunliffe was unwilling to say he’d back his leader in a vote in three months’ time, it became a story….

    Only, if this was indeed what happened, (that Cunliffe got played), why is Watkins defending msm coverage that it was Cunliffe who tried (unsuccessfully) to ‘play’ the conference. Or are the facts not really as important to “real” journalists as Watkins is claiming in this blog?
    • karol 21.1

      6 December 2012 at 8:00 pm

      Yep, js, that’s what struck me earlier today when I read it.  Watkin claimed the MSM journalists go to great lengths to ensure they are not biased. Then he made exactly the point about the conference that many TS posters and commenters made – ie Cunliffe was taken out.  So how come most journalists peddled the line that Cunliffe staged a coup? Does that not indicate a bias?

      Also Watkin rejects the suggestion by Trotter and RedLogix, that journalists shouldn’t report anonymous comments from politicians.  Watkin’s argument is that, it would mean no leaks from politicians…. duh?  So what would be so wrong with that?  Surely it’s the anonymous leaks from pollies that skewed the main narrative about Cunliffe staging a coup.

      Also, Watkin seems to be assuming that many of us bloggers want to replace MSM journalists, or, at least, do journalism better than the MSM.  No – many of us just want journalists to be more critical and fulfill their fourth estate role  – not just push the current line that is circulating from leaky MPs and  from press releases.  At the moment, many of us see our role as one of holding the MSM to account.
      • RedLogix 21.1.1

        6 December 2012 at 10:12 pm

        Frankly I’m stunned at the shallowness of Watkins ‘deconstruction’.

        All interviews must be on-the-record. Almost all are. But should a journalist be banned from following a lead gained in more casual conversation?
        All interviews, it’s suggested, should be online. Which would mean newsrooms having to hire transcribers rather than more journalists.

        Well actually what I had in mind was a simple audio/video recorder and then attached to the online version of the story as a file. No need for transcribers.

        All reportage must be fact-checked. If only. The last fact-checkers were being laid off from the Heald when I began there 12 years ago. The few US media who still employ them are the exception. But does that mean they never err? No. Is it reasonable to expect journalists to check their own facts? usually, although a lack of resources and time creates limitations. Are stories still checked? Yes, subs, editors and producers all have such a role.

        Well that’s a bad slip up. Watkins selectively quotes me which went on: “and/or open to a right of reply from any participant, person or party mentioned.” … again in an online environment a highly achievable goal without too much extra in the way of staff. And then he goes on to ignore my additional suggestion that journalists could easily lift their game by linking to their references …like bloggers routinely do. None of this is commercially unrealistic or onerous.

        All professional and personal relationships must be declared. In which we move from ignorance to plain silliness. Conflicts of interest should be declared. But every relationship? How far does that go? Is it just for the gallery or for bloggers and those of us outside Wellington who cover politics? Is it family relationships, whether they’ve played rugby together or does the odd drink count? Should I declare that I once helped Grant Robertson pull a drunk guy out of an NZUSA conference? That Metiria Turei and Gerry Brownlee have both yelled at me? Should Trotter declare every politician he’s ever met? And would REDLOGIX him/herself adhere to that?
        No journalist should be able to spend more than six years or 33% of their career in the gallery. Apart from the obvious nonsense of not being able to know how long a young reporter’s career will be, why show such little respect for experience and wisdom? It’s silliness piled on silliness.

        Oh dear … strawman piled upon strawman. Everyone in public life knows exactly what ‘declaring your interests’ means. Relationships in which you have either a family, personal relationships (ie who you are sleeping with), business relationships or other plainly beneficial interests. In practise it’s not all that hard to get it right if you want to.

        Ignored also is my suggestion that an online personal/professional bio is an entirely reasonably thing to ask of a professional. And by clinging to the outdated mode of thinking that print is primary, and that online is a secondary nuisance … Watkins has made a bunch of pretty elementary errors here.

        Meanwhile.. back at the ranch.
        • karol 21.1.1.1

          6 December 2012 at 10:30 pm

          Yes, it’s a weak defence by Watkin, RL.  And I can’t believe he isn’t aware of how poor the NZ MSM and journalism actually is.  I’m not peddling some theory of a deliberately orchestrated conspiracy – just aware of how biases and skewed stories can get accepted into the MSM.

          Actually, interesting that Watkin made that point about fact checking.  I was looking into that around the last time I did a post on the media.  I knew facts often aren’t checked.  This is a problem of the commercial imperative, keeping down costs etc.  But, good journalism really does require fact checking.  I don’t know how Watkin can claim journalist go out of their way to be non-biased, if they don’t check their facts.

          I was trying to find evidence online of an occurrence a few years ago in Aussie. I saw the guys involved present a conference paper on it.  Basically, as a kind of joke, a couple of guys published a story – false.  It got picked up by the media.  Once one outlet had repeated it, others followed, with none of them checking if it was real.  This mis-information got widely circulated, all without the facts being checked. Eventually they had to come clean and say it wasn’t true.

          Just shows how something like the content of the whispering campaign against Cunliffe can become accepted as true.  

           
22. felix 22

    6 December 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Listening to the alcohol debate in parliament today I keep hearing the same argument.

    We must find a way to restrict access to alcohol for the poor, the young, and ethnic minorities because they can’t handle it, while maintaining or increasing access for people like me because we can.
    • Olwyn 22.1

      6 December 2012 at 7:46 pm

      That is what happens when politics comes down to managing people rather than representing them.
    • millsy 22.2

      6 December 2012 at 8:51 pm

      Yup, that is pretty much the raison d’etre of the neo-temperance movement.
23. xtasy 23

    6 December 2012 at 8:30 pm

    I have heaps more of this indigenous music, it never plays in NZ media, sadly.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZYpGocxxfo&feature=fvst

    This is indio music from Peru, there is heaps more. I will not bother to inundate. Maori are justified to take their stand, ideally they will connect with indeginous peoples all over the world.

    Interesting developments!
24. xtasy 24

    6 December 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Further to that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fRVOew2WpA

Links to post

1. I’d almost agree with David on gender « The Standard: posted on 6 December 2012 at 3:02 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS