Written By: - Date published: 2:11 pm, January 20th, 2008 - 278 comments
Categories: Media, spin -
Tags: journalism, Media, spin, sunday star times
Ruth Laugeson has an article in the Sunday Star Times about the increased numbers of communications staff employed by ministries. Entitled “Spinning govt yarn costs $47m”, the article is in many ways a lovely piece of spin in its own right.
The basis of the article is that the number of spindoctors employed by the Government has greatly increased – we’re told it’s doubled from five years ago and is much much larger than it was in 1984. This is totally true. But one of the aspects of good spin is what you leave out.
There are a lot of reasons general communications staff might increase, most notably the fact that it takes a lot of people and effort to maintain an up-to-date website and having no website or an out of date one leaves you open to a lot of criticism (especially if you’re a ministry). But this story is about spindoctors and if we’re talking media then the truth of the matter is that over the last five years (and longer) I’ve watched the communications output from everyone increase. Nowadays every bloody thing gets its own media release. I just looked on scoop, for example, and it seems that Coca Cola has decided a new campaign to sell bottled water deserves its own media release. Note – we’re not talking about anything revolutionary about the product – this is an media campaign promoting an advertising campaign in turn promoting water. I mean really, why would they bother?
They bother because there’s a good chance someone will pick it up and they know nobody would ever pick it up in a million years unless they fax and email it to every newsroom in the country.
Y’see, nearly every newsroom in New Zealand has had the guts ripped out of it by its owners. Back in the day a newspaper reporter might spend a day doing one story and the newsroom would be full. Nowadays you can give one journo an internet connection and a phone and expect them to churn out ten stories a day (I’ve heard stories of ZB journos doing up to 20!) and that’s nine other journos you don’t have to employ. And that means profits. APN, who owns the Herald currently makes about 13% profit on capital annually – their target is 20% and they regularly post annual profits around the $100m mark from their NZ operations alone. Fairfax generally makes twice as much or more.
Of course the news suffers a lot when you cut frontline staff. Nothing can be investigated in depth and there’s very little time to gather balanced comment. If you’re a journo tasked with 10 stories a day and someone such as Coca Cola or a Ministry (or the National Party) offers to provide you with the “research” and quotes you need to make one, what do you do? The answer is you use what they give you and move onto the next story ‘cos fuck it, you’re on close to minimum wage once you count your unpaid overtime anyway.
That’s why the most telling line in the whole of Laugeson’s story comes from Jim Tully:
government and corporate public relations staff were growing as newsrooms were shrinking.
It wasn’t worth employing PR people in 1984 because you could tell a journo whatever you wanted and you’d know they’d have the time and resources to cover the story properly. In fact if you brought something up with them you’d be guaranteeing that your opponent’s opinion on the matter and the facts themselves would get a good airing.
Nowadays you can be fairly sure that if your media release is picked up, large chunks of it are likely to be run almost verbatim and if your opponent doesn’t get a release of their own out quick enough then it’s highly unlikely they’ll be heard. And your own issues or achievements won’t be heard about if you don’t speak up either. In today’s news climate nobody would hear about what the government (or anyone else) does without spindoctors and I find that depressing.
The real story behind the increase in spindoctors is the story of our newsrooms being run down and our news increasingly coming directly from the keyboards of vested interests because we’ve got a media that cares about profits and not about paying people to actually gather our news.
Considering we rely on information from the media in order to make important decisions about our lives and our country (such as who to vote for) that’s a very dangerous situation. But it’s not one we’re going to see examined in the SST anytime soon.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Dave – As you well know my name is Mike Porton. I’m not going to give you my client list becaue it would be a breach of confidentiality (oh and it’s none of your friggin business. Now mate what’s your last name (I’m assuming Dave is your real first name).
IP – I don’t think I saw that thread and as you fail to give examples and have a reputation as a proven liar I’ll withhold judgement until I see something concrete.
when you say:
My criticism of National has been far more direct than anything I have ever seen from the Standard criticising Labour.
The Standard is in Labour’s pocket, despite the Standard lying about its connections to the Labour Party, and the Labour’s largest affiliate union, since its inception.
You do so with no evidence whatsoever – I would like to see a link where you encouraged people to vote for a party other than National as Irish Bill has encouraged people to vote for a party other than Labour.
I would like to see your proof that the standard has been in Labour’s pocket since its inception (especially since the labour server was only made available early this moth by the look of things).
I would also like to see you provide proof that the EPMU has been involved.
The answer is you can’t, Prick. You knowingly make shit up without proof – that makes you a liar.
And while you’re at it IP, you asked for the name of the employer of the standard’s authors not for what they did. You offered what you did in return. A more equivalent call would be if you offered the name of your company. But you won’t because you are a coward and a hypocrite.
Robinsod:
Are you denying that any of the Standard’s authors are employed by the EPMU? Because that would be interesting. Tane hasn’t issued any such denial.
IP – I’m not denying or confirming anything because I’m not gonna get caught up in your creepy little games. You’re the one who’s telling the story mate – why don’t you provide some proof? Oh, that’s right you can’t because you don’t deal in facts, just smarmy innuendo.
IP- the original allegation was made by Bryce Edwards and has since been retracted. You’re figthing a lonely, creepy battle here mate.
whew it stinks of bullshit in here, hats of to Rob though. You are really taking one for the team today. I guess wellington day was cancelled for all of you today.
Annoying I know but any of you winners want to try answering the big question?
Can you not see the hypocrisy in a group demanding registration of political commentators as a direct result of the EB activities at the last election, whilst hiding their own identities and being funded and supported by the labour government and supporting unions?
I shit you not!p
Captcha
SHADY MISSION
Yawn.
I’m not telling the story, Robinsod. It was a claim by left-wing political science lecturer, Bryce Edwards, that EPMU employees were authors of the Standard. Tane has not denied this. He has merely said that the EPMU does not pay any of its authors to write for the Standard. That is not the same thing. The fact that Tane has been so cagey about the fact that Standard authors are employed by the EPMU is good enough for me.
As far as any reasonable reader is concerned, if the Standard’s authors are employed by a large constituent, affiliate union of the Labour Party, and/or work in the Beehive, then they are in the Labour Party’s pocket. There is significant evidence of this from people far to the left of the political spectrum than myself. The Standard has NEVER addressed these points. Instead they have lied, obfuscated, and spun the issue.
An allegation has been made by Bryce Edwards. I expect that somebody in the mainstream media will be asking these same questions of Mike Williams and my old friend Andrew Little in the next few days. I figure the Standard’s got about 24 hours to get their story straight. If their answers are anything like as murky as the ones Tane have offered up so far, then their will be a lot more digging.
As for the tone of my comments criticising National, you clearly haven’t read my blog. Among several posts I have written, only one of which I’ve included otherwise the Standard’s server will block it, here I take a swipe at both Mark Blumsky and Nick Smith http://insolentprick.blogspot.com/2007/02/pull-finger.html , proposing local government reform that is at considerable odds with National Party policy.
No, Daveo, the allegation hasn’t been answered at all. Bryce claimed that the Standard’s authors work in the communications unit of the EPMU. Tane responded that nobody at the Standard is paid by the EPMU to blog. Tane was very careful to obfuscate and send everybody on a false scent, without telling an outright lie.
Tane could very easily clear up the matter–as could any of the commenters who know the Standard’s authors–by stating simply that to their knowledge, none of the Standard’s authors are employees of the EPMU. It puts a slur on the actual employees of the EPMU–who are publicly known–if the rumour about them being Standard authors is incorrect.
Kiwiblogblog earlier made a very clear disclosure statement. Ickystinky wrote:
“I can answer from a Kiwiblogblog perspective. We receive no money or any other material support whatsoever from any political party. We are a small group of political enthusiasts. I am not sure what we all do precisely for a living but as far as I am aware (I can speak with some understanding about four out of five of us) we are not employed by any union, political party, advocacy group, ThinkTank, PR firm or the New Zealand public service. So, in no way can you infer we have been bought. We’re amateurs, it seems.”
I accept that statement at face value. If Tane made the same statement, I would accept it at face value. The fact that he refuses to make that statement suggests he doesn’t want to be caught out lying.
Still no post on the #1 topic of the day?
Then again, I suppose Hollow Men can run fast because they dont have any substance holding them back.
Yawnnn…. You must be tired Rob, all the big boys must be in the arse kicking meeting leaving the juniors to do the heavy lifting.
Anyway, back to the only question;
Can you not see the hypocrisy in a group demanding registration of political commentators as a direct result of the EB activities at the last election, whilst hiding their own identities and being funded and supported by the labour government and supporting unions?
Oh……. another great CAPTCHA
HOWLAND RHETORIC
yawn. game over guys, good try but you’ve lost again.
keep howling though i promise to read every word.
captcha “overcooked children”
sprout: game not over. Remember the noise that the Standard made about John Key’s DVD? We all thought it was game over, then suddenly the MSM grabbed it, and Key pulled the DVD in order to cut the thing off at the knees. If the MSM grab this do you reckon Helen is still astute enough to cut the Standard off at the knees? Does she have enough control over the Standard to do so? Not game over at all I am afraid.
[Tane: No Paul, because Helen Clark has nothing to do with the standard. I doubt she even knows it exists.]
Sprout,
The fact that Tane refuses to answer the principal question, and is spinning like there’s no tomorrow, is a story in itself. David Benson-Pope got fired for this kind of dishonesty. So too did Lianne Dalziel. Issuing denials to questions that aren’t asked, and passing it off as a denial to the initial question, isn’t looked on fondly by the press gallery. Ask Benson-Pope. Ask Lianne Dalziel. Tane’s trying to be too clever for his own good.
I note that Tane is only answering questions on this issue at Kiwiblogblog, in the hope that this story will die a slow death at the Standard. No doubt, the Standard will soon publish a few innocuous posts about nothing in an attempt to bury this one.
[Tane: Na, I'm actually not responding here because I've blown my traffic cap so my internet's too slow to load a page with 200+ comments. That's why I'm responding via the admin system. I've already responded to you Prick.]
No, you haven’t responded to me, Tane. You’ve done everything except answer the principal question, raised by Bryce. I love it how you can offer such a bald assurance that some of the Standard’s authors are not blogging in work time, and expect people to believe they are working in such an unofficial capacity, when you cannot even answer a very simple question about whether any EPMU employees are Standard authors.
Instead you’ve come up with a strategy of answering every possible question except the one asked of you. And you deliberately do so at kiwiblogblog, which you know to have much lower traffic, rather than at the Standard where the issues are raised, in an attempt to allow the issue to die a slow death.
You are deliberately being obtuse, Tane, in a way that you would never allow DPF, or John Key, to get away with. I hear Larry Williams is now asking some questions about this. I don’t need to remind you that Don Brash came to justifiable public ridicule when he didn’t tell the whole truth about his meetings with the exclusive brethren. Instead, he gave answers that were only partially correct.
You are doing the same, Tane, and it is a cowardly, and ultimately unsuccessful long-term strategy. Just because you don’t want to answer the hard questions now, doesn’t mean they won’t come later. You are setting yourself up for a fall because you’re deliberately being misleading.
But keep doing it, for all I care. You’re simply setting yourself up for more questions later.
you could be right IP – there have been a lot of non-stories over the news-light holidays – if it weren’t for the fact that tomorrow is Hillary’s funeral, there’s a bloody great storm over the top half of the country, and there are multiple compelling crime stories about.
do you think the msm will return to a non-story about blogging a few days later, and so promote one of the few mediums that regularly demonstrate the duplicity and inaccuracies of said msm?
my money’s on Hillary taking the lead and first 10 pages or minutes of any msm outlet.
“I love it how you can offer such a bald assurance that some of the Standard’s authors are not blogging in work time”
Whats it got to do with you if they are? assuming that not all of you on the right are unemployed and that you all blog bewteen 9 and 5, I assume many of you and your chums are blogging on work time.
[Tane: Yep, the funny thing is the reason we're a collective in the first place is because we don't have the time to blog as much as we'd like to as we all need to earn a living. I've shown earlier that I've made only five of the last thirty posts, and that's going back a month. It's similar for the other contributors. We each do a little bit, usually on things we have a bit of prior knowledge on, and together we create a reasonably up to date, well researched website. It doesn't take a hell of a lot of time, so this whole line of attack is disingenuous.]
I’m not telling the story, Robinsod
Yes you are Prick – Bryce retracted his claim. You even lie about this.
The fact that nobody will indulge your creepy little outing games is
no proof of anything you dipshit.
Now Prick, I read your little post and apart from the fact you can’t write to save yourself I noticed one thing. You never said don’t vote National. If you’ll recall my question to you was:
I would like to see a link where you encouraged people to vote for a party other than National as Irish Bill has encouraged people to vote for a party other than Labour.
I figure if you’re gonna bang on about your independance then that would be easy. But no. You failed.
So again Prick:
I would like to see a link where you encouraged people to vote for a party other than National as Irish Bill has encouraged people to vote for a party other than Labour.
I would like to see your proof that the standard has been in Labour’s pocket since its inception (especially since the labour server was only made available early this moth by the look of things).
I would also like to see you provide proof that the EPMU has been involved.
We’re all waiting Prick – your outrage is starting to sound a little hollow my lying friend.
From DPF on Public Address
“Paul: To my immense surprise the comment above appeared as user:whaleoil instead of as user:dpf. I have absolutely no idea how or why but checking the page I then saw somehow I was logged in as whaleoil.”
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,917,hard_news_monster_weekend.sm?p=39619#post39619
that is definitely one of the more surreal moments in my blogging history.
I don’t have any proof that the EPMU is involved in the Standard. I took Tane at his word that the EPMU does not pay to publish the Standard.
Tane’s deliberate obfuscation and evasiveness over whether any EPMU employees are Standard authors–a point raised by Bryce and which Tane never denied or even addressed–does not inspire confidence in Tane’s response.
I agree that Bryce retracted his assertion that EPMU employees were authors of the Standard. I picked this retraction up after it was pointed out to me. I can only assume that Bryce took Tane for his word, and assumed that Tane was answering the question that Bryce actually asked. You may have noted that when Bryce made the allegation, I suggested to him at kiwiblog that he should retract it if Tane denied it. Bryce had the integrity to do so when he believed that Tane denied the point.
I take a different view. I don’t believe Tane addressed the issue at all. Tane has not said that EPMU employees are not among the Standard’s authors. He has answered every possible question under the sun, except that one. That is cynical spin, and if John Key ever obfuscated like that, the Standard would be hounding him.
Tane, if DPF was employed by the National party, it would be a big deal. Even if he told us he was blogging in his own time. If he were employed by the Business Roundtable it would also be a big deal. I’m not sure why you think it wouldn’t be relevant whether the Standard authors were Labour party employees, or employees of a closely affiliated union.
I’m not saying it makes all the posts here irrelevant, just that you would read them with a different view if you knew the person writing them was potentially a Labour employee, or an EPMU employee, than you would read them thinking it was some average Joe who had a left leaning outlook.
If you think that isn’t the case, why have you and some of your fellow travellers been so concerned about whether the MSM correctly describe DPF as a right wing commentator, and as a National party member and close associate (which DPF discloses very clearly on his blog). It obviously makes a difference.
There are two ways to answer the question. One is to state that none of the posters are employed in any of these organisations. If you don’t want to get into denying it, then simply state that they may be, and that readers should assume that they are. If, as you say, it makes no difference, then how would it cause any pain to just write that in the “about us” section of the site?
[Tane: We've never had a problem with DPF's position on his blog - people there know what his angle is and that's fine. The concern has always been that when he crosses over to the mainstream media he's often sold as an independent commentator when in fact he's far from it. The wider public aren't aware of his political bias in the same way as the readership of his blog are and we felt this was something that needed disclosing. I've gone on the record and said I don't blame DPF for this, and have put it down to sloppy or, in the case of Larry Williams, biased journalism. The Standard doesn't comment in the msm, and we have a clear statement of our political sympathies on the front page.
I'm not going to play Prick's games here - it's none of his business where any of our contributors work, as I've explained over at KBB, and I'm not going to start denying them in some kind of process of elimination. He's said he'll accept our word so he can accept the fact that we're employed by a range of different organisations and not one of us writes on behalf or even in consultation with their employer. It's that simple.]
Rob, you are not looking well mate.
But blogging in defense of the AOS from your sick bed is a top effort.
I don’t care what every body else is saying I think you are a top rooster.
http://robinslob.blogspot.com/
[Deleted, as post was not by BB]
Sorry that was me a computer glitch
Come on Tane, come clean. How many pieces of silver a month you get from the Labour Party?
Despite your pathetic attempts at deflecting the issue you have not answered any of the questions posed by IP.
Nice trick “alias BB”. The lack of a link does give it away though. Should I take to posting pretending to be Tane? “Oh, just meant to confirm while I’m at it, I and all my friends work at the EPMU, and in fact Helen phones in orders every morning for us, sometimes twice on a big news day.”
Bill. Are you in love with me?
IP – you know for someone with no proof (it took you a long time to admit it – do you have issues with the truth?) you sure sound certain there’s a vast left wing conspiracy. I’m also still waiting for you to disclose the name of your company too. I mean I’m sure you contract to someone – who might they be? Surely it could have bearing on your position as a high profile blogger.
So when did you last update your site anyway?
It isn’t that simple at all, Tane.
Bryce made an allegation that some EPMU were also Standard authors. You have deliberately spun and obfuscated, and answered every question except that one. We can guarantee that if the initial allegation had been that some Standard employees were employed by the Nurses Organisation, you would have denied it immediately, because it’s untrue.
The issue has never been whether the Standard’s authors blog in their work time. I have taken you at your word that this is the case. What I find astonishing is that you can so brazenly obfuscate over the Standard’s political connections.
It is absolutely relevant to your message, and your position, if the Standard’s authors are employed by a major affiliate union of the Labour Party, and/or employed in the Beehive. You’re actually just inviting a witch-hunt by the mainstream media by being so dishonest now.
You could comfortably make a general, and honest disclosure about the affiliations of the Standard’s authors, such as: “The Standard’s authors include employees of the EPMU, and the PPTA, and employees of Ministerial Services working in the Beehive. Some of the Standard’s authors are active Labour Party members.”
That would be an honest disclosure of relevant interests, if that were the case. But instead, the Standard is modeling transparency not on the rhetoric it used to promote the Electoral Finance Bill, but on the amateur half-truths that Don Brash used, when he was trying to be too clever, to explain his meetings with the Exclusive Brethren.
The media don’t like half-truths, Tane. Start getting your story straight. Try, for once, by answering the direct question. Are any of the Standard’s authors employed by the EPMU?
Paul it twas a JOKE
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic,917,hard_news_monster_weekend.sm?p=39619#post39619
“It is absolutely relevant to your message, and your position, if the Standard’s authors are employed by a major affiliate union of the Labour Party,”
No it’s not,
However if you vould give us a list of everyone you have contracted for in the last 10 years (just so we can check it against your blog posts) that would be helpful.
Oh whats that, you don’t see what your job has to with you political opinions?
Oh I see.
Sonic:
I have never been employed by, or contracted to, any political party, any branch of the public service, or any organisation that could be considered a third party under your much-heralded Electoral Finance Act.
It’s a pity that Tane can’t say the same about the Standard’s authors.
Sorry IP, not good enough I’m afraid.
We need the full list just so we can see for ourselves, indeed we may need to contact a few of the companies, just to check up you are telling the truth,
I’m sure you will not have a problem with that, after all you want to know the name of these bloggers employers, so it’s only fair that we get the same from you!
hey Prick – I thought you were making a breakthrough when you finally admitted you had no proof. Turns out I was wrong you’ve just decided you don’t need any. I heard you fuck pigs. Until you show some proof to deny it your letting us all down with your deception.
Now y’see how shill and stupid the argument you’re making is?
Oh and Prick? I was banned from Kiwiblog for less than this, the fact that you’re still allowed to post even though all you do is lie and that Tane even answers your questions just amazes me. You seem to think it’s your right.
Sonic,
You clearly haven’t been following the argument. I have said repeatedly that if Tane discloses that no employees of the Labour Party, a Labour Party-affiliated union, or an employee of ministerial services, are Standard authors, then I will accept him at his word. You, Sonic, have said elsewhere that you are not employed in the public service, and that you are not a Labour Party member. I accept you at your word.
Except the Standard won’t make that disclosure statement. They have been blogging for months now, championing the cause for public accountability of political connections, while doing everything in their power to conceal their own.
Sorry IP, I’m less trusting.
Names of last three employers please, otherwise I’m afraid no-one has to take your demands for other people’s business even slightly seriously.
have said repeatedly that if Tane discloses that no employees of the Labour Party, a Labour Party-affiliated union, or an employee of ministerial services, are Standard authors, then I will accept him at his word.
No IP I don’t think you follow the argument – why would anyone bother to answer the questions of a man who fucks pigs?
Oh and you’ve still not provide a link where you’ve said “don’t vote national” (whereas the standard has advised not to vote Labour – what lickspittles!).
Sheesh boy you lie like a snake and you fuck pigs. I think you need some help IP…