Champions of free speech MIA

Written By: - Date published: 2:17 pm, October 13th, 2011 - 78 comments
Categories: john key, radio - Tags: , ,

It’s the one week anniversary of Bomber Bradbury’s appearance on RNZ’s the Panel, and his subsequent shameful banning from same.  Bomber’s “crime” was to bombastically criticise Key’s behaviour in the throat slitting incident (video) and his dodgy free 1 hour self promotion session on RadioLIVE.  At the time I pondered:

The media was up in arms this week about Lockwood Smith’s over reaction to The Herald’s breach of rules in Parliament.  I wonder if there will be a similar hue and cry when a Leftie is banned for criticising the PM.

Well the verdict is in, and the answer is, of course, no. The incident got obscure mentions on the 3News site and Stuff.  Nat blogger and ex free speech champion DPF blathered apologetically for RNZ.  (Update: Some mixed comments from Andrew Geddis here.) The only serious coverage was from Brian Edwards and  Gordon Campbell:

Ultimately, Bradbury has been made to pay the price not only for RNZ’s forelock-tugging deference to its political paymasters – but also for Mora’s failure to defuse the situation at the time by offering even the semblance of a substantive response to the issues Bradbury had been raising. (‘I didn’t see it, lets talk about cats’ is not really cutting it.)

Finally, one of the most interesting things about the Bradbury affair is that no-one has rebutted his interpretation of Key’s contemptible actions. The mainstream media has instead tiptoed carefully around Key’s comments and throat-slitting action (largely, by ignoring them) or has tried to blur its meaning with a ‘both sides at fault’ response… eg Mora’s comment “There was certainly a lot of acrimony across Parliament when that happened.” This conveniently fails to address the fact that the acrimony was triggered by Key’s words and actions.

So while we ordinary folk registered our protests via the RNZ Facebook page and email to RNZ (links in Sprout’s post here), the usual media commentators were conspicuous for their silence.  Shameful.

78 comments on “Champions of free speech MIA ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Andrew Geddis 1
    13 October 2011 at 2:35 pm

    My “mixed comments” are because I don’t think Bradbury really was kicked off for what he said, but for how he said it. Basically, if you want to hurl the verbal equivalents of molotov cocktails at the powers that be, then you shouldn’t be surprised when the bosses at RNZ National get queasy and decide they don’t want you talking on their show any more. I mean, its RNZ NATIONAL, for crying out loud … the station that still plays hymns on Sunday mornings!

    Of course, we may wish National Radio was far more radical and welcome with open arms the voices of the radical left speaking truth to power in all their fierce urgency of now. But we also may wish that clouds were made of cotton candy and that the seas were pink milk. So for me it’s a case of “know your enemy” – and tailor your message accordingly. If you want to be a bomb thrower, then throw bombs. But complaining that the state-funded “voice of New Zealand” won’t let you do it on their light-hearted afternoon chat show is all a bit silly, really.

    • lprent 1.1
      13 October 2011 at 2:41 pm

      Of course he was doing pretty much the same style for the last 10 years. It is the same style that he uses on just about everything, from when I first heard him on bFM a decade ago to the MP3 of The Panel that got him the boot.

      So to me the important question that has to be asked “why is his style an issue at RNZ now?”. I haven’t seen that addressed by RNZ. All I have seen is a steadily more pathetic set of excuses.

      • Andrew Geddis 1.1.1
        13 October 2011 at 3:00 pm

        Of course Bomber was a known quantity and so perhaps the real problem here is that RNZ (or, rather, the producer of The Panel) were a bit silly in stepping outside of their comfort zones. Chris Trotter, I think, got it right when he said that this basically was a bust-up waiting to happen.

    • the sprout 1.2
      13 October 2011 at 2:49 pm

      RNZ National is not quite so conservative these days as for Bradbury’s comments or delivery to be beyond acceptability, and often has highly intemperate opinions being given from a variety of regular commentators.

      It just seems that bans are reserved for those who happen to criticise the PM as stridently as others criticise Opposition MPs.

      • Andrew Geddis 1.2.1
        13 October 2011 at 2:58 pm

        “It just seems that bans are reserved for those who happen to criticise the PM as stridently as others criticise Opposition MPs.”

        If you have a counter-example in mind, I’d genuinely like to see it. Because that would make me change my mind on this issue.

        • Everybody at Otago University 1.2.1.1
          13 October 2011 at 3:17 pm

          Dear Andrew,

          This is why we love the shit out of you, you rock.

          May Parliament stay forever sovereign.

          Kindest regards,

          Students of the University of Otago.

        • Anne 1.2.1.2
          13 October 2011 at 7:34 pm

          I can give you a counter example Andrew Geddis. Michael Bassett. I heard him on more than one occasion making nasty and belittling comments about Helen Clark. He was blatantly lying, but did Jim Mora – or anyone else for that matter – pull him up on it? No.

          Bassett’s ‘delivery’ may not be in the bombastic style of a ‘Bomber Bradbury’, but his tone of voice nevertheless was dripping with venom. Any consequences? Of course not, because Bassett is on the (r)ight side of the political ledger.

          • AndrewK 1.2.1.2.1
            13 October 2011 at 7:56 pm

             I can’t say I’ve ever heard Bassett slag off Helen Clark on ‘The Panel’, it wouldn’t surprise me if he did.

             What I did hear one day, and this is going back a few years, Jim Mora defending the political bias of ‘The Panel’ by pointing out the right wing panellist were balanced by left-wing panellists, he then went on to offer Michael Basset as an example of one of those left-wing panellists whose job it was to balance the views of the right, I remember nearly choking on the tea I was drinking. And this was after the release of ‘The Hollow Men’ where Bassett was fingered writing speeches for and offering advice to Don Brash.   

            • Anne 1.2.1.2.1.1
              13 October 2011 at 8:25 pm

              Remember that AndrewK. I had to go for a walk in the fresh air… Bassett’s vilification of Helen Clark was not long after she took up her position with the UN. I was a regular listener in those days and from memory it happened a couple of times. He was subtle with his wording, but it was still very clear what he was attempting to do.

    • r0b 1.3
      13 October 2011 at 3:26 pm

      If it was a matter of “style” I would have expected a quiet chat, or perhaps a stern warning.  But an instant ban?  

      Combine that with lines about violating policy, changed to lines about defaming Key, and Bradbury’s impressions as reported on his blog – and it just smells of outright political censorship to me.

      • Andrew Geddis 1.3.1
        13 October 2011 at 3:41 pm

        It is possible, r0b. But I just think it is more likely that “they” got sick and tired of Bradbury’s recurrent approach and suffered buyer’s remorse. We are also, remember, hearing one person’s account of a conversation … and without saying Bradbury is lying about anything, memories about what was said and how things were expressed can differ depending on what end of the phone you are on.

        Also, if RNZ were trying to censor criticism of Key/National, you really think they’d start by overtly telling Bradbury “yer out of here”? Surely you’d just quietly stop inviting folks like Watkin/Edwards/Trotter … while leaving Bradbury in place to irritate the hell out of swinging voters.

        • Colonial Viper 1.3.1.1
          13 October 2011 at 4:07 pm

          Also, if RNZ were trying to censor criticism of Key/National, you really think they’d start by overtly telling Bradbury “yer out of here”? Surely you’d just quietly stop inviting folks like Watkin/Edwards/Trotter …

          You’re assuming that whoever made the call calmed down enough to think their decision through logically before pulling the trigger on Bomber.

          Clearly they didn’t, and you can see that as RNZ’s story evolved over the next few days.

        • Puddleglum 1.3.1.2
          13 October 2011 at 7:45 pm

          No Andrew, your analysis won’t work. The important question is why this particular ‘rant’ and not others led to the decision.

          For your analysis to work, you would have to find some indication that remorse had set in or was on the rise prior to last thursday’s appearance and commentary. I don’t see any evidence of that and I’m always wary of explanations that present unsubstantiated theories (i.e., non-evidence based theories) of what had supposedly been occuring prior to an incident happening.

          To convince me, you’d have to point to some evidence that they regretted – prior to last thursday – their initial decision to have Bradbury as a regular guest on the show. Otherwise, it’s hard not to see your explanation as common or garden apologetics for RNZ (perhaps also nurtured by your own distaste for Bradbury’s style?).

          Personally, I suspect that they were happy enough with Bradbury right up to that commentary. They chose him knowing his style; he delivered repeatedly on that and – if you listen to prior appearances – a lot of jokes and laughter surrounded his contributions. I think they saw his comedy value and hoped to exploit it for audience ratings (much like having Paul Henry on your show).

          If you prefer Trotter’s take on it, they had their performing animal performing very nicely thank you – right up until last Thursday (I notice Trotter provides no evidence that ‘Afternoon’s’ audience were getting ‘weary’ of Bradbury or that RNZ were attuned to any such ‘weariness’.).

          The evidence for my explanation is that (a) he was invited as a known quantity; (b) he kept getting invited (for years); (c) he was on very good ‘on air’ terms with Jim Mora (including his opening comment on that ‘fateful day’). 

          The difference this time was that his target was not just ‘the government’ or some right wing local body politician – it was Key. And, it was unrelentingly and unforgivingly targetted at Key.

          I suspect that RNZ decision makers, at that point, had their first and immediate sense of ‘regret’ at having invited him because he was directly attacking a PM in very forceful terms whom the polls show is extremely popular. They feared, that is, that Bradbury had potentially upset or offended their listeners because of his attack on a very popular PM.

          Whether they also feared the reaction of their ultimate boss (Griffin) or anticipated a backlash from the government is impossible to say although the conditions for such an anticipatory psychological reaction were (and are) certainly in place (funding cuts, etc.).

          In all honesty, I think the evidence weighs heavily in favour of my explanation over yours. 

  2. queenstfarmer 2
    13 October 2011 at 2:38 pm

    Maybe it’s because, on closer inspection, it is not actually a ban. The producer of one particular show just isn’t inviting him on to the panel, as is his right.

    On that basis, I suppose I too am “banned” from Radio NZ and am outraged that the media has not gotten all worked up about this.

  3. Lanthanide 3
    13 October 2011 at 2:44 pm

    iPredict launched a stock on whether Peter Cavanagh will step down as chief executive at RNZ by 1st of November.

    Currently stands at 10.5%, and has had very light trading. So it seems most people aren’t interested in this and think nothing is going to change.

  4. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4
    13 October 2011 at 3:06 pm

    He hasn’t been banned. They’re just not inviting him back. It’s like saying Aunt Daisy was banned.

    • fmacskasy 4.1
      13 October 2011 at 3:13 pm

      Yeah.

      Like Salvadore Allende wasn’t machine-gunned to death. He just happened to stop breathing at precisely the same moment as several bits of lead moved past his skin and lodged in his body.

      No connection at all.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.1.1
        13 October 2011 at 3:27 pm

        So, once you have been invited on Jim Mora’s show that’s it: you have a job for life and if RNZ don’t invite you again they are impinging on you right to free speech?

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          13 October 2011 at 4:09 pm

          Hey Gormless, Bomber was banned. RNZ’s wordsmithing later on reveals that they didn’t even think it through properly first up.

          That;s what pressure from the PM’s office does I guess

  5. Ian Wishart 5
    13 October 2011 at 3:21 pm

    I’ve got to admit, everyone who defended the boycott of “Breaking Silence” by saying it was the public and/or retailers exercising ‘a right to choose’, should surely recognise RNZ’s right to choose not to have Bradbury as a guest.

    I didn’t see Bradbury defending my or Macsyna King’s free speech rights at the time…”People have a right to be angry at the way this case was incompetently handled allowing someone who had a lot of evidence stacked against them personally to be ruled out as a suspect when arguably that just shouldn’t have happened.

    “Which all makes this book as odious as OJ Simpson’s ‘I didn’t kill her, but here’s how I would have if I did’ book. Allowing someone who the evidence leaves huge questions marks over to benefit from a book by a media pimp like Ian Wishart is like the gross eating challenge in Fear Factor. But grosser. ”

    I did get the last laugh, because those who bothered to read and review the book with open minds came away better informed than stick-yer-head-in-the-sand-and-arse-in-the-air Bradbury:

    http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2011/08/reviews-of-breaking-silence-by-ian-wishart.html

    Karma has a funny way of expressing itself.

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    13 October 2011 at 3:50 pm

    It’s not a ban! It’s not a ban!

    It’s just that he’ll never be invited back on air again. With no idea what he did wrong, or how to fix it, but it doesn’t matter his behaviour is not fixable because it’s not a ban!

    Stoopid RWNJs

    • queenstfarmer 6.1
      13 October 2011 at 4:06 pm

      He hasn’t been banned, just not invited and with perfectly good reasons given here.

      What you seem to be suggesting is (to paraphrase Ole) if you’ve been invited even once, then Radio NZ is required to perpetually keep inviting you forever unless you do something so bad that it is beyond fixing. Anything less is an outrageous “ban”.

      Just another facet of an entitlement mentality.

      • felix 6.1.1
        13 October 2011 at 4:17 pm

        And the reason he’s not being invited back is because he criticised John Key too vigorously.

        See that’s the nub, and it doesn’t matter whether you call it a ban or not.

        • queenstfarmer 6.1.1.1
          13 October 2011 at 4:41 pm

          And the reason he’s not being invited back is because he criticised John Key too vigorously.

          You’re wrong – that’s not the reason, unless you now accuse Radio NZ staff of lying.

          it doesn’t matter whether you call it a ban or not

          Good, because it’s not. That’s the end of that then.

          • felix 6.1.1.1.1
            13 October 2011 at 4:49 pm

            “You’re wrong – that’s not the reason, unless you now accuse Radio NZ staff of lying.”

            How so? Your own link spells it out.

            Mr. Bradbury’s invitation to participate on The Panel was withdrawn because his personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance.

            Seems it’s you who’s accusing RNZ of lying. You really should read these things you link to, framer.

            • queenstfarmer 6.1.1.1.1.1
              13 October 2011 at 6:04 pm

              Yes, the link spells out that you are wrong. Seems you need to have it made it even clearer to you:

              You claimed the “ban” was because “he criticised John Key too vigorously.”

              RNZ, on the other hand, says it was because his “personal comments about the Prime Minister were deemed to be in breach of Radio New Zealand’s editorial requirements for fairness and balance“.

              So there is nothing about any “criticism” of the PM, or being “too vigorous”. Instead it expressly states it was due to personal comments that were not fair and balanced within RNZ’s guidelines. I am quite sure that RNZ’s editorial guidelines do not prohibit vigorous criticism.

              So who to believe? RNZ’s actual words as to why it is no longer extending an invitation? Or your asserted reasons as to what RNZ meant, that are inconsistent with what RNZ actually said (and the associated accusation that RNZ staff are lying). I think I know who has more credibility.

              • felix …
                13 October 2011 at 6:13 pm

                Care to explain what the breach of the editorial requirement was then?

                I reckon it was his vigorous criticism of the PM.

                Apparently you have an alternate explanation which I’d love to hear.

                • queenstfarmer …
                  13 October 2011 at 9:55 pm

                  No I don’t. Like you, I’d just be guessing. I’m satisfied to accept what RNZ said and refer (again) to that. You obviously don’t accept that. And that’s fine – you are free to believe that RNZ staff are lying, and that RNZ has implemented an editorial prohibition on vigorous criticism of the Prime Minister. Whether you also reckon that makes RNZ corrupt or part of a right wing conspiracy, I don’t know.

          • fmacskasy 6.1.1.1.2
            14 October 2011 at 2:41 pm

            QSF, you’re starting to sound a tad Orwellian there, mate.

            Would it help to refer to Bradbury as an “Unperson”?

            So, not “banned” – but “Un-welcomed”?

            That’s quite a scary Parallel Universe you inhabit there.

      • JonL 6.1.2
        13 October 2011 at 6:47 pm

        Well QSF, to quote the man himself

        “Let’s note, I didn’t have my ‘invitation withdrawn’, I was banned, that was the word used during my Friday morning phone call and they know it.”

        rather different to just “not being invited back!

      • fmacskasy 6.1.3
        13 October 2011 at 11:29 pm

        Funny how you keep focusing on semnantics instead of the issues involved, QSF.

        Since when was freedom of speech determined by precise dictionary definitions?

        C’mon, be honest here instead of deflecting to irrelevant word-play games. You and I both know it’s a ban. If you want to call it by any other name, it shall still smell as rotten.

        Now I dunno if RNZ looks at these (or my) blogs. But if they do, they may care to reflect that when I’m listening to RNZ now, it is with an apprehension in the back of my mind: are people saying what they mean? Or are they self-censoring?

        Of course, this all means nothing to you. But consider that the next time Labour is in power, and one of YOUR boys is banned – sorry, not asked to return – I, for one, don’t want to hear a word or mutter from you. As far as I’m concerned, the right wing have abrogated any responsibility they might have had toward enduring freedom of speech. It seems it’s only “free” when the Left has to pay for it.

        • queenstfarmer 6.1.3.1
          13 October 2011 at 11:39 pm

          I presume by “YOUR boys” you mean a right-wing commentator (as a life-long independent I am free from having to pick teams – I recommend trying it).

          Well ok, here’s a recent one: David Farrar was not invited to continue his NBR column. Ergo, his “enduring freedom of speech” (as you put it) has been abrogated!!

          • fmacskasy 6.1.3.1.1
            13 October 2011 at 11:58 pm

            Even if true – so what?

            By what rational does one justify the other?

            This is a false argument of never-ending dominoes, each falling back on another.

            It is also a matter of interest that David Farrar is still an invited guest on RNZ.

            • queenstfarmer 6.1.3.1.1.1
              14 October 2011 at 9:49 am

              It is true – NBR discontinued his column – and it’s not about “justification”. It’s about that fact that Bomber not continuing to be invited to a specific show on RNZ in perpetuity is no more a “ban” or “enduring freedom of speech” issue, than DPF not continuing to be invited to write a column for the NBR in perpetuity.

              The assertion of a ban and attack on free speech (by Radio NZ, of all outfits) is not just false, it’s simply ludicrous.

              • fmacskasy …
                14 October 2011 at 12:08 pm

                As I said, one does not justify the other.

                The Farrar issue is separate and merely an attempt at deflection. Without that deflection you simply cannot justify Bradbury’s banning from RNZ. Without that deflection you would have to focus fair-and-square on the RNZ-Bradbury issue and that is where you have no justification.

                Let’s focus on the Bradbury banning – can you validate RNZ’s decision? Of course not. Pointing to Farrar is a red herring – and taken by itself, the banning is an atrocious mis-use of authority by RNZ.

                You can try to “spin” it till the cows come home – but it’s still a ban.

        • felix 6.1.3.2
          14 October 2011 at 12:10 am

          “…next time Labour is in power, and one of YOUR boys is banned … I, for one, don’t want to hear a word or mutter from you.”

          You won’t. They’ll all change their handles like they did last time.

  7. Blue 7
    13 October 2011 at 4:07 pm

    Can anyone tell me if there is even one journalist in NZ who has asked Key if he did make the throat-slitting gesture?

    • Anne 7.1
      13 October 2011 at 8:07 pm

      Can anyone tell me if there is even one journalist in NZ who has asked Key if he did make the throat-slitting gesture?

      The answer is assuredly.. no.

      1. They know he said it. Too much circumstantial evidence, plus TV3 managed to catch it on film albeit rather blurred.
      2. If they dared to ask… hey presto, their bosses would be withdrawing their contracts to provide news stories or, to put it bluntly, sacking them.

  8. ak 8
    13 October 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Andrew: I don’t think Bradbury really was kicked off for what he said, but for how he said it.

    And in all the criticism of Bomber (at least a dozen “rant”s and one of the poor dears at the Edwards Lounge had to turn off the wireless and lie down with a nice cuppa), not one actual quote.

    So it’s official. Intonation and accent are more important than content.

    But hang on. One individual ruffles the soporific pillow of a terminal bore by raising his voice once and he’s banned from the hospice: at the same time, another tortures pronunciation and syntax mercilessly in public over many years, and he ends up PM.

    So it’s neither medium, message, nor tone. It’s power, baby, and the rich old farts are in charge. Step away from that microphone young man, it belongs to us.

  9. Nick C 9
    13 October 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Hey: I have never been invited to speak on Radio NZ. Does that mean my freedom of speech has been breached?

    No, because while I have a freedom to speak I dont have a right to be given a free soapbox by a radio station. I dont think that would change if I had previously been invited on air to that radio station either.

  10. Dan 10
    13 October 2011 at 4:50 pm

    Sacking Darren McDonald for reading the news on P was stiffling his freedom of expression. At least 3 News would have been interesting for someone for once.

    Seriously though, if they seriously want to say that Bomber’s remarks were borderline defamatory (and he did basically accuse someone of political collusion without offering a shred of proof), well, maybe there’s a lesson there for Bomber. That shit might have flown on Sunday nights on Channel Z or on his own YouTube channel, but apparently not Radio New Zealand. 

  11. Tiger Mountain 11
    13 October 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Andrew Geddis and others should watch or re-watch “Goodnight and Goodluck” the George Clooney movie set amid 50s network broadcast McCarthyism to remind themsleves how this all works. The type of pricks that expunged Bomber operate in backrooms. Crosby Textor and the minders are desperate over this election and will do anything to remove or deliver eyeballs and earholes as they see fit.

    • Andrew Geddis 11.1
      13 October 2011 at 5:15 pm

      If you want to compare Bradbury to Edward R Murrow then I cannot stop you, nor would I seek to. But I will respectfully refuse to accept that the analogy is in any way apt.

      Further, if Crosby Textor WERE in the shadows exerting control over RNZ’s editorial decisions, Bradbury would be given extended hours to speak his mind over and over again. You really think his monologues are in any way effective at puncturing Key’s bubble, or convince anyone who already does not viscerally dislike Key? Honestly, I mean?

      • Misanthropic Curmudgeon 11.1.1
        13 October 2011 at 5:30 pm

        I (as a ex-Green voter) would be tempted to vote for Key just to spite the intellectul minnow known as Bomber.

      • Tiger Mountain 11.1.2
        13 October 2011 at 5:34 pm

        Well Andrew, Bomber was certainly effective (needling perhaps in your take) enough to trigger someone with the power to say “haere rā”. This decision was against the run of play given many previous similar Bradbury contributions. Bomber is no Murrow, or indeed no Mora heh. The similarities are simply-crusading journo pressured by vested interests.

        Will this ever be proven? Odds are good that it will in the Wiki era.

      • fmacskasy 11.1.3
        13 October 2011 at 11:39 pm

        Andrew, ‘Bombers’s’ role isn’t to change anyone’s views.

        His role is to raise issues and lay them out for all to see. What people do thereafter is their business – but at least they’ve had the option.

        Same for this blog. Or Pundit. Or Kiwiblog, for that matter. We say the things that msm is to afraid to bring up, or may hurt ratings.Or offend someone.

        If RNZ didn’t want Bomber’s views, they should have stayed safe. Maybe put a cooking show on? They’re quite popular on TV these days, I hear. Plus it offends no one. And it’s very relaxing, watching cooking shows on the telly.

        Not like Bomber… he makes people uneasy. Can’t have that. Next thing you know, they might start thinking a little too deeply about – issues.

        Now who was the last person banned by someone in authority for their political views… oh yes, Tom Scott.

  12. randal 12
    13 October 2011 at 5:13 pm

    the meedja in NZ are toy poodles and lapdogs. Oh they can talk the big game alright but when it gets down to the nitty gritty they gutless with a yellow strreak a mile wide.

  13. randal 13
    13 October 2011 at 5:16 pm

    especially Radio New Zealand. When you listen to them they continually use the dishonest, disrespectful and invlid mode of interrogatives. They have convinced themselves its ok because ‘they’ do it but in the end they sound like some low grade pommies arguing in a pub. dont they?

  14. Misanthropic Curmudgeon 14
    13 October 2011 at 5:28 pm

    I presumed Bomber was not on anymore because either:
    1) His squeaky high-pitched shrill voice was harnful to the line-driving amplifiers, or,
    2) No-one wants to listen to him read out his blog postings word-for-word on air, as is his want.

    It’s a bit like that mad-water-woman up here in Auckland, who would ring up talkback incoherenetly rant and rave about water and corporations and tin-foild helmets. She complained she was being censored, when the simple realty was nobody wanted to listen to her.

  15. infused 15
    13 October 2011 at 6:28 pm

    No serious coverage because no one gives a shit about Bomber. I thought that would be pretty obvious.

  16. tc 16
    13 October 2011 at 7:26 pm

    The real issue here isn’t bomber it’s the lack of quality and objectivity currently at RNZ across the board…nice work mr Griffin.

    Whether you like or dislike him, or if you think he should or shouldn’t have been on or taken off this all points to people behind the scenes not fit to shine a public broadcasters shoes.

    It’s been sliding downhill for sometime now.

  17. Jenny 17
    13 October 2011 at 7:53 pm

    It will be interesting to see what this newly culled and overwhelmingly dominated panel of right wing commentators will have to say about the Rena disaster next week.

    I imagine if the Rena is mentioned at all, the Panel will be very careful, in light of Bomber’s sacking, to hedge around the issue of the tardy response of the authorities to this disaster.

    Welcome to the era of ‘self censorship’ at RNZ.

  18. randal 18
    13 October 2011 at 8:57 pm

    they just do what they like anyway, dont they.
    its their toy, isn’t it.
    they dont give a shit about anybody except weetbix eaters, do they.
    Its all pretty pretty crummy, isnt it.
    they know the naswers before they ask the, dont they?
    They all got the right hair styles and use teeth whitener dont they?
    they are the plastic people of the universe, aren’t they?

  19. gobsmacked 19
    13 October 2011 at 9:59 pm

    Another day, another attack on free speech and media who dare to question Dear Leader Key Il-Sung …

    TVNZ reporter banned from “Tupperwaka” opening tonight.

    If this is how the Nats behave when they have had the softest media coverage in the Western world, imagine what they’d do if they actually had to face really tough questions.

  20. peerlepaysan 20
    13 October 2011 at 10:27 pm

    Bradbury was asked to state what was on his mind.

    He did so.

    He did so in his usual manner.

    He was banned.

    WTF.

    Brand Key has been attacked.

    Crosby/Textor, National Party, and Linganal expert Richard Griffin, ride to the rescue of brand Key.

    Barf.

  21. Rodel 21
    13 October 2011 at 10:37 pm

    Hooten and Basset are silly and offensive but subtlety snide .
    Bradbury while I agree with his sentiments is fairly obnoxious and I don’t like listening to him
    He’s correct but not at all persuasive. I’m as left wing as anyone but he’s actually quite stupidly attention seeking and I don’t blame any radio station for banning him.Personally I’d like to see Hooten and Basset ignored by radio as they have little of substance to offer but at least they aren’t loudly offensive.
    Bradbury doesn’t do the left any favours and doesn’t influence any swinging voters to change to Labour. I sort of like him but he’s a liability.

    • Puddleglum 21.1
      13 October 2011 at 10:52 pm

      Hi Rodel,

      I don’t think this is about whether Martyn Bradbury helps or hinders Labour or ‘the left’. That’s irrelevant to the issue of his banning/not being invited back.

      Put another way, it’s not about Bradbury, it’s about Radio New Zealand.

  22. Jenny 22
    14 October 2011 at 12:17 am

    At a public meeting in Maketu attended by John Key, residents cried as they took in the extent of the spill and what it could do to their fishery and environment.

    Prime Minister John Key stood in Maketu saying he understood why frustrations were boiling over.
    A national plan for such disasters had been put into action the moment the ship hit the reef, he said.

    stuff.co.nz

    I wonder if one of the remaining members of the RNZ panel dared to ask, if there really was such a thing as “a national plan for such disasters” as John Key claimed in Maketu, and then challenged our Prime Minister -on air – to release it. Might that brave panelist also then find themselves on a lifetime ban?

    Of course the remaining panelists being the type of people still considered proper for this panel by RNZ they would be very unlikely to ask such a question of our Prime Minister. All being very strongly reminded of the rules of self censorship that RNZ demand and that Bradbury deliberately flouted when he dared to mention John Key’s ugly throat slitting gesture on air.

  23. deemac 23
    14 October 2011 at 12:36 pm

    the afternoon panel show is not a heavyweight political programme, they often have panellists who say things that are off the wall – I have heard some of the right wingers say disgusting stuff about beneficiaries. Mora is good at keeping it light-hearted but not good at providing political balance. The programme seems to have many more rightwingers on than lefties – Farrar almost every week, Michele Boag, Stephen Franks, Garth George are all regulars. The idea that they could not cope with the likes of Bradbury occasionally is ridiculous.
    It is all of a piece with the banning of TVNZ from the plastic waka because they aired criticism of it – a sign of the chilling effect this nasty government is having on free speech.

  24. TT 24
    15 October 2011 at 9:46 am

    This is the obvious outcome of a Zionist controlled media. Key is just their puppet. The banksters are pulling his strings, and control RNZ. That station is nothing more than a propaganda tool for the far right Zionazis. Bomber was coming close to exposing the truth so he needed to be silenced.

    • lprent 24.1
      15 October 2011 at 10:13 am

      Damn I need my tinfoil hat.

      In other words bomber didn’t say anything particularly different on RNZ to what he says at Tumeke all of the time – where he has almost complete freedom to say what he wants (and usually does). I haven’t seen him raving about the elders of Zion there? I think that is something that you may believe but doesn’t appear to correlate well with reality.