Dirty Kiwiblog

Written By: - Date published: 6:40 am, September 26th, 2014 - 146 comments
Categories: blogs, David Farrar - Tags: , , ,

National’s dirty politics blogs continue in full effluent flow. In the last two days one of Farrar’s targets, Dr Gilbert (a lecturer at Canterbury) has updated his story. In a first post:

Proof of David Farrar’s deception: my own experience of Dirty Politics

In the lead up to the election the Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley launched a gang policy. In order to justify the government’s approach she used gang figures that overstated the gang problem. Not by a little bit, but a lot. And I mean a lot. I couldn’t prove it at the time (I can now) but because they were so obviously nonsense I called her out and said I would eat a suitcase full of carrots if she was correct.

Carrots proved to be the least of my problems. My problem proved to be the dishonest Right Wing blogger David Farrar. I initially took Farrar’s challenge in good humour thinking it would be a healthy tussle to seek the truth. It wasn’t. As we know now, he and Cameron Slater are birds of a feather, but where Slater is dim-witted Farrar is marginally smarter and this makes him more insidious.

Farrar quickly leapt to the Minister’s Defence. He was able to gain the figures – presumably from the Minister’s office – and with them he attempted to ‘prove’ that I was wrong and discredit me. Sound familiar? It was my own little experience of Dirty Politics. …

By this stage, of course, Farrar almost certainly knew he was wrong, but right and wrong is not his concern. His only concern is a political agenda – protect and promote the National party, no matter what the truth is. Deceive and mislead the public, shut up opponents, bury the truth, twist the facts. These are things my training deplores. In fact my last piece on the Minister was praising her work with the Department of Corrections, and I contract to do research for them – and I can’t imagine this helps me getting more – but my only concern is the truth. …

and then yesterday in a second:

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean the government isn’t playing dirty.

Ten minutes or so before I posted my blog yesterday proving the Police and Corrections Minister had used dodgy gang numbers, David Farrar wrote something akin to an apology on Kiwiblog for attacking me for exposing the truth. He was getting the jump on criticism coming his way.

Was this a coincidence? Of course not. He was tipped off by the Minister’s office following an inquiry by the the Herald’s ever diligent David Fisher just an hour or so before Farrar posted. Tolley’s press secretary is a man named Gillon Carruthers. Leaked emails used in Dirty Politics show that Carruthers has been providing material to Farrar’s offside Cameron Slater since 2011. Old habits obviously die hard.

Not that Carruthers will admit it, of course, and if he does he will undoubtedly say that he was just apologising to Farrar for sending him false information in the first place. That’s obviously a sop, though, why only apologise to Farrar? Why not to the public for misleading them when launching important policy before the election? Furthermore, any apology to Farrar would only prove he previously leaked him the original information so that he could attack me. …

Farrar’s (latest) “promise” to clean up his sewer included a “promise” to declare parliamentary sources – Graeme Edgeler calls him out on this latest example:

Business as usual then (what a surprise). Expect dirty politics, and personal attacks on critics of the government, to escalate even further over the next three years.

146 comments on “Dirty Kiwiblog”

  1. Paul 1

    Farrar still gets invited onto National radio.
    Unbelievable.

    This is a great post. We shall need to keep a weather eye out for continuing evidence of Dirty Politics. Hager has shown us how it works…should now be easier to notice it.

    • tc 1.1

      As does hooten, DP has effectively become standard practice for granny, stuff, TVNZ, RNZ, tv3 etc as actual journalism means facts and they can’t have that getting in the agendas way.

      The intent is obvious, the tools resharpened, the players well rewarded. Key will now move to shore up the middle while the DP crew go about attacking whoever or whatever to maximise that play.

      It’s national’s radio now anyway has been for years.

      • Gosman 1.1.1

        Given that people from the left are also invited on to various panel type shows who would you suggest be picked from the right if not David Farrar or Matthew Hooton?

        • Paul 1.1.1.1

          Someone not implicated by Dirty Politics.

          • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1

            No comment on farrar’s alleged behaviour in the actual post though by FOG thinker

          • Gosman 1.1.1.1.2

            Such as who?

            • Tracey 1.1.1.1.2.1

              … to find someone who will analyse rather than use the spot to lie and deceive. maybe get some university types… problem is they are scared of losing their funding if they speak against this government….

              last week Hooton, on Ryan’s spot said that Dotcom was paying people to vote in TTT. Ryan corrected him and said “paying for busess to take them to vote”. No condemnation, just a gentle correction. He knew he was lying. WTF aye, if it gets votes, nothing wrong-headed about that.

              The other option would be to not have anyone at all. Give people interviews of the people, of the events etc and let them decide for themselves what they think

              • Paul

                And he continues to be invited to continue his smears and misrepresentations.
                What a miserable media we have.

              • Gosman

                People enjoy having people from different political perspectives discuss the same issue. It is one of the reasons ‘From the left and from the right’ on Radio NZ National is extremely popular. Given that people like to hear differing perspectives I will repeat my question to you. Which person from a right leaning perspective is acceptable to you to be involved in such discussions if people like David Farrar and Matthew Hooton are not?

                • Tracey

                  I’ve answered your question, I don’t think anyone from the left or right should be on. In any event how do you come to speak for what people enjoy. If it was no longer on, who would complain? farrar? Hooton? Key? Or Slater and his anonymous brigade of Carrick et al pretending to be ordinary punters to get their propaganda arm up and running. Yo do know tha Carrick Graham invents pseudonyms to post on Slater’s blog championing his paying clients views with appalling smears and vile language? This is probably why there is little moderation at the Oil Slick… he’d lose his paying punters. BUT you only read the chapter about Farrar so I am speaking to the uninformed now.

                  You pretend to champion wrong headed thinking yet champion this show which promotes wrong headed thinking, whether from Williams or Hooton. What frightens you about letting “people” think for themselves? You scared that if they are spoon fed they might think for themselves…. how would that harm the Right?

                  • Gosman

                    What you are essentially stating is that you don’t want anyone providing political opinion in the media except the media and politicians being interviewed by media. How is this better for our democracy?

                • lurgee

                  Hooton, at least, is invited on as an explicitly rightwing commentator and is balanced by an explicitly leftwing commentator. The whole point of their segment is that they are baised and opposed.

                  Farrar, on the otherhand, gets to pontificate on the panel from a position of supposed neutrality and often without a counter weight. Now he’s been exposed as a National Party shill, peddling dishonesty, he should not be invited back.

                  I don’t mind commentators disagreeing with me; the world is full of such fools. I do mind people claiming other people’s work is there own (“I’ve done this little table …”). And he sounds dreadful as well. And I remember him admitting to cyber-stalking ex-girlfriends.

                  Trade – drop Farrar and the equally annoying Trotter?

                  • Chooky

                    +100 lurgee…

                  • Gosman

                    Funnily enough the show has been notable recently for the amount of times Hooton and Williams have agreed on subjects.

                    • ma rohemo

                      That shows how the choice of both right and left commentators is biased to suit the agenda of the right.
                      Using Pagani is another example of a totally inappropriate choice. Who is she representing?

                  • marie

                    Chris Trotter should go as a commenter on the left.
                    He can sing the Red Flag all he likes but what comes out of his mouth is anti left and in particular anti Labour rhetoric. Very often on Radio Live you will have Willie Jackson, Hooton or Farrar and Trotter all slagging off Labour. Balanced? I don’t think so. At least you don’t expect a balanced discussion on Live but National Radio is becoming a national disgrace. Worried about their funding no doubt.

                  • Tom Jackson

                    When has Trotter ever been exposed as working for a political party? As far as I know, he’s just a columnist and represents his own views. If you don’t like him, that’s fine, but he’s not a proven shill like hollow man Hooton.

                    • marie

                      I am not saying he is working for a political party. He is representing his own views and they are not that left wing. Bit of a problem when you are held up as being the balance for the extreme right-wing views expressed by other commentators. Listen to him being interviewed alongside Michael Bassett on Morning Report after the resignation of Shane Jones. He agreed with everything Bassett said. Just one example of Trotter’s reputation as a ‘leftie’ being demonstrated to be less than clearly deserved.

                • adam

                  You Gosman – it should be you – you’re not in the dirty politics soup are you?

                • Brigid

                  Jason Eade for the right.

            • Kaplan 1.1.1.1.2.2

              “Such as who”
              Nailed it Gosman! There are none. Well done.

              • Gosman

                I think you have highlighted what the issue really is for many on the left. You just don’t like right wing views getting any airing at all in the media. You seemingly would prefer to shut down discussion than allow people to be exposed to what you think are dangerous ideas.

                • Tracey

                  Having no one on that show does not shut down discussion it removes propaganda.

                  OH my God, the death of democracy cried Gosman, how will the people know what to think if we dont tell them…

                  FOG

                  • Gosman

                    You really don’t get the concept of free speech Tracey.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      😆

                      Neither do you if you’re advancing state-funded media as an example.

                      To be clear, can you show me where in the UDoHR it mentions that the livelihood of a paid propagandist is an inalienable right?

                      Perhaps the clause that explains that cabinet ministers have a right to construct elaborate lies without consequences.

                      The people, Gosman, have the right to free speech. When cabinet ministers use proxies to attack their well-informed critics, that is an assault upon free speech.

                      Either you understand this, in which case your bad faith arguments are exposed, or you don’t, and are to be pitied and ignored.

                    • Gosman

                      Nope. You really don’t understand the concept of free speech. Retricting people’s ability to speak to the media is generally wrong in my view. There may be a case for restricting public officials passing on information to others but that is a separate matter.

                    • framu

                      arent people really saying the media should stop treating them as a reliable source for comment – not that they cant say anything public ever again?

                  • tricle up

                    +1

                • framu

                  “You just don’t like right wing views getting any airing at all in the media. ”

                  thats not true – we dont like people who have been exposed as being professional shit stirrers and bullshitters airing their views – regardless of ideology

                  farrar isnt playing with a clean pair of hands.

                  shit – i dont want some loud mouth from the left representing ideas i agree with when their motives are suspect – it taints eveyone and opens the door for retaliation in kind

                  and the funny thing is – who wants to win the battle of ideas by having weak ideas that need tricks and manipulation to make them seem like the right choice?

                  Is your faith in your argument so limp and pathetic that you need to resort to tricks? – or do you think your ideas are such good ones that they can win on the strength of the idea alone?

                  • Gosman

                    Okay then. Martyn Bradbury has been shown to be both working directly or touting for business from people he has blogged about. Does that mean he should be regarded as persona non grata as well?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      That’s the way, make a feeble attempt to reduce the issue to one facet then present a false and misleading binary choice.

                      What a winner. Go #teamratfuck

                    • Kevin Welsh

                      Yes.

                    • Gosman

                      It is a simple question OAB. Would you support the media not engaging with Martyn Bradbury as well as say David Farrar because they both engage in similar activities?

                    • thatguynz

                      Interesting example to use Gosman. Wasn’t Bomber banned from Radio NZ for doing much less than Hooten and Farrar have done?

                    • framu

                      first show how bomber is deliberately working for people who are using him to hide their involvement in co-ordinated attacks on people using fake info

                      if you can do that i will agree – because that is the problem –
                      working for someone and openly endorsing them is fine.

                      eg: if WO had said he was being paid by the tobbacco lobby and then said “and ive got this to say about it” then big deal – but thats not what happened is it

                    • Gosman

                      Not for doing much less. Hooton and Farrar know how to play the game. Bradbury is an idiot and shot his mouth off in a manner not approriate to the forum he was in. However the question is do you think Bradbury (along with Farrar and Hooton) should be barred from giving his opinion about political matters in the MSM?

                    • Gosman

                      Okay framu. There was a recent post on the Daily Blog which Martyn Bradbury put up in which he was defending the chances of Hone Harawira in his seat. To support his view he referenced an ‘independent’ poll which he stated showed large support for Hone and a big gap between him and Kelvin Davis. What he neglected to mention was the poll wasn’t exactly independent and had been comissioned by the Internet Mana party. Do you not think he was being dishonest by neglecting to mention this fact?

                    • framu

                      show how bomber is deliberately working for people who are using him to hide their involvement in co-ordinated attacks on people using fake info

                      For the thrid time – its not about the connections – its about the openness and transparency

                      bomber shouldnt be banned because guess what – here we are all discussing his connections and whos paying him – now WO and farrars ‘other’ work arrangement has been kept hidden till now and they have been exposed as dealing in dishonest and unethical behaviour while trying to keep that side of their set up secret.

                      I will make it even easier – if someone from any side of the sprectrum wants to be a public figure thats fine, but the second they start dealing in mis-information, smears, lies and bullshit then theyre gone

                      thats my standard – and i apply it to all

                      but i agree bombers a loud mouth – but thats pretty much a requirement for broadcasting these days – and kind of where his pseudonym comes from

                    • framu

                      “Do you not think he was being dishonest by neglecting to mention this fact?”

                      yes on that i agree with you – so if thats then a pattern or standard operating procedure for him then anyone is quite right to raise an eyebrow

                    • thatguynz

                      My point Gosman, was that Bradbury has in essence already been banned from the MSM for giving his opinion..

                    • Gosman

                      Mr Bradbury appears on plenty of main stream media still. I saw him getting interviewed by Damien Christie on Backbenches just prior to the election last week.

                • Hanswurst

                  The problem as I see it isn’t with Farrar and Hooton themselves, it is with their being presented as providing the public with the insight to make up their own minds on political developments. Ideally, there should be a range of different people invited to do that prominently, and nobody should be a regular for too long at a stretch. Nor should the commentators be rotated simply for the sake of rotation. There should be commentators who comment chiefly in terms of political economy (someone like Gareth Morgan or Bernard Hickey), commentators who are experts in giving historical context (maybe Geoffrey Palmer, Michael Bassett, Chris Trotter), environmental types, sociologists…

                  Most of these commentators are to be heard in the media at various times, but (with the exception of Trotter) they are generally seen as commenting separately from the political “game”. Engaging them and politically interested experts in other fields with the explicit intent of talking politics would help focus the general consciousness on politics as a reaction to real issues, rather than sort of arcane, anti-social ballet played by our governing classes. In that context, there should be no attempt to have “unbiased” commentators; commentators should simply be unabashedly right or left wing, feminist, enironmentalist or whatever they are passionate about. The point isn’t to indoctrinate the audience, but to present them with enough information to discuss and evaluate political developments for themselves from as many angles as possible.

                  In that context, Farrar could be invited as a statistician, polling expert and National Party insider, Hooton could be invited to examine what spin different players are putting on issues, and Mike Williams could be invited as an expert in agreeing with Matthew Hooton while speculating on what might be happening within the Labour Party. Just not all the time in the never-ending circus of Hooton/Farrar/Boag/Williams/Pagani.

                  • ianmac

                    “and Mike Williams could be invited as an expert in agreeing with Matthew Hooton while speculating on what might be happening within the Labour Party.”
                    Naughty Hanswurst.
                    There was a Union man who was very articulate and appeared a couple of times on the Nation. Can’t remember his name but he cut through the bullshit clearly and concisely. So “they” wont have him back again?

                    • Karen

                      It was Robert Reid.The only actual “from the Left” voice they have ever used. Williams and Pagani are centrists, and Trotter is only interested in pontificating about the problems the left has. I have yet to hear him criticise the right.

                  • emergency mike

                    “Just not all the time in the never-ending circus of Hooton/Farrar/Boag/Williams/Pagani.”

                    Exactly, our universities have a range of intellient experts across a variety of relevent fields that RNZ could easily invite for discussion. But it’s easier, and lazier to just get right wing propagandists Hooton and Farrar, shrill Nat witch Boag, I agree with Matthew Williams, and wtf is wrong with Labour Pagani. Again and again and again…

                    • Gosman

                      So you would be happy with someone like Phoebe Fletcher to make comments then?

                    • emergency mike

                      I can’t say I’m familiar with her work Gosman, but a big free speech guy like yourself would welcome alternative perspectives I’m sure.

                      Rather than advocating for anyone in particular, my point was rather about the status quo having the constant presence of right wing spin merchants with connections to Cameron Slater.

                • Murray Olsen

                  Wrong, Gosman. What we don’t like is people in the employ of the NAct party pretending to be neutral commentators. The fact that they’re also unethical liars probably can’t be helped, but they should be identified.

  2. amirite 2

    And people voted for more of the same.
    WTF is wrong with humanity?

    • Paul 2.1

      They’re scared.
      150 000 unemployment and a disappearing welfare system has made people look over their shoulders.

      • Gosman 2.1.1

        And vote National in record numbers it seems.

        • Skinny 2.1.1.1

          I had to laugh when John Key made his victory speech. Referring to his big shout out to David Farrar his number one pollster, the whole crowd went deathly silent why? Because they don’t like dirty politics. Of course the MSM choose to ignore this which sums up the Lefts biggest problem ‘sell out journalism.’

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2.1.1.1.1

            …the whole crowd went deathly silent why? Because they don’t like dirty politics.

            But not enough that they didn’t vote National. Or go to National’s victory party. Or chant “three more years”.

          • Gosman 2.1.1.1.2

            Ummm.. I was at a National party 3 Election night Party in the Hutt and I can assure you they weren’t silent at that point and we’re not in the slightest bit interested in dirty politics.

            • Skinny 2.1.1.1.2.1

              Run the tape clown! when Key mentioned the word David Farrar they went silent as if a gasp of ‘you know that we know that your’ve engaged in dirty politics and we don’t like it’. However the new zealand being new zealand the flock of sheep follow the shepherd to the slaughter house where they get their throats cut.

        • framu 2.1.1.2

          isnt it record %s not record numbers?

          actual question there – not a smarty pants trip up attempt

        • adam 2.1.1.3

          Umm gossy bro that’s a lie – you need to look at the non-voters, yeap national won and yes they won by a lot – but record numbers – please spinking thats just ratfucking

    • higherstandard 2.2

      “And people voted for more of the same.
      WTF is wrong with humanity?”

      WTF is wrong with the Labour and Green Party ?

      FIFY

  3. Tracey 3

    Sigh

    Thanks for posting this here rOb. Much appreciated.

  4. Gosman 4

    Ummm… this was merely a debate not some sort of vicious smear campaign designed to destroy someone’s reputation. Both sides presented their opinions and views and argued their case. Simply because you think you are right about a topic does not mean that if someone disagrees with you they are engaging in ‘Dirty Politics’. If that was the case many of the posters here would be guilty of engaging in such behaviour.

    • Paul 4.1

      Did you read Dirty Politics?
      Yes or no?

      • Gosman 4.1.1

        I have read the chapter in relation to David Farrar. Much ado about nothing. The big ‘gotcha’ seems to revolve around his company provides polling services to National. Considering that was common knowledge prior to the release of the book it is hardly a Deep throat level of revelation.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1

          The big gotcha is that he knowingly allows cabinet ministers and other gang associates to use his blog to tell lies.

          • Tracey 4.1.1.1.1

            and that he is part of a predetermined strategy which includes having Slater on the outreaches looking a bit crazy so Farrar seems like the voice of reason…

          • Gosman 4.1.1.1.2

            No, he allows a free flow of ideas, both from the left and from the right. I have yet to see many left wingers complaining of having their views blocked from Kiwiblog. Compare this to say The Daily Blog where hardly anyone gets their view opposing anything anyone states if they are from the right of the spectrum.

            • Tracey 4.1.1.1.2.1

              a free flow of ideas which stems from his posts based on mistruths… he also does have a line tot he media. Remember he and the tax payer unions media rant about kiwi on air funding that song. Neither he nor the taxpayers union made a call to kiwi on air to ask them BEFORE setting off their media and blogging networks.

              • Gosman

                When David Farrar gets things wrong he generally corrects his posts as evidenced in this example. This is opposed to other bloggers who make comments that are subsequently shown to be incorrect and then nothing.

                I remember pointing out to Frank Mackasy how his blog post about billions of dollars leaving New Zealand (I think it was something in area of 10 – 20 Billion) as a result of Chinese buying a dairy farm was nonsense. Instead he tried to argue that it was a potential figure not actual even though I also showed how his reasoning was completely bogus. I don’t think Frank was wilfully lying. I just think he is completely wrong but honestly believes he is right. There is no dirty politics there just as there is no dirty politics in the case highlighted in this post.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Lies aren’t dirty, folks; never forget that when Gosman speaks.

                • framu

                  “he generally corrects his posts as ”

                  after the damage is done of course – and thats the point – farrar is good cop to WO pervert cop.

                  They operate this way so farrar can say “wow, WO is pretty extreme, but he still got a point”

                  • Gosman

                    Have you ever met David Farrar? The guy is a genuine political junkie and interacts with people on both sides of the political divide. if he is as evil as you make out why do politicians on the left socialise with him?

                    • Hanswurst

                      Politicians on the left of what?

                    • framu

                      i dont know

                      but none of that changes the role he plays in the nats PR and dark propaganda machine

                      in fact its because hes a genuine pol junkie that makes him suited to the “im more reasonable, but WO has a point” role

                    • Gosman,

                      From the post it seems to me that the issue is partly that Farrar posts something as ‘his work’ but that it is actually the work of people in the Ministry who have leaked him the package.

                      And that leads to the most significant issue which is the operation of a coordinated network of people in government, in the blogosphere and in the media as outlined in Hager’s book. The raison d’être of that network is to run attacks on opponents of the government.

                      Farrar, that is, is being fed data by the government that he can then report as if he found it through his own efforts and not attribute it to the actual source.

                      That’s because, of course, attribution would confirm that the government was engaging in dirty politics through abusing the access it has to official information to covertly channel it to someone who will use it for the government’s political advantage.

                      That leaves the government out of sight and, at the same time, enhances Farrar’s reputation as a savvy political commentator and analyst.

                      Does none of that seem a bit iffy to you?

                      That, I think, was the point of the post.

                • RJL

                  @Gosman: “When David Farrar gets things wrong he generally corrects his posts as evidenced in this example.”

                  Rather when DPF gets caught lying he retreats via a cute “Oh shucks, I’m sorry” routine, and promptly dumps everything in the memory hole.

                  The man is utter shit and a fool.

                • Murray Olsen

                  Publishing “Sorry, I was wrong” in small print hardly makes up for the lies.

            • adam 4.1.1.1.2.2

              Please gossy, we have all be moderated at the daily blog – get over it. Actually I’d have a guess that one left wing commentator on here, has had more comments not posted, ie: moderated away, than you! So get over yourself.

              • Gosman

                Sorry but I can’t even get a single comment posted there now. Even if I’m completely on topic without attacking any position of the left.

                • adam

                  So they banned you – so what, you have been banned from here – so have I, get over yourself.

                  • Gosman

                    The difference is I know why I got banned here. I might disagree with the reasoning but it is at least put out there so I can understand it. I don’t know if I’m even banned from The Daily Blog. I only assume so because none of my posts get through.

                    • adam

                      So one blog has a different policy and different way of doing things – their choice. I thought you supported freedom of choice?

                      It’s there blog, just like here – if you say and do stuff that is not in line with policy – you get the chop. You do the crime, you do the time. Hell I got emails, from friends laughing at me when I broke policy and got my ban – and I bloody deserved it.

                      I think Boomer and co have been quite clear in their moderation principles. And quite frankly Gosman you have broken that by your posts – you may think you haven’t, but one aspect of your methodology is changing away from the topic presented, and you do that a lot. I think they have put there foot down on that approach – not just you, but others – and rightly so – it can be an annoying bloody distraction.

                      And anyway this is a conversation for Open mike Bro.

          • Antonius 4.1.1.1.3

            And the left wing blogs do not? Or maybe they don’t, the politicians on the left are too busy fighting each other to use the Left wing blogs in the same way.

            Glass Houses, Stones ….. Just saying.

            [lprent: The short answer is that this site does not and never has. We do have authors who are involved inside the various parties. That and the news media is where we get information from.

            We finally managed this year to start getting press releases by picking them up from the RSS. And we seem to started to get on peoples email lists.

            Even Whaleoil acknowledges this. See Pete’s post over there from a few days ago where he was explaining why dirty Labour MPs leak to Whaleoil when they want to do the nasty on internal Labour enemies. That particular claim might be embellished. But it does reflect reality. ]

            • framu 4.1.1.1.3.1

              “And the left wing blogs do not? ”

              no – they dont

              talking to MPs as a blogger isnt unusual and yes everyone does that –

              but thats different to an organised smear machine run from the PMs office abusing its state power and resources to manipulate the news by overloading it with lies and attack anyone who dares question them via proxies in order to keep up the appearance of good faith and clean hands

              so – either show how other blogs do this or admit the difference –

            • Antonius 4.1.1.1.3.2

              I accept what you say.

              I do believe however that sometimes the public good can be achieved by the selective “leak” of information to interested parties. An example would be the TPPA. With both Phil Goff and David Shearer sitting on the select committee on trade, surely one of them could have “leaked” the text of the TPPA to one of the blogs on the left, so that all New Zealanders might know what is in the “Trade Agreement”.

              As it is, there is a lot of Vociferous argument for and against this treaty, and the “leak” of this document could either confirm or deny what the doom and gloom merchants are saying.

        • Tracey 4.1.1.2

          Was that an admission that you didn’t read the book? How did you come to just read that chapter?

          Must make you wonder why he bothered with his semi mea culpa and promise to tidy up his blog?

          • Gosman 4.1.1.2.1

            I read my sister’s copy. Given the fact she was still reading it at the time it would have been seen to be rude to take it to read the whole thing.

            • Tracey 4.1.1.2.1.1

              have you read it now she has finished with it?

              • Gosman

                I will have a look at it at some stage. I have been busy wit election stuff as I have already advised you. Btw many people have read the book and have not changed their opinions you realise don’t you

          • Antonius 4.1.1.2.2

            I love how everyone refers to “The Book” like it is some Holy Grail. Its a badly written attempt at a political hit job. It leads the reader down a path and then jumps to a conclusion so far off path.

            I must admit I did laugh a few times. Can’t wait for the movie.

        • Paul 4.1.1.3

          Just another non reader of Dirty Politics who feels able to comment on it.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2

      The difference is that Tolley faces consequences for lying, and Farrar doesn’t, so she uses him to lie by proxy.

      Please try and keep up.

      • Tracey 4.2.1

        He’s so busy trying to correct everyone else’s “wrong-headed thinking” he hasn’t realised his own starting point is distorted.

        I call it FOG thinking….

        Where corruption is mighty if they are on your side.

        • Ian H 4.2.1.1

          What about thinking that everyone who isn’t on your side is ( by definition ) corrupt? I see a fair amount of that around here.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1.1

            Nonsense. There is ample evidence of actual corruption, of the OIA process, of ministerial offices up to and including the Prime Minister, of media ethics (such as they are), of financial conflicts of interest.

            The evidence is in plain sight, everyone can see it. Covering your eyes and ears and yelling “they do it too!” makes you look like that very thing you describe: a person whose critical faculties have been distorted by partisan bias.

            Good things take time. Tick tock.

            • Ian H 4.2.1.1.1.1

              I don’t think I’m alone in being unconvinced about all of these allegations of corruption (points to election results). As to critical faculties being distorted by partisan bias – I’m one of those centre voters you need to convince to win an election. I’ve voted for Labour and for National at various times in my life. I’m probably a bit less partisan than (for instance) you are.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                😆 Not being a politician, a party member or a child who might otherwise not die of a poverty-related illness, I don’t “need” to convince you of anything.

                In any case, given your apparent belief that evidence can be measured by election results I doubt there’d be any point.

                Why don’t you present your case to the Gwyn or Wakem inquiries – I’m sure a moment of levity would brighten their days.

    • Tracey 4.3

      So, having analysed the arguments, and the source of Mr Farrar’s information, and his failure to cite a parliamentary source (as he promised to do) that was your analysis?

      The point, as you seem to have missed it, is that Farrar either knew he was wrong from the beginning OR was deliberately fed information to make him think he was right to spread the false word.

      FOG

    • lurgee 4.4

      some sort of vicious smear campaign designed to destroy someone’s reputation

      You mean John Key’s attacks on Hager?

      His comments on Farrar a “vicious smear campaign designed to destroy someone’s reputation” – they simply explain what Farrar does.

  5. jcuknz 5

    Is it a problem if one ignores the rubbish put out by one side to discredit the other?
    DPF tends to be ‘right good left crazy’ but irritating as it is it is easier to live with than the average Standardista, bless you misguided folk 🙂 I long for a socialistic government, it is the only sensible form for the future of NZ and the world, but not the bunch of knife stabing people that Labour is today.

  6. Observer (Tokoroa) 6

    I am a little amazed that the Dr Jarrod Gilbert expected a Minister of the current NZ Parliament to tell the truth.

    It is like asking Print, Radio, and Television media to tell the truth.

    Is the Farrar you are talking about Anthony, the same man whom the PM phones nightly?

    Birds of a feather, speaking, spinning and writing fiction for the masses 7/24 x 365.25 . Such a touching relationship. So blissful.

    Which reminds me. When are Key and Farrar, Hooton, Radio National and the inspired Slater, going to bring in Charter Universities run by the untrained non learned for the non learned ? All profits going to Key’s wealthy friends.

    • Gosman 6.1

      Universities are probably the closest there is to the concept of Charter schools in the NZ Education system at the moment. Universities have a huge amount of freedom to choose the areas they focus in and Students are free to select which one bgest suits their needs. Would you prefer Universities were more like Primary and Secondary schools?

      • Puddleglum 6.1.1

        Universities have a huge amount of freedom to choose the areas they focus in

        I think you’ll find that considerable policy pressure is being put on universities by the current government to run only courses that can show immediate employer uptake of graduates and that meet industry needs and service the economy. Listen to any of Joyce’s speeches and it comes through loud and clear.

        Research funding has also tightened in terms of the kinds of outputs and outcomes that now need to be shown and the areas receiving the funding.

        And, of course, universities have strict financial targets they must meet which encourages conservatism of offerings.

        The humanities are certainly feeling the heat of this particular kitchen.

        All-in-all, it’s like telling a prisoner they are free to stand in that corner of their cell, or that one, or that one or – spoilt for choice – even in that one.

        Of course you’d probably just call that prudent use of taxpayers’ money – and drift off from the original claim about how free universities are to do what they wish.

        • Odab 6.1.1.1

          Spot on, Puddleglum. The uni I work for has had a very strong steer from the government, following massive damage by earthquakes. The significant resources required to patch up the buildings has come at the cost of toe-ing the party line. However uni leadership actually got a steal on both the current government and the quakes, to the point we had a surfeit of office chairs prior to either.

  7. Ian H 7

    Since DPF has signed his blog up to a media standards organisation, why don’t you simply make a complaint. Then we might get to the bottom of it. This seems to be about two figures that turned out to have different definitions. Isn’t that just business as usual in politics?

    • Antonius 7.1

      Oh my god. Sensible rational discussion. Ban this man immediately.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2

      The New Zealand Herald is “signed up” to a media standards organisation. You can tell by the way they run National Party smears and outright lies on an almost daily basis.

      Lay your complaints if you have time to waste.

    • lprent 7.3

      OMSA is about as useful as Cameron Slater trying not to be a a crass arsehole. Something that won’t happen.

      I must finish off my post about why The Standard won’t lower itself to the level of OSMA. It looks like a complete waste of time for all concerned and is really only there to prevent something more effective being created. ie something with teeth.

      As it is, the best idea for any complainant is likely to either be through another blog or through the courts. Both are the channels that you must agree not to use if you go through the OMSA process – which is its reason for existence.

      • Ian H 7.3.1

        I believe this statement is incorrect.

        I see nothing on the OMSA website or on their complaints form which would prohibit you from discussing things on another blog. It does ask you to disclose if you have laid a complaint with another regulatory body. This seems to be aimed at avoiding duplication of process. If there is going to be a court case anyway it would be a waste of their time considering the matter.

    • tc 7.4

      Yeah right, like the plumbers, electricians or vet boards get to the bottom of complaints against their members in terms of taking action or preventing the practices.

      Wet bus tickets all round….hip hip hooray !

  8. Charles Temworth. 8

    What he is saying is true dirty politics will be nothing compared to what eventuates in Nationals third term.That is why Grant Robertson must never lead Labour National will have a field day with him.

  9. RRM 9

    Farrar was right about one thing: you lot HATE the fact that the right now have some good, strong voices on the internet.

    It shouldn’t be allowed!

    Left lies, spin and propaganda should go unchallenged on the web, because if left people say it, therefore it must be true.

    • framu 9.1

      i would welcome some good honest strong right wing commentators – but if youve got to lie and bullshit then just how strong is your argument?

  10. coolas 10

    “Farrar almost certainly knew he was wrong, but right and wrong is not his concern. His only concern is a political agenda – protect and promote the National party, no matter what the truth is. Deceive and mislead the public, shut up opponents, bury the truth, twist the facts.”

    Thank you, Dr Gilbert, that statement is in essence what ‘dirty politics’ is all about. And that Ministers collude with the likes of Farrar and Slater is a disturbing departure from ‘fair politics’.

    An American friend who’s been involved in US politics all his life tells me I’m naive and idealistic to expect any better. “That’s how it works,” he says. Corporate lobbyists set the agenda and politicians deliver their policies with a complicit media manipulating the truth.

    Surely you don’t have to be from the Left to see this creeping Americanisation of NZ politics is corrosive to democracy.

  11. logie97 11

    How was Bradbury removed from the Panel?
    The blue rinse brigade in Epsom etc, got onto their typewriters and mailed copious letters of complaint. As simple as that.
    Fill Mora’s inbox with emails of complaint and history may repeat itself.

  12. Bill 12

    Just a side note – but Fisher’s article in The Herald on this was a pain to find.

    If the date on the web page is the publishing time, then it was published at 5 am yesterday, and yet it has all but disappeared. I certainly couldn’t find it by browsing under various headline tags and had to site search ‘Fisher’ in the end.

    It’s a good article, but given the sanitised, bold typed, four, single sentence summary at the very beginning of the piece …yeah look, go see for yourself.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11330954

    I know this may be just me, but I find it difficult to believe that someone would begin their own piece with four highlighted, sanitised lines that would put casual readers off reading any further.

    • adam 12.1

      Those lines looked editorial in composition.

      It’s just another example of why there is declining readership at the herald – the great joke is this bastion of national party love, is losing readers faster than it can say, you want propaganda with that.

      Look around most lunch bars, cafes, etc here in Auckland, when there use to be multiple copies of the herald, they are now none. Look at dairies, supermarkets, and other retails shops that sold the herald, they don’t or they have such small numbers it’s ridiculous. Talking to some dumpster divers a couple of weeks back, there major complaint was the amount of heralds in the bins with the food. People just don’t read it anymore. It’s full of lies, bullshit and misdirection, working people have cottoned on, they can’t be arsed being lied to – day in, day out.

      • TE 12.1.1

        agree with you 100% Adam
        the herald has been for some years not even worth the paper it’s written on.

      • jcuknz 12.1.2

        It is amusing that over at Kiwiblog they are quite sure the Herald is a bastion of the Labour Party… I have not seen a copy of the paper for over fourty years so I wouldn’t know either way 🙂
        The other amusing thing is the narow outlook of most blog writers that unless somebody agrees with them they must be completely beyond the pale 🙂

        • Bill 12.1.2.1

          I think you’re missing the essential difference that exists between honest disagreement and twisted lies.

      • Bill 12.1.3

        Yeah, that was what crossed my mind – that the lines were an editorial ‘add on’. If so, it just adds another layer of subtlety to the ‘dirty politics’ at play. Add in the ‘invisibility’ of the piece, which may or may not be the norm over a 24 hour period, and the fact it’s ‘filed’ under ‘national’ and ‘gangs’ rather than the far more obvious ‘politics’…

        As for declining readership, that just isn’t a problem for the proprietors. Their money will be coming from advertising, not sales….for now.

        Meanwhile, more people become disengaged and major newspapers and TV channels can get on with talking only to those who matter…those who have successfully scrambled to be a part of the ‘in crowd’…the portion of the middle class with insurance, savings, home ownership etc.

        The rest of us? We don’t matter….not really…. and will only shift from ‘not mattering’ to a far less than neutral position in the eyes of elites and their enablers. I mean, does anybody really believe that the criminalising and disparagment we see meted out to the homeless and to welfare recipients is the beginning and the end of matters?

        • adam 12.1.3.1

          This is why I think serious discussion needs to be done around the production of our own media. This is an awesome forum.

          But, working folks need more -they need to feel they are being listened to and their hopes and dreams can be realised. The majority of the political establishment have become lap dogs/uncle toms/apologists. And now just play the hate game.

          In a big way the middle class are a hopeless case. They have seriously given up and retreated. It is up to working people to bring back hope and aspiration.

          In the case of the elites, they are proving time and time again, they are on another planet, and completely out of touch – look at some of the utter lies that gets spewed here by their hand puppets – yes, some of you are left and some of you are right – both are telling lies to working people.

      • geoff 12.1.4

        An added motivation for the Herald to publish right-wing biased articles online is the clicks and comments they get from outraged citizens.

        It’s click bait.

        Would it be feasible to organise a corporate-media blackout?

        No-one visits the herald for a week?

  13. Dont worry. Be happy 13

    Key thanked Cam in his victory speech. It was in a list of people, all first names, towards the end. There may well be more than one Cam working for Key….but a Cam was thanked. In public. On the night. No doubt there would also have been phone calls.

    • Did he mention the rest of the VRWC, The Illuminati and the Reverse Vampires ?

      • framu 13.1.1

        pfft – hes a shape shifting lizard alien didnt you know – why there was even OIAs on the subject 🙂

    • Puckish Rogue 13.2

      I’m ok with that as long as he doesn’t thank the gingas, thats going a step too far

    • Ms Marsh Mallow 13.3

      I watched the TV3 coverage of the election. During one of the live reports from the National venue, prior to the results being in, I saw a familiar face, briefly, in the background of a shot, chatting with other attendees. Assuming I didn’t mistake the identity, the face belongs to an individual called Cam. I know this person only vaguely, due to a hobby interest in common, so I can’t and won’t say any more about that.

      I’ve no idea whether this was the same Cam you heard thanked by John Key in his victory speech.

  14. ma rohemo 14

    Gosman should be paying rent for all the space he is using here.

    That is what they do on his side of the fence.

  15. Brian 15

    Left wing politicians! They became extinct in the 80’s.The media are all right wing.The thing about mass deception is being unaware of its existence.One thing dirty politics revealed and hinted at was to narrow any debate down to meaningless irrelevancy.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 15.1

      They became extinct in the 80’s.

      Why?

      • SHG 15.1.1

        If any of them had the potential to be a future threat, they mysteriously brutally stabbed themselves in the stomach while shaving during the Clark years,

    • Bold Sir Brian 15.2

      The above comment appears to be from a new poster? and is not mine

      …..I’ve checked. I’m not the first brian. I’ll change my handle to Bold Sir Brian

  16. coaster 16

    In my opinion its not the blogs that are the problem, its that the media reads them instead of investgating properly and then publishes information as fact. If you ask people who arnt that interested in politics about who david farrah or whaleoil are , they will look at you blankly.
    One smart rugby coach once told me that unless you learn how to cheat you wont win. The right has lesrnt how to cheat, the left hasnt.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    4 days ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    5 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    5 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago