TV3’s Garner confirms vendetta against Carter

Written By: - Date published: 9:33 am, June 28th, 2010 - 91 comments
Categories: Media - Tags: , , ,

A few months ago Brian Edwards suggested that TV3’s chief political reporter Duncan Garner was on a personal vendetta against Chris Carter, an observation also made on several occasions by Bomber Bradbury, Dimpost and The Standard.

At the time Edwards invited Garner to refute the accusation that Garner had a vendetta against Carter, suggested by the consistently skewed coverage and exemplified when in the Auckland Airport Koru Club lounge, Garner was alledged to have said to Carter:

“I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you.”

At last Garner has responded. Yesterday, in his delightfully childish reply reminiscent of a less eloquent Whaleoil, Garner denies many things, but he never once denies he said he was “going to fucking get you, Carter… I am going to fucking destroy you”.

We can not have senior political journalists reporting to satisfy their personal vendettas and insecurities. The Fourth Estate have a very important duty to perform in a democracy and this falls so far short of honouring that duty that Garner’s spectre will continue to contaminate any remaining credibility TV3’s political reportage might have had. Indeed, with Garner at the helm of TV3’s political reportage, you can safely assume – if you haven’t already – that anything they say will be bullshit.

It is utterly unacceptable for TV3 to continue to employ someone with such low professional standards. It makes me wonder just what they see in him? Clearly objective reporting is an optional extra for TV3’s political coverage.

UPDATE: A day later as the spotlight goes on, Garner has now suddenly remembered to deny the allegations. It seems that if TV3 are to clear their name, an investigation is needed. Dame Margaret Bazely, who witnessed some of the exchanges, sounds like a good place to start.

91 comments on “TV3’s Garner confirms vendetta against Carter ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Baron 1
    28 June 2010 at 9:44 am

    I’d argue its wholly unacceptable for a Minister of the crown to treat travelling expenses like it was a Club Med life membership card for him and his partner.

    Surely that means that all Garner has to do is issue a sh*t eating apology and all will be well, right? O

    • Bored 1.1
      28 June 2010 at 10:40 am

      How unsavoury, an unelected “public” watchdog masquerading as a disinterested journalist, paid for by TV3 making a statement of intent to destroy a publically elected individual. Draw your own conclusions.

      capcha “votes’

  2. American Gardener 2
    28 June 2010 at 9:45 am

    Like the campaign being run by Kiwiblog & Gotcha! against Len Brown this may well be a deliberate smear campaign by Carner against Carter but it does not change the facts of the matter.If Carter or Len Brown have been overly free with public money for personal use they should be held to account.

    • the sprout 2.1
      28 June 2010 at 9:48 am

      And none of that changes the fact that we have head of political journalism at TV3 manipulating coverage to satisfy his own personal vendettas.
      not exactly “objective”, is it?

      • American Gardener 2.1.1
        28 June 2010 at 9:50 am

        Then that is for his bosses at TV3 to deal with.

        • grumpy 2.1.1.2
          28 June 2010 at 10:06 am

          And where was all this outrage when Garner was putting the boot into Brash and Key and acting as a conduit for Labour dirty tricks??

          Has Garner woken up and no longer does Labour’s bidding? Is that his real crime?

          What a bastard to have independent journalists!

          • WillieMaley 2.1.1.2.1
            28 June 2010 at 10:20 am

            Independent journalists!
            FFS Garner was one of the hand picked press corp who travelled with Key to Afghanistan.

            • Graeme Edgeler 2.1.1.2.1.1
              28 June 2010 at 10:48 am

              Garner is 3’s senior political journalist. Espiner is One’s. NZPA writes for every paper in the country. That’s why they went.

              • ghostwhowalksnz …
                28 June 2010 at 11:54 am

                And how many journalists went on a similar journeys with HC to Afghanistan ?
                Zero

        • Lanthanide 2.1.1.3
          28 June 2010 at 10:14 am

          Yes, and what’s your point? That we can’t comment on it here?

          You know a lot of the time, things like this get swept under a rug unless they’re made public. Obviously TV3 aren’t going to report it, and TV1 probably don’t want to for fear of future reprisals. That leaves it up to blogs, newspapers and radio. You’re reading a blog.

    • Mark M 2.2
      28 June 2010 at 10:12 am

      you mean the campaign against “Jesus Christ”.
      The left need to get the stars out of their eyes.
      If Brown is the best candidate god help us.

      As to Garners personal vendetta?
      Was he the one who induced Carter to buy flowers and take his partner on lavish trips , pay for limos and massages etc.

      Carter bought this on himself

      • Mossaman 2.2.1
        28 June 2010 at 10:28 am

        You approve of journalists abusing their power to carry out personal vendattas? Sick.

        • Mark M 2.2.1.1
          28 June 2010 at 11:47 am

          Did I say that ?
          I think not if you care to read my post.

          The point is if Carter didnt over spend on the taxpayers credit card their wouldnt be a story.
          Dont say their was no overspending when clearly their was.
          Carter has already apologised for it.

          • the sprout 2.2.1.1.1
            28 June 2010 at 12:30 pm

            The point is Garner’s professional credibility. Carter’s has been discussed ad nauseum.
            This is about whether Garner is on a personal vendetta. Keep up.

            • The Baron 2.2.1.1.1.1
              28 June 2010 at 1:08 pm

              Carter has no credibility. Thanks to the hounding he got from Garner, we know that.

              Viva to Duncan as far as I am concerned. If you think that tenaciously following a story isn’t part of a journalists job, then you need your head checked princess.

      • Bored 2.2.2
        28 June 2010 at 10:32 am

        “If Brown is the best candidate god help us” who is co-opting the Divine now ?

  3. ianmac 3
    28 June 2010 at 10:30 am

    Garner failed to address the question of his behaviour in Koru.
    He also failed to address the allegation that he behaved outrageously on the plane a short time later. (I thought that his response was inarticulate and would get a fail in National Standards for Witing.)

    Let’s consider the irony of the pleasure that Garner and colleagues got from their hounding of Carter, and put that against the wail of Garner’s outrage that he himself should be held to account.

    Garner brought this on himself. No wonder some “journalists” are held in contempt!

    • SHG 3.1
      28 June 2010 at 2:00 pm

      Garner has repeatedly invited witness Darren Hughes to give an account of the events in question. So far, Hughes has not done so – which of course is exactly what Garner wants. Because now he can say that his version must be correct, because Hughes won’t back up Carter’s.

    • the pinkpostman 3.2
      30 June 2010 at 2:19 pm

      I;ve never taken to Garner. Any political animal like this writer can soon judge a persons personal convictions by the language and words they use.I would say Garner comes across as a nasty “Im right” Nat.
      His bad tempered foul language retort ,accusing Brian Edward’s of being a Labour Party Hack confirms exactly what he is ; A second rate Right-Wing hack .

  4. Pascal's bookie 4
    28 June 2010 at 11:01 am

    @sprout, update needed:

    Garner now denies saying the offending words

    http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2010/06/incident-on-an-air-new-zealand-flight/#comment-6913

  5. In The Know 5
    28 June 2010 at 11:07 am

    I have been the ‘victim’ of TV3’s extremely biased political reporting and am not enamoured of them at all. All smiles and pretty words UNTIL they get the interview then it gets twisted quick smart. Not nicey nice.

  6. Sookie 6
    28 June 2010 at 11:17 am

    Duncan Garner is a gay- bashing disgrace, even my homophobic hubby thinks so. Once upon a time I used to respect TV3 news, now I cannot stand to watch it. Carter is a Flash Harry in dire need of a reality check, but most of the rabid calls for his head are based upon one simple point- he’s gay. If he was taking his fat middle aged wife on overseas trips he would be getting a fairer deal. I’m a taxpayer, and I don’t give a rats ass whether he takes his ‘partner’ on trips or buys flowers providing he pays it back, and does a good job. And as Minister of Conservation, he did a great job. Sack Garner, hell, sack everyone at TV3 and TVNZ, as they’re both such a disgrace I’m forced to watch the BBC for something resembling news.

    Brava NZ, fascist police state government + media feeding you lies and smears + useless opposition = a very grim future. You voted for this, so what can I do except move?

  7. Bill 7
    28 June 2010 at 11:29 am

    Seems to me there might have been a certain targeting of Carter by Garner. But it also seems to me that assault charges would have been laid at the time if Garner had indeed poked him in the chest while verbally assaulting him.

    And it seems to me that Edwards has a bee in his bonnet and is now targeting Garner.

    And if Garner is homophobic and NZ isn’t, then hey. And if he is homophobic and NZ is too, then Garner ain’t the fucking problem.

    Meanwhile, I have to ask, what is all this nonsense about ‘objective’ journalism? Have those of you who bang on that particular drum ever thought that one through?

    Who would determine objectivity? Some authority or ministry or some such? And what happens to journalism under the inevitable dictatorship that would reside over thought and expression that would flow from any attempt to create an ‘objective’ journalistic environment?

    Look around you. This that we have today is what we get. A crushingly banal orthodoxy. Leviathans of propaganda rolling over rare and isolated journalistic expressions of independent thought in the name of ‘balance’ and ‘objectivity’.

    • BLiP 7.1
      28 June 2010 at 12:19 pm

      And if Garner is homophobic and NZ isn’t, then hey. And if he is homophobic and NZ is too, then Garner ain’t the fucking problem.

      If garner is homophobic and NZ is too, then garner is part of the problem. Otherwise, yes, to an extent, we get the media we deserve.

  8. ianmac 8
    28 June 2010 at 11:40 am

    Bill:”Seems to me there might have been a certain targeting of Carter by Garner. But it also seems to me that assault charges would have been laid at the time if Garner had indeed poked him in the chest while verbally assaulting him.”
    Can you just imagine the ridicule. “Please sir. That nasty man poked me in the chest and I want him charged with assault!” Get real Bill. But within the context of this allegation, it would seem probable that the on-plane exchange did happen and it is verifiable, in spite of Mr Garner’s denials. He would deny it wouldn’t he. Huh.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 8.1
      28 June 2010 at 11:59 am

      His ‘denial’ seems to be limited to ‘those’ words.
      So very similar words he did say.

      Hes using a very old journalist/politicians trick-” I was mis-quoted”, which crops up all the time when they know there is no tape record

      • BLiP 8.1.1
        28 June 2010 at 12:21 pm

        Yep.

        I never said I was going to “fucking destroy you”, I said “I’m going to fucking ruin you”.

        Makes all the difference in the world, eh Doughnut? I guess he’s been taking lessons from John “no GST rise” Key.

        • the sprout 8.1.1.1
          28 June 2010 at 12:31 pm

          😆 very true

        • Bill 8.1.1.2
          28 June 2010 at 12:35 pm

          @ Blip.

          Yup. Garner would be a part of the problem.

          @ ianmac

          Yup. Such acts can and do attract assault charges. Garner would not have had a leg to stand on before the law. And there were witnesses, no? And Carter would just have claimed assault. Not the extent nor entered into the finer details.

          @ no-one in particular

          Anybody bothered to ask what it was or why Garner was going to destroy him or ruin him? Presumably Carter would know? I mean, there’s usually a reason for issuing threats. Or are we to assume that Garner simply wants to bring low any and all prominent gays?

          If the latter, I’m not buying. So, would somebody ‘in the know’ please enlighten? Cheers.

          • Pascal's bookie 8.1.1.2.1
            28 June 2010 at 12:43 pm

            “So, would somebody ‘in the know’ please enlighten? Cheers”

            Bloody cheek of it. If you needed to know that Bill, you would have been told already!

          • RobertM 8.1.1.2.2
            28 June 2010 at 1:07 pm

            Yes Bill, your so like Blinglish, the real point is that Carter is one of Helen Clarks numbers in the Labour Party. Take Carter out and Clarks continuing hold on the party will be weaker and she will have less powerful troops to do her bidding. And maybe that would be a good thing. Clark is 12 years older than Gillard and damaged and worn goods. The world hasn’t found out that she’s pretty ordinary.
            Look in reality Garner had probably had a few bottles. The best journalism is often conducted well lubricated, certainly mine was in the l990s. Many of the greatest journalists are professional drunks- think Christopher Hitchens, Graham Greene and Simon Carr. Much fleet street jounalism and editing is conducted three times over the limit and always has been. I agree with Bill that quality Journalism has an opinion, a political leaning and is part of the capitalist process with an owner who may also have an opinion which may or may not be exercised.

  9. Petard 9
    28 June 2010 at 12:28 pm

    I just emailed this to TV3 – if anyone else here who feels impelled to submit similar complaints, then the potential threat of a loss of a day’s advertising revenue might get the bosses to ride Garner to be more careful with his smears:

    Re: News Broadcast of Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:00; segment entitled: “Chris Carter’s apology – too little too late? “.

    After the lingering shot of Carter & his partner sharing a glass of wine there is a mysterious shot of a half-naked man entering a sauna. The VO at this point is “…big credit card bills that included questionable spending…”.
    Was this half-naked man; Carter, or a member of his staff? Is there even a sauna receipt on the credit card (note; not massage for staffer – sauna)? Or is this simply a (unstated) dramatisation of a stereotypical gay man at a cruise club for the sole purpose of smearing the political carreer of a gay politician.
    You have 20 working days to explain &/or apoloise to the gay community or I will submit this complaint to the BSA.

    • the sprout 9.1
      28 June 2010 at 12:34 pm

      Good work Petard. That was an outlandishly cheap smear by TV3.

      Unless we make formal complaints that cost them, they’ll just keep doing it.

      • The Baron 9.1.1
        28 June 2010 at 6:10 pm

        Not quite, given that it appears Carter did indeed charge a sauna trip to the tax payer. I wonder how that was connected to his Ministerial responsibilities?

        Face it – Carter ripped us all off royally. He has admitted it, and apologised. Arguably, without the persistence of the likes of Garner on this issue, we never would have found out the extent of this disgusting rip off of the tax payer. Sounds to me like a journalist doing exactly the job that you lefties have been begging for – investigating and hounding inappropriate behaviour. Its just that you don’t like it when its your side in the spotlight. And screaming homophobia at every allegation is a bit childlike isn’t it?

        Time to grow up a little, Sprout.

        • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.1
          28 June 2010 at 8:20 pm

          So why isn’t he hounding Groser about his minibar tab? Groser denies he did anything wrong, and the PM is sticking by him saying we shouldn’t begrudge a minister a drink of an evening.

          That’s in clear breach of the rules which state that alcohol for personal use, (ie when not entertaining) should not be bought, and leaving that breach aside the rules also state that any purchases that are made should be done in a way that doesn’t cost the taxpayer more than it needs to. Which would make Groser helping himself to 40 dollar glasses of Jim Beam wrong on two counts. Yet Garner, the fearless pitbull who won’t let a story die, is quite happy to accept Groser and Key’s brush off.

          That is yet to be explained, and it’s not just Garner. Garner however, is an agenda setter. He has been on this story, and so I think it’s fair to ask why the focus on some and not others.

          As Bill also noted earlier, the main question in all this is ‘what is it that pissed Garner off’?

          Garner hasn’t mentioned that either, because we are not entitled to know what has offended him. But Garner, somehow, is entitled to decide, for reasons he won’t divulge (being a journalist), that individual politicians must be destroyed.

          I suspect that whatever happened between them wasn’t about Carter’s job, but Garner’s.

          If Carter criticised Garner in the Koru lounge, Garner would be unlikely to report on that, because getting criticism is part of his job. How he deals with that is also part of his job.

          Waging personal vandettas over things he won’t divulge are most definitely not part of his job though.

          To be clear in what I’m suggesting, If Garner, or any journo, knows something about a politician that they feel means that the pollie is not fit to hold office, then they should report it as forcefully and with as much zeal as they can muster. But they have to report that ‘something’ that makes them feel that way.

          What we have here is something else. We have Garner admitting some sort of confrontation, not saying what it was about, followed up by his campaign that has had many people questioning his methods, (and not just here, all sorts of media critics have found aspects of Garners reporting on this questionable, eg, the continuous use of the civil wedding footage has been mentioned on the Panel at various times).

          I hope none of that is too child like for you, perhaps you might care to address some of the actual issues raised.

  10. Dans 10
    28 June 2010 at 12:41 pm

    I have been a fan of TV3 for years. After the Garner headlines around Carter the other night, I have simply changed to the other channel. The level of “journalism” was appalling.
    I am sure the same feeling of contempt will have been felt in many homes around the country. The next lot of polling will be interesting.
    It’s a pity Garner was not as fired up about the shambles that is now the Minister of Education, and her wasteful millions on National Party standards.

  11. deemac 11
    28 June 2010 at 12:51 pm

    a political journalist who conducts political (or indeed personal) vendettas is a journalist who cannot do their job properly. Pathetic that his bosses have not dealt with this.

    • BLiP 11.1
      28 June 2010 at 1:25 pm

      Well, maybe you’re being a bit harsh because sometimes bosses do make changes. Consider C Espiner – he was promoted. And, lets face it, garner has got “management” written all over him.

  12. pollywog 12
    28 June 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Good on Brian Edwards for shining some light on this…

    Journalists should be as worthy targets of public scrutiny as the politicians they hold to account.

    Duncan “doughnut” Garner just comes across like your average rugby munter who thinks they’re cleverer than they actually are and i’ve never liked munters.

  13. John Dalley 13
    28 June 2010 at 2:56 pm

    I’m not sure if i am correct, but i think the standard of TV3’s Campbell and the carry on of Duncan Garner both seem to have slipped since new (Australian i think) management.
    As i can’t stand TV1, i now am watching less and less news and current affairs and the jury is still out on TV3’s the Nation program.
    For me John Cam;bell has started turning into a childish pillock and i too have noted Garners’ homophobic tendencies when it comes to Carter.
    If this is a personal vendetta by Garner, then it is time he is brought in to line. If he is unwilling to “grow up” then i for one can well do without watching his garbage.

  14. uke 14
    28 June 2010 at 3:01 pm

    The Espiner-Garner-Campbell-Sainsbury brigade are less journalists and more a glib paparazzi who like to include themselves in the pictures.

  15. dave brown 15
    28 June 2010 at 4:19 pm

    Can’t wait for the next Rocky Horror Show, this is deadly dull by comparison. Muldoon would have had Garner over his knee in no time.

    • uke 15.1
      28 June 2010 at 5:21 pm

      How apt, given that Muldoon was in the NZ version of Rocky Horror.

      But possibly Garner has a closet jealous-boyfriend thing going with Carter? I mean he has specifically said he’s not interested in “any parliamentary member” but that has the hollow ring of a diversion tactic.

  16. Herodotus 16
    28 June 2010 at 6:56 pm

    So Chris Cater has nothing to appologise for? it is all just a media pay pack. This issue if handled correctly would have gone away ages ago, unfortunately a non contrite subject just wants to feed and feed and feed this issue. And with postings all wanting to support Chris irrespective of what he has done and how he has abused his position is of no consequence, just more fodder to a sorry small story.
    Phil G daughter is the same a non issue yet we see the defenders of the left comming out and re-igniting the subject over and over. Some times it is better strategy to endue a small amount of pain to allow a story to die of natural causes. I see this as one example.
    I see re C Carter there has been little if any response as to C Carters actions taking his partner and the associated costs. Of all the spending that has just come out, this is about the only story that had any merrit. Even Sat Herald use of flybys was a non story, but I imagine for reporters these are easy fluff stories that the editors love, I hate to see where this develution of reporters will take us.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10654732

    • the sprout 16.1
      28 June 2010 at 7:05 pm

      try reading the post and comments.
      Garner would have gone after Carter regardless of what he did or didn’t do.

      • Herodotus 16.1.1
        28 June 2010 at 7:28 pm

        Carter gave him a target, the weapon and the ammunition to use.
        As I said I cannot see those heading this site making any comments against what Carter did, just trying to spin the topic to a favourable position. I have not followed the deterioating relationship between Gardner and Carter, and to have some balance in the story just basing my oponions on what is contained within this site may not give me the balance or otehr info needed. If I ever wanted to waste my time chasing this that is.
        There was and still is some substance with Carter and his attitude, and he is damaging Labour which none here seem to appreciate. But as long as he maintains a high prominence with Lab real discussions will be easily bypassed to fluff like Chris’s story, and how can Lab comment on the hurt that NZ PAYE workers have and are currently enduring whilst some of the high and mighty within Lab eat cake?

        • RedLogix 16.1.1.1
          28 June 2010 at 7:57 pm

          Another fact free load of bs Herodotus.

          There was and still is some substance with Carter and his attitude,

          All the trips Carter took were approved and signed off. Moreover if he had not gone, then in most if not all cases, someone else would have. He never had anything to apologise for, and indeed what you are calling ‘attitude’ is an entirely justified anger at being the target of a vile smear campaign.

          This entire episode has been an ugly political, and now personal, vendetta from start to finish…and all those sanctimonious prats who have joined in this mobbing should be ashamed of themselves.

          • Herodotus 16.1.1.1.1
            28 June 2010 at 8:06 pm

            “He never had anything to apologise for..” Then why did he and why did his boss push him to do so?
            I could go on but will refrain as I believe all that will happen is that you and I will become detached from any subject matter and go where I think neither of us want to go. But I will say re CC trips this is not the issue I think it is the costs of Peter Kaiser and how H1 was supportive of this, that many including myself find taking advantage of this policy, from accounts peter accompanied him on all trips.(I have ened by BUT statement !!!! mmmm)o-)

            • RedLogix 16.1.1.1.1.1
              28 June 2010 at 8:22 pm

              Then why did he and why did his boss push him to do so?

              Because when faced with this debased bit of fucking political pantomime Goff had the choice of going down the orthodox route of shutting it down by apologising, or taking the fight back to the media in a drag-em out kick-em down scrap.

              Personally I think Goff made the wrong choice; because there was nothing to apologise for it was a mistake to validate the smear by playing along with it. But then lots of other commentors on the left here disagree with me.

              the costs of Peter Kaiser and how H1 was supportive of this,

              Oh .. so it has been a bit of hillbilly sniggering all along. Nice to have that sorted.

              • Herodotus …
                28 June 2010 at 8:31 pm

                “Oh .. so it has been a bit of hillbilly sniggering all along. Nice to have that sorted” Not at all, just the excessive use of this entitlement. If I recall correctly H1 was supportive of all ministers being accompanied by their wife/husband/partner, this support was not specifically directed at CC. Youare now reading far too much into this comment.
                The whole topic could have been left to die naturally if CC had not continually feed the subject and with a rumoured political reporter having some vested interest.
                If this is not worthly oof discussion why then does this site contunual the feasting by making commetary towards the nats on many similar minor spending issues as have been slung at lab. I thought a simple media strategy that all within the party follow would have killed this quickly.

              • Bored …
                28 June 2010 at 9:16 pm

                I dont need RWNJs like Herodotus telling me how it is, (ever read the original Herodotus, he writes like a one eyed bigoted xenophobe who makes it up when the facts elude him…gets fairly carried away on sexual mores, sound familiar????)

                In retrospect both Carter and Goff showed why neither should be there, Carters running and hiding mirrored Goff’s cowardice in his failure to defend his man. Both ran scared from the scumbag press. When you are in the trenches you need sterner hearts than either of these two, Goff must go.

          • The Baron 16.1.1.1.2
            29 June 2010 at 12:11 am

            Oh now here we go, the apologists at the standard kick in again – nothing wrong with what carter/winston/taito did they say, because they are on our team.

            Honestly, what a pathetic bunch of little partisans you are. Garner was doing his job of showing up yet another labour politician who used the public purse as his own piggy bank – and you think that’s a bad thing? I don’t mind being called a sanctimonious prat when i’ve never stolen from my employer, been found out, ran away, and had to crawl back with a sh*t eating bullshit apology.

            You’d be asking for crucifixion if this was a Nat. You’re a prize hypocrite and a partisan fanboy of a fool.

            • RedLogix 16.1.1.1.2.1
              29 June 2010 at 2:17 am

              You’d be asking for crucifixion if this was a Nat.

              Well no. Unless there they’ve clearly manipulated the rules (like Double Dipton), or it’s a blatant example of personal hypocrisy (like Wodders)… I tend to leave that sort of thing alone.

              For the same reasons: Personal Life = Off Limits.

              • The Baron …
                29 June 2010 at 9:44 am

                Oh come on, both of which have happened here too!

                Manipulated the rules = “I had cabinet approval”; “All travel was required for my responsibilities”

                Personal hypocrisy = if taxing the bejesus out of everyone to pay for his own personal goddamn holidays rather than the lofty aims of the left ain’t hypocrisy then I don’t know what is.

                And I simply love that the only explanation you have to justify this is that the other bunch did it to. WOW. Principles of the left shine on.

                This guy wasted money that could otherwise been spent on health, education, welfare or any of the other “good things” you like. But you can’t get past the fact that its your team, so you wanna run away and wah about biased journalists.

                What’s your priorities, RL (and Sprout too for that matter) – finding out that one of your beloved is a liar and a thief, or chasing after the whistleblower?

                Again – what a pathetic little partisan hack you are.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  29 June 2010 at 10:00 am

                  So what about Groser?

                  The PM says that his minibar tab is fine, the rules notwithstanding, and Garner seems to accept that. Carter OTOH has apologised and been punnished, but Garner still goes on about him.

                  How do you explain that?

                  • The Baron …
                    29 June 2010 at 10:18 am

                    I’m not trying to explain anything, PB. May I reiterate:

                    “And I simply love that the only explanation you have to justify this is that the other bunch did it to. WOW. Principles of the left shine on.”

                    Garner was doing his job in chasing the massive fraud that was Carter. Found out about thousands of misappropriated spending. If you want any explanation, then surely it COULD be that Groser ripped us off once for a couple of hundy – Carter ripped us off dozens of times for far, FAR more.

                    It’s disgusting the way you lot swarm over anyone who dares to challenge the idols of the left. So, PB, since you’re demanding explanations, would you please explain to me why Garner’s exposure of the theft of Carter is a bad thing?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      29 June 2010 at 10:33 am

                      Firstly, theft is a legal term. If you think he is thief, file a complaint with the cops.

                      Secondly, where did I call it a bad thing? Read my comment to you upthread. I’m talking here about Garner, and his ethics. You seem to want to only use one aspect of his work, ignoring all the inconveniant little details.

                      I’ve got no problem per se with his reporting on Carter. But where is the ballance? Why the crusade against Carter? What was the confrontation about, and did he threaten Carter? (his denial is specific to the words quoted).

                      You seem to want to make out Garner as a great crusading impartial reporter on this, but to do so you have to rationalise his ignoring of Groser’s similar abuse.

                      Key and Groser have explicitly said that they think the minibar rort is ok. That’s a pretty big point you are ignoring.

                      I’m thinkng you protest too much re the hackery and hypocrisy.

                      But go ahead and actually respond to the points I make if you can.

                      To sum up my point, I’m perfectly happy that Carter was exposed, and that he was demoted, and that he apologised. I’m concerned about the double standard from Garner re Groser though, and think it raises questions about his ethics.

                    • the sprout …
                      29 June 2010 at 10:33 am

                      the massive fraud that was Carter

                      A few hundred dollars repaid at the time 😆

                      Compared to how many tens of thousands stolen by fraudulent declarations of domicile by Minister of Finance and Deputy PM Bill English – only repaid when discovered by the public?

                      And how long did Garner ‘do his job’ on that story?

                      Get real bra. Just a little unbalanced don’t you think?

                • RedLogix …
                  29 June 2010 at 10:47 am

                  Manipulated the rules = “I had cabinet approval’

                  Double Dipton deliberately re-organising his property affairs into a family trust specifically in order to maximise an already generous housing allowance strikes me as a step well beyond anything Labour members have done.

                  For a Minister of Finance who was at the same time preaching major fiscal restraint accross the entire public sector it was also a blatant hypocrisy.

                  taxing the bejesus out of everyone

                  Actually NZ was at the time about the third lowest taxed nation in the OECD.

                  to pay for his own personal goddamn holidays

                  All the trips as I understand had an approved purpose. Trying to characterise them as ‘personal holidays’ is a lie.

                  This guy wasted money that could otherwise been spent

                  Carter’s trips were all approved by cabinet under the rules and expectations in place at the time. If Carter hadn’t gone, then someone else likely would have.

                  Ministers and MP’s have always travelled for a wide range of purposes, going back many, many administrations. If you want to condemn them all and tell us that no member of the NZ Parliament, or any political official should ever travel for any reason then let’s hear your argument…but enough with the National good, Labour bad bollocks.

                  • Herodotus …
                    29 June 2010 at 11:04 am

                    RL how about some balance, there appears to be a fair bit of partisan support. All I see is that “they” have done something wrong, but was within the rules (bad taste in the mouth but still within the rules). Take ownership of the subject you have not addressed was the continuation of taking CC’s partner with him right or wrong, just counter claim and spin. No wonder those who support one side and are polarised with their views cannot see what is happening out in the real world. If you cannot see what CC did has not been taken well by the public (with some pushing by some) then how does change occur. All we get is “they did this” childish school yard antics. \It is interesting how the topic is being moved away from the real issue for me What CC did was acceptable or not?

                    • RedLogix …
                      29 June 2010 at 11:23 am

                      Take ownership of the subject you have not addressed was the continuation of taking CC’s partner with him right or wrong,

                      Simple, Helen Clark encouraged Ministers to take partners with them when they travelled overseas. For the simple and obvious reasons:

                      1. Ministers work 80 plus hour weeks as it is and that comes at considerable personal cost to close relationships. Having them overseas for weeks on end as well makes a bad situation worse.

                      2. The novelty of business travel wears off very fast; it might look glamorous but it ain’t. HC made the sensible call that it made sense to have one’s partner with you if at all possible.

                      In other words, Carter’s travel in the context of the time was perfectly legitimate

                      Of course since the GFC of course the narrative has turned around 180deg … what was considered good practise just a few years ago, is a soft target for being retrospectively painted as profligate… and ready fodder for a politically motivated vendetta

                    • Herodotus …
                      29 June 2010 at 12:03 pm

                      Finally, you are happy with the situation, I take it you have reviewed the basis on your original premise and after due deliberation still maintain that basis, fine we all should test our premise for what ever point we take, sometimes we will finf d out that we were always correct and othertimes we just might have to reassess our point of view.
                      “In other words, Carter’s travel in the context of the time was perfectly legitimate..” So do you think that time has moved on and what was acceptable back then is not so palatable now?
                      So why then have I not read any commentary, as i am sure that if this point of view was expressed earlier on whould have sht the discussion down, unless this view was not widely held. If it was not widely held then it could dispaly a disconnect with the majority, and that someone was not reading the signals as to what is held as acceptable.
                      Or it is a marvelously managed distraction for some other means ! 😆

                    • RedLogix …
                      29 June 2010 at 12:17 pm

                      Finally, you are happy with the situation,

                      Sorry I should have been clearer … but unlike most left commentators here I’ve taken the position right from the start that this whole thing was a beat-up.

                      So do you think that time has moved on and what was acceptable back then is not so palatable now?

                      Obviously most people have, but then there is also something less than tasty about disinterring trifling administrative decisions made in good faith years ago and using them for this kind of bs , unless either of two conditions are met:

                      1. There is an significant element of criminality, negligence or specific actions of avoidance for personal gain involved. Actions that if uncovered at the time would have clearly attracted a disciplinary reaction of some sort.

                      OR

                      2. There is a blatant element of personal hypocrisy involved.

                      Obviously there is always going to be some element of controversy around where exactly to draw the line in both cases. but at this point we seem to have reached pretty much erased the lines altogether… and it’s just nutball smear jobs all the way down.

  17. BLiP 17
    28 June 2010 at 8:02 pm

    There was and still is some substance with Carter and his attitude, and he is damaging Labour which none here seem to appreciate

    Now say it like you really care.

    • Herodotus 17.1
      28 June 2010 at 8:09 pm

      🙂 or 😀 Should I end with a sign like this to emphasis sincerity?
      So you do not think he is damaging the brand ofr taking attention from any real important message that Lab should be on?

      • BLiP 17.1.1
        28 June 2010 at 8:25 pm

        Mr Goff has dealt with the matter. Firmly. Carter has learned from the experience and is suitably contrite. That game’s over. You seem the only one here distracted, raking the coals and attempting to feed Aunty Helen into the mix. Are you seeking to perpetuate the homophobic filth the Right so loves to wallow in? That seems to be the case because, as far as I can tell, the post is an analysis of the game and the role played by the media. What do you think about that and how might Labour best handle it to ensure its message is not watered down by personal agendas in the Press Gallery?

        • Herodotus 17.1.1.1
          28 June 2010 at 8:47 pm

          Why does RL and you read anything homophobic into any of this, dont look when there is nothing to see.
          As Ihave no idea of the workings of the press gallery so this maybe so neive. The spin drs version Lab should have been aware of this many months before the subject hit the media. As CC was about the only one (that I am aware of) isolate the topic to CC. Obtain all spending by CC since he was a minister, disclose all spending on one day to all reporters. Be aware thatthere would be some initial pain to experience. Call press conference including CC, PG and perhaps one other. Too many attending would dilute the message and allow for confusion. Answer questions up front and no spin show contriteness but not overplay this. Have a trial run the night before and get a removed Lab person to sit in and play devils advocate. Do not add to the story by pointing the finger at what Nat are doing, this just prolongs the issue and gives time for press to dig deeper, also give CC a lower profile and to work hard in his local area, build up some identity in his community and let the local community express their support for CC.

          • BLiP 17.1.1.1.1
            28 June 2010 at 10:39 pm

            Why does RL and you read anything homophobic into any of this, dont look when there is nothing to see.

            Your mentioning of our Aunty Helen with use of the H1 moniker is suspicious, as is a Tory giving the Left advice. You may rest assured that your comments on this matter have been noted and filed accordingly.

            • the sprout 17.1.1.1.1.1
              28 June 2010 at 11:11 pm

              in the round filing cabinet 😆

            • Herodotus 17.1.1.1.1.2
              29 June 2010 at 8:11 am

              So I read Wisharts book I also read The Histories, Machiavelli (does this make me a fascist), The Denial of Democracy (Robin Gwynn). I thought H1 was a great abbreviation for Aunty Helen and easy to type. So now we are tarring people by what they have read not on the validity of their comments arguements or even observations?I thought it was only the 75 election with reds under the bed, but it seems some here are perpetuating this idea that the enermy is everwhere. perhaps some just want a better country and are not bound by a politicial partsian. Note that this partsian approach can somethime make people blind to what is happening to those in the real world.

  18. Petard 18
    29 June 2010 at 10:03 am

    I just thought I’d note that any complaints to TV3 (then after 20 working days of nonresponse to the BSA), re: standards breach, have to be identified as a “formal complaint” (I’d put this in the msg topic slot, so it didn’t ctrl-c over here yesterday) .
    Can anyone identify the origin of that sauna clip? It looks to me like probably some unrelated stock-footage quickly cut&pasted in the editing suite. Otherwise they’ve actually gone out and filmed a dog-whistle “dramatisation” (in print journalism such fabrication would be called lying), to support Garner’s odious campaign of homophobic persecution…
    And to perfectly honest, at this point, I don’t care whether it is to; assuage his battered ego; position himself for a choice NACT PR job, or simply just for ratings. As polical editor for TV3, Garner has shown himself to be unacceptably biased and offensive (sure, his name isn’t on the story with that sauna snippet, but it is his specific responsibility to oversee the presentation of TV3 news political stories) .

  19. ianmac 19
    29 June 2010 at 12:33 pm

    At 12:34 http://brianedwardsmedia.co.nz/2010/06/incident-on-an-air-new-zealand-flight/
    Duncan Garner June 29th, 2010 at 12:34

    Brian

    At 19.07 someone posts as me. That is not me. I do not call or acknowledge myself as the country’s “leading political commentator’ and I did not post that comment.

    Cheers
    Duncan

    • The Voice of Reason 19.1
      29 June 2010 at 12:50 pm

      Ha, at least he’s with the majority on this one. Nobody else thinks he’s the country’s leading political commentator either. Mind you, it would be ironic of that meme took hold and people started thinking of him as pretentious, self aggrandising twat. Oh, wait …

      • ianmac 19.1.1
        29 June 2010 at 1:03 pm

        Actually I can send an e-mail from my account as though I was someone else. I did so to my sister during the 2008 election pretending to be a prominent politician requestion her help. It doesn’t work in reply though.
        In Duncan’s case to be fair, his e-mail is D.Garner@ …..
        The e-mail concerned is Duncan.Garner@………

    • Pascal's bookie 19.2
      29 June 2010 at 1:14 pm

      ha , well played that troll!

      …is telling that a fair few were fooled.

  20. Maggie 20
    30 June 2010 at 10:58 am

    Garner seems unable to understand the difference between journalism and comment, and no-one at TV3 seems capable, or willing, to rein him in. If he is pursuing a personal vendetta then that is disgraceful and he should be fired.\\

    As someone who worked in the print media for years I have seen many example of TV bigheads who thought they were more important than the story.

    A few years ago I had a personal experience of a TV journo (not TV3) pushing his own barrow over a Close Up story, to the extent of sending me an abusive e-mail after I complained to the BSA. I sent the e-mail direct to Bill Ralston and with a few weeks the jouno was gone.

  21. randal 21
    30 June 2010 at 11:06 am

    well garner used to sit in the press gallery and pick his nose and flick it onto the floor while debates were in progress and nobody ever pulled him up for it so I guess he figures he can do what he likes.

  22. Adrian 22
    30 June 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Musings about why Garner is obsessed with Parliaments openly gay Chris Carter may be answered by the look Garner was giving John Key in a TV1 clip last night. I thought I had seen that look before and 30 minutes later there it was on the Simpsons, Waylon Smithers unrequited longing for Mr Burns. Duncan is in LOVE ! and he is wrestling with the confusion and it often surfaces as irrational attacks on others that the confusee sees as representative of that particular trait. Come on out, Duncan, it’s not like you’ve got your integrity to lose.

    • ianmac 22.1
      30 June 2010 at 3:22 pm

      To be fair, Mr Garner must not damage his chance to become one of the many media advisers for Mr Key’s office. Would you set out to annoy the attractive prospective partner or would be better to flourish your fancy feathers for inspection?

Links to post