Garner coy on accusations

Written By: - Date published: 11:55 am, April 11th, 2010 - 29 comments
Categories: accountability, blogs, human rights, Media, Politics, tv - Tags: , ,

The day after Zet’s post here on homophobic, imbalanced reporting by TV3’s Duncan Garner, Brian Edward’s wrote a scathing detailed deconstruction of Garner‘s repeatedly vicious coverage of Chris Carter.

Edwards suggests Garner’s repeated attacks resemble a personal harassment campaign, a view Dim Post agrees with saying

Garner’s obsession with Chris Carter has wandered into dark and uncharted psychological terrain.  I think you could make a strong public interest argument if Garner were to stalk, say Jacinda Ardern or maybe even Simon Bridges, but someone needs to tell TV3’s political editor that his unhealthy fascination for Carter is one story the rest of the country does not want live updates on.

Edwards invites Garner to respond. No word yet but.

29 comments on “Garner coy on accusations ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ianmac 1
    11 April 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Garner had an equally obsessive attack on Peters during the last election supported by Hooten of course. Way past a measured political journalist. It had nothing to do with National wanting to remove a threat to Governance, of course.

  2. deemac 2
    11 April 2010 at 12:57 pm

    the mere fact that his (irrelevant) sexuality is always mentioned is discriminatory in itself

  3. Policy Parrot 3
    11 April 2010 at 2:24 pm

    Garner is looking vulnerable on his Carter blowback.

  4. Nick C 4
    11 April 2010 at 2:48 pm

    I dont recall this sort of responce from any of the authors here when he was going after Rodney Hide for the same thing.

    And yes, there were plenty of pictures of Rodney Hides girlfriend going around then too.

    • Pascal's bookie 4.1
      11 April 2010 at 3:05 pm

      The angle with Rodney was the ‘hypocrisy’. The angle with this is teh ghey.

      But seeing you brought it up, I seem to remember when Rodney did the dancing with the stars thing instead of his job, he donated money to ‘charity’. The word around the traps is that the charity was his partners squash club. Don’t remember that being an issue any media peeps felt worth waxing lyrical on. Care to bet the same would happen if the partner was a bloke?

      • Nick C 4.1.1
        11 April 2010 at 7:10 pm

        Nonsense the angle for this story is not that hes gay, you’re drawing that conclusion out of thin air with only the evidence that they keep mentioning that his partner came with him (something relevent since he previously got taxpayer money). I was merely pointing out that Carter isnt the only politician whose partner got put on TV when they got taxpayer money.

        Any other evidence that there is homophobia here?

        • the sprout 4.1.1.1
          11 April 2010 at 8:00 pm

          Umm… let me think Nick.
          One was the Leader of a Party of Government who campaigned on being a perk-buster then misappropriated money he was eventually forced to repay. The other an opposition back bencher that didn’t break any rules but still gets more regular critical attention?
          You seem to have all the intellect of Garner himself.

        • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.2
          11 April 2010 at 9:04 pm

          Why do they show pictures of his partner Nick? Every time.

      • 123 4.1.2
        12 April 2010 at 10:38 am

        Way to introduce a baseless smear. The charity was not a squash club; it was St John Ambulance.

        http://www.stjohn.org.nz/files/200986_200737118.PDF

        [lprent: The link doesn’t go anywhere…]

        • Pascal's bookie 4.1.2.1
          12 April 2010 at 11:11 am

          Try this one.

        • 123 4.1.2.2
          12 April 2010 at 1:10 pm

          That’s strage lprent, it works for me. Here’s a Herald article in which it talks about the charity being St John.

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/dance/news/article.cfm?c_id=169&objectid=10381228

          Hide donated his personal fee (which all contestants recive and is not the charity component) to Remuera Rackets Club – all seems above board to me. At the time I think I remember reading something about it going towards a sporting exchange for some young sportspeople..? What did Geogina Beyer do with her personal fee? Fair enough if she kept it – it’s a personal fee, after all. Just interested.

    • the sprout 4.2
      11 April 2010 at 3:49 pm

      Do pay attention Nick

  5. illuminatedtiger 5
    11 April 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Of course the simple explanation to all of this might just be that he’s a biased reporter looking after the right *.

    * My opinion

    • Macro 5.1
      11 April 2010 at 8:53 pm

      Mine too!

      anti spam word “suspicions” (how does it do that!)

      [lprent: you came through with your e-mail as the name. Fix it please. ]

      • illuminatedtiger 5.1.1
        11 April 2010 at 9:18 pm

        Always have to add the “My Opinion” clause. Right wingers are a rather litigious bunch. Lynn, is this part of the Rules here? You might want to add it if it isn’t 🙂 .

        • lprent 5.1.1.1
          11 April 2010 at 9:30 pm

          The assumption I work on is that there are no absolute ‘facts’ (having a science background mediates against ever believing that), but that there are more probable options than others.

          That is why there is a general rule that if asked, people have to produce supporting material for their assertions. That is to allow other people the opportunity to asses how probable and credible that they find it themselves.

          It is noticeable that when challenged like that there is often an awful lot of diversionary tactics that suddenly happens. Of course if I have to get involved, I tend to be a bit obnoxious as part of the potty training for the perpetrator.

          Stating something as being an opinion lets you off the hook considerably… IMHO is usually the easiest way…

  6. Macro 6
    11 April 2010 at 9:00 pm

    Mine too!

    anti spam word “suspicions’ (how does it do that!)

  7. Danyl Mclauchlan 7
    12 April 2010 at 5:52 am

    Of course the simple explanation to all of this might just be that he’s a biased reporter looking after the right

    I don’t think that’s it at all – Garner went hard on stories like Hide’s trip and English’s housing allowance, something he wouldn’t do if he were ‘looking after the right.’

    My understanding is that a couple of years ago Garner was in Beijing covering Clark’s trip there to sign the FTA, and that Carter showed up with his partner and press sec, didn’t appear to do any work and couldn’t explain why he was there. It was subsequently revealed that the trip cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars, was one of many very expensive and seemingly pointless trips made by Carter, and Carter was not particularly contrite about this claiming that the media were picking on him because he was gay.
    Garner seems to have taken umbrage at all this and decided to target Carter on his news show – I suspect he wants Labour to drop him down the list so that he’s forced out of Parliament after the next election. I don’t think it’s because he’s gay, I think they do play up the gay angle to try and hurt Labour, and thus encourage the party to dump Carter.
    I think this is terrible journalism – the Carter story was covered at the time, it’s not a political editors job to run a personal attack campaign against an opposition MP. But I also think Labour should dump Carter – the guy is a walking symbol of everything that’s wrong with the party.

    • mickysavage 7.1
      12 April 2010 at 8:58 am

      Um

      Garner seems to have taken umbrage at all this and decided to target Carter on his news show I suspect he wants Labour to drop him down the list so that he’s forced out of Parliament after the next election.

      But he is an electorate MP with a safe seat.

      I don’t think it’s because he’s gay, I think they do play up the gay angle to try and hurt Labour, and thus encourage the party to dump Carter.

      There is a difference? Isn’t that playing the gay card?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 7.2
      12 April 2010 at 9:13 am

      Drop him down the list ?
      So you know hes an electorate MP , or is it a Wellington thing to be a back channel for Garner but not know a thing about Carter

  8. Jum 8
    12 April 2010 at 10:19 am

    Garner is the same as Clifton. They play a neat little word game starting any article or interview with a sort of objective statement then slowly the knives start going into the left side of the political spectrum. The last sentence always ends up punishing the left even though the subject matter involves the right doing something bad.

  9. Danyl Mclauchlan 9
    12 April 2010 at 10:47 am

    But he is an electorate MP with a safe seat.

    You’re right – I totally forgot about that. I still think Garner is trying to force Labour to remove Carter from the party. Safe seats don’t mean an MP is safe – ask David Benson-Pope.

  10. RobertM 10
    12 April 2010 at 5:56 pm

    Well strangely of late, Chris Carter has been effective against whaling and mining issues of central importance to the Government. The suspicion must be that Carter is still a mouthpiece for Helen on her well known areas of issue. Like Rodney, Carter deserves a bit of stick. In the asexual NZ political world active sexuality of any time is a matter of media interest. Rodney had an attractive girlfriend, extraordianary. The Act opponents of Rodney who thought active hetrosexuality would detract from the act vote. Extraordinary. Also what was Garners level of vino when he scripted the piece. From my experience the best journalism is always written well lubricated. I always had 4 at the bar and a couple of wines before writing my anti frigatory and pro F-16 pieces in the l990s.

  11. peterthepeasant 11
    13 April 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Since when do reporters remove parliamentarians?
    Garner thinks he can force labour to remove Carter?

    So called political journalists are pretty damn arrogant (they mix with politicos, it is contagious).

    Garner, like the Heralds Armstrong, is obsessing about his fav politico.

    They actually think we (the great unwashed) care what they think.

Links to post