Herald says weird things about Cunliffe and Labour Clutha Southland candidate

110 comments on “Herald says weird things about Cunliffe and Labour Clutha Southland candidate ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sacha 1

   21 July 2014 at 6:11 pm

   I hope Labour formally complains to the rag’s publisher about that photo and wording. Also note Cunliffe talks about arranging a meeting, not attending it.
   • Monty 1.1

     21 July 2014 at 10:12 pm

     Sacha, the problem is that there is a photo circulating with mr Cunliffe and the person in question together with a gift from the said person. I think mr Cunliffe has been set up, and possibly by someone close.
     • mickysavage 1.1.1

       21 July 2014 at 10:20 pm

       Gee Monty I am sure that your comment is meant to be helpful.

       So there is a photo of David with this prominent New Zealander and (gasp) a bottle of wine given by the said person. And David has been set up by someone to have a chat with a prominent New Zealander and being photographed with them but not knowing that this person had suppression orders stopping the publication of some unfortunate details.

       Are you being real? How was David meant to know about this?

       Honest you RWNJs live on a different planet. You are criticising Cunliffe for not being all seeing and all knowing. Give it a rest. He did not know about the scandal. Insisting that he should of is basically a really weird thing to say.

       Of course the reality is that you just want to criticise and attack and this is the subject of attack today. Tomorrow it will be another subject and you keyboard warriors will then again be attacking for all your worth.
       • fender 1.1.1.1

         21 July 2014 at 10:33 pm

         “Honest you RWNJs live on a different planet.”

         This is the problem. Their planet is a gossiping pit where secrets are currency and blackmail prevails. And of course there’s no toilets on their planet, as Key revealed.
     • Olwyn 1.1.2

       21 July 2014 at 10:59 pm

       If there’s a photo going round, isn’t the person who is putting around in breach of the name suppression order? Surely you can’t say, this well-known guy has name suppression, but look, here’s a picture of him talking to the leader of the opposition.
   • David H 1.2

     22 July 2014 at 10:33 am

     Or like me you can E-Mail the Hack in person and tell her to stop interviewing her Keyboard. And to start reporting the real news.
2. Kat 2

   21 July 2014 at 6:18 pm

   Audrey Young….. sigh! Thick stupid political editor or conniving complicit National Party hack?

   Or both.
3. Ergo Robertina 3

   21 July 2014 at 6:22 pm

   MS I think you mean sub-heading. The byline is the reporter’s name.
   • mickysavage 3.1

     21 July 2014 at 6:27 pm

     Right you are. Have changed.
   • Sacha 3.2

     21 July 2014 at 6:39 pm

     Newsroom jargon is “Standfirst” apparently. Subheading is more understandable.
4. Disraeli Gladstone 4

   21 July 2014 at 6:35 pm

   I feel like there’s two explanations for this. Cunliffe’s either incompetence or he’s been cursed by some ancient evil.

   Cunliffe rightly attacks New Zealand’s problem with domestic violence (ignoring perhaps a naive way of phrasing it). Not a month later, he then meets with a man who’s offending is ghastly and seem to regard his loss of reputation as the bigger damage than the impact on the victim of his offending.

   Cunliffe is either terrible at politics or some cosmic evil really want John Key to win in 2014 (I for one welcome our new Old Gods overloads).

   Because no one that’s bloody unlucky.
   • felix 4.1

     21 July 2014 at 6:44 pm

     It’s nothing to do with luck. The process is explained (yet again) in the post:

     Jason Ede, on behalf of John Key, feeds lies and smears and innuendo to Slater who publishes it where it is picked up by a lazy stupid fourth estate.

     No cosmic overlords involved. Just dirty corrupt lying fucks spreading their dirty corrupt lying muck.
     • Sacha 4.1.1

       21 July 2014 at 6:47 pm

       And those whose job it is to anticipate and neutralise the muck not doing their jobs. It’s not Cunliffe who is incompetent.
       • freedom 4.1.1.1

         21 July 2014 at 7:20 pm

         Sacha, how exactly do his staff do this job you criticize them for not doing? Do they check for potential problems relating to crimes that resulted in name suppression orders and the ramifications for David Cunliffe’s itinerary, or any politician for that matter. Especially those name suppression orders pertaining to a highly sensitive topic! How do they go about collecting collating controlling and protecting all related information on every person on every day that a busy politician is arranging meetings?

         Are his staff meant to track and trace every court case in New Zealand and abroad and build a comprehensive database to cross-check against, at any time and on a moment’s notice, in case a meeting is ever organised with anyone anywhere which shows that person happened to have been in court the same time as court records show a name suppression order was made, work out if the order was for a sensitive topic, then go back and look at every special interest group’s web page in every part of the internet in case there happens to be a name suppression case that has been made public involving that name suppression order?

         Here is a subtle clue as to why this probably cannot happen, and I do not mean the not so simple logistics or the big brother aspects that I am confident you really don’t want put in the hands of a political party that is not restrained by the same rules that a government would have if they chose to install such an operational system.

         NAME SUPPRESSION.

         I’m no lawyer, but sure sounds like a whole lot of legal issues bundled up in there too, or is privacy and the vestiges of integrity that remain within our [far from perfect] legal system not a big deal?

         [lprent: One of the problems with name suppression is that I had to have someone point me to an instance of the suppressed name being concealed in a comment before I could ban the arsehole putting this site at risk. So they are now permanently banned and I am probably now in the possession of information that I am not meant to have. Since I couldn’t verify the person, then I may even be wrong.

         However it was clear from the comment that Chuck Bird was trying to breach the suppression order. Anyone wanting to follow his example will also follow his fate. ]
       • mickysavage 4.1.1.2

         21 July 2014 at 7:53 pm

         I know some of his staff and you could not ask for a more intelligent or dedicated group. Anticipating the sort of sick spin that the right will put on something as innocent as meeting with someone is beyond their considerable talents. Honest, things are really, really weird and the best of advice will not cover it.
     • Disraeli Gladstone 4.1.2

       21 July 2014 at 7:04 pm

       But Cunliffe still had to meet the guy in the first place.

       Look, I completely agree with you that the media is playing favourites and that the right-wing blogs and actual fourth estate have a cycle that feed off each other. I don’t doubt that.

       But John Key didn’t make Cunliffe have a secret trust. John Key didn’t make Cunliffe describe his home as a do’er upper. John Key didn’t make Cunliffe meet with a sex offender after trying to tackle domestic violence.

       There’s no smoke without fire isn’t exactly applicable here. The media is going overboard on relatively small matters where they would give Key a free run.

       But there’s still a lot of match sticks that Cunliffe seems to keep on lighting. And we know the media are going to make a cloud of smog from the tiniest flame, so why does he keep on playing with matches?
       • felix 4.1.2.1

         21 July 2014 at 7:16 pm

         I think it literally doesn’t matter what he does, they’ll still try to spin anything and nothing against him.

         And you’ll still blame him for getting out of bed/sleeping in/whatever the line happens to be today.

         You did it just now. Cunliffe didn’t meet a sex offender at all, as you well know.

         These. Are. Not. Real. Stories. They’re lies and smears from John Key’s office. Cunliffe’s actions have no bearing on this dirty tricks campaign whatsoever.
         • Blue 4.1.2.1.1

           21 July 2014 at 7:29 pm

           David Cunliffe could help a little old lady cross the road and the media would find a way to crucify him for it.

           Either he’s neglecting his duties by taking time out to help the elderly, or he’s being condescending to older New Zealanders or he’s desperately trying to get Grey Power votes.

           Meanwhile, if John Key did the same thing, they would say how wonderful it is that the Prime Minister took time out of his busy schedule to assist Mrs Jones, who is voting National and thinks the PM is ‘a lovely man’.
         • Disraeli Gladstone 4.1.2.1.2

           21 July 2014 at 7:32 pm

           “These. Are. Not. Real. Stories”

           But they are true. That’s the crux of my issues. If Labour was competent, yeah, the media would still rail against them but they wouldn’t be plunging to Bill English vote-winning territory either.

           Labour owes it to the entire left of NZ politics to fucking sort out some sort of political party that can actually work. The Greens get smeared as lunatics all the time and you know what, they handle it.

           Labour rolls into a ball.
           • felix 4.1.2.1.2.1

             21 July 2014 at 7:41 pm

             “But they are true. That’s the crux of my issues. “

             You say that. And yet Cunliffe didn’t meet with a sex offender, and you keep saying he did.

             So either you’re lying, or you’re not too bright, or I’m right and you’re wrong.

             There was nothing wrong with what Cunliffe did in this instance. Certainly nothing you’ve managed to pinpoint anyway.
             • Disraeli Gladstone …

               21 July 2014 at 7:46 pm

               He met with a man who indecently assaulted a woman.

               Is that phrasing better for you?
               • felix …

                 21 July 2014 at 7:57 pm

                 No, because it didn’t happen. You are misinformed.
                 • Disraeli Gladstone …

                   21 July 2014 at 8:16 pm

                   … umm.

                   Are you saying that Cunliffe didn’t meet with him?

                   Or that the man in question didn’t indecently assault someone?
                   • felix …

                     21 July 2014 at 8:32 pm

                     I haven’t seen any reports that he met anyone of the sort.

                     (Except from you, and so far you haven’t proven to be a particularly reliable source of information.)
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     21 July 2014 at 8:38 pm

                     What are you, 13 and idealistic? Grow up.

                     I interacted with about 80 different people today during the course of my ordinary activities. And according to the stats, likely including a couple of saints, a couple of mongrel deviants, a convicted crim and a couple of spouse beaters. So fucking what. That’s called living in a society, interacting with people as if they are people not lepers, and it ain’t some sort of fucking crime.
               • mickysavage …

                 21 July 2014 at 7:59 pm

                 Wow, you know if that test was applied to me I have met about ten murderers, 50 or so robbers, hundreds of wife and child beaters, drug addicts, perverts and an assorted collection of real crazy people.

                 Unless you barricade yourself in your home and never leave you will run the possibility of running into someone with some sort of stuff in their background. If you insist on getting police clearances before you met them you would be considered really really weird.

                 Anyway the police clearance would not work here.

                 Before I go to Court tomorrow should I ask the Judge to provide a police clearance to show she has nothing bad in her background.

                 Honest DG you are getting pretty weird with your criticism.
                 • Disraeli Gladstone …

                   21 July 2014 at 8:23 pm

                   Oh for Christ sake.

                   Of course people are going to meet not very nice people. Stop being so obtuse.

                   My issue is this: David Cunliffe made a big (necessary, 99% excellent) speech on domestic violence. He then a few weeks later meets with a man who committed an indecent act.

                   Now I don’t think Cunliffe knew that. I take him fully at his word. But this isn’t some spark out of the blue. Rodney Hide had been going on about this man for at least a fortnight. His name was posted in Australia. I heard his name while going to get a coffee. It wasn’t that typical of a case of name suppression.

                   Somebody, somebody in either Cunliffe’s (or more likely, perhaps Craig’s) team had to know about it. I expect the Leader of the Opposition’s team to relatively aware of current events.

                   If it was that Cunliffe had met with someone who nobody knew had committed indecent assault because of name suppression, then it’s not poor from Cunliffe, it’s just bad luck. However, this wasn’t a case that no one knew. This was like a mini Ryan Giggs superinjunction.
                   • mickysavage …

                     21 July 2014 at 8:27 pm

                     Do you know how many people Cunliffe meets each week? I am pleased you accept that he did not know of the allegation. So you are saying that the failure by his limited staff numbers from knowing about an issue concerning a person who was not a member of the Labour Party and who had a suppression order is some sort of failure? Honest you have to be kidding.
                   • JK …

                     21 July 2014 at 8:32 pm

                     Lucky You, Disraeli that you managed to hear the sex offender’s name when going for coffee – was that coffee outside a courtroom, in a major city, or a village. Or in An Australian paper or wherever.
                     And could you come and have coffee in my village and whisper his name to me – because I don’t have a clue who he is. And I don’t have a clue who are the big names around the southern towns (like Cunliffe, I’m a northerner) so how the heck could anyone except those in the “know” know what’s going on. Come on….. spill the beans, give us a clue …. so we can try and work out who it is ….. and then we can tell Cunliffe to steer clear of him. (I assume its a him – most sex / violent offenders are him.)
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     21 July 2014 at 8:41 pm

                     Hey Disraeli Fuck Head

                     Do you really want Members of Parliament to start avoiding entire classes of people in society as if they were lepers?

                     What are you, sick?
                   • wtl …

                     21 July 2014 at 8:43 pm

                     1) The whole f***king point of name suppression is NAME SUPPRESSION. If a convicted criminal is granted name suppression, then it whatever they did is NOT meant to be known.

                     2) Wouldn’t it be illegal for someone to tell Cunliffe the name of someone granted name suppression?
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     22 July 2014 at 12:41 am

                     Um, yeah. Can we all stop pretending that Gogle doesn’t exist and anyone of average intelligence should be able to work out the relevant search words even if they hadn’t heard in this tiny, gossipy little country because they had been on Mars hiding under a rock with their fingers in their ears and eyes closed because they are so holier than fucking thou?
                   • felix …

                     22 July 2014 at 12:56 am

                     Well I hadn’t heard of it Pop, and I spend a bit of time following news stories online and googling things.

                     Now that I have, I’m utterly stunned that a bunch of Nats working directly for the John Key would try to make this a Lab/Nat fight.

                     It shows how desperate they are, given the massive risk of blowback on the National party from publicising this particular offender. And it shows yet again that in spite of them working around the clock to find dirt on Cunliffe, they’ve got nothing.
                   • wtl …

                     22 July 2014 at 10:31 am

                     1) As I said, the whole f***king point of name suppression is NAME SUPPRESSION. If a judge has granted name suppression, then the judge has deemed it necessary for that information to be suppressed. Trying to find a way around name suppression would be disrespecting the judge’s decision to grant it in the first place, at the very least. Would it be appropriate to seek to name of a person who has name suppression because they were the victim of a crime? (If someone has name suppression, it is not possible to know a priori the reason name suppression was granted, so a ‘hunt’ for suppressed details could very well end up uncovering such information.)

                     2) You would have to be a paranoid nutjob to Google every single person you are about to meet just in case they have had their name suppressed for something.
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     22 July 2014 at 1:53 pm

                     If I was up against an utterly amoral smearlord in their second term in a very tight election being watched by hostile media, being a paranoid nutjob is the only sane stance.
                   • wtl …

                     22 July 2014 at 2:27 pm

                     If I was up against an utterly amoral smearlord in their second term in a very tight election being watched by hostile media, being a paranoid nutjob is the only sane stance.

                     No, because then you are falling into the trap of playing their game, which you can’t really win at. They’ll always find something else to criticise, e.g. Cunliffe is not “sexy”. A determined smear campaign will always find something to criticise or jump onto, simply because it is impossible to make absolutely zero mistakes. Even if you made absolutely no mistakes, they could always make up blatant lies and they’ll still be reported as fact. So the best response is to avoid making major errors and simply concentrate on what you are good at.
               • David H …

                 22 July 2014 at 10:43 am

                 And who had NAME SUPPRESSION are you dense Disreli or just a Troll????
         • Chooky 4.1.2.1.3

           21 July 2014 at 9:50 pm

           …shows how scared they actually are of Cunliffe!!!!

           …it is encouraging in a perverse sort of way

           …i heard Matthew Hooton on radionz nine-to- noon saying Labour really has to get rid of Cunliffe!…. and replace him with Shearer!….i thought this is actually a very good sign!!!!!

           GO Cunliffe!!!!….you are scaring the shit out of them!
           • felix 4.1.2.1.3.1

             22 July 2014 at 12:58 am

             Indeed Chooky.
       • anker 4.1.2.2

         21 July 2014 at 7:18 pm

         Disraeli Gladstone. This is bullshit. They are picking on stuff that is insignificant irrelevant and inaccurate and blowing it way out of proportion. Anyone who follows the media and can’t see it is a fool
         • Disraeli Gladstone 4.1.2.2.1

           21 July 2014 at 7:26 pm

           That’s exactly what I said.

           “And we know the media are going to make a cloud of smog from the tiniest flame”

           They are blowing it out of all proportion. But the insignificant things still have to happen. Minus Liu where the Herald straight up lied (and really should be taken to the cleaners for), everything else has been self-inflicted. Blown out of all proportion. But still self-inflicted.
           • anker 4.1.2.2.1.1

             21 July 2014 at 7:37 pm

             DG yes insignificant things will happen. They happen to all of us everyday. And that is the point, they are insignificant and don’t need any focus.

             You appear to be blaming the victim here. I.e DC is the victim of a malicious smear campaign.

             By the way Mickey can the Labour Party take legal action against the herald over the photo?
       • Anne 4.1.2.3

         21 July 2014 at 7:18 pm

         FFS Disraeli Gladstone. Let me spell it out for you.

         How. was. he. to. know. that. the. bloke is. alleged. to. have. a. sexual. deviant. history. if. nobody. told. him. Especially. since. he. had. name. suppression.

         If I hopped on a bus and a stranger sitting beside me started a friendly conversation with me and I responded by being friendly back… am I responsible for not knowing that the person was a convicted murderer? Jesus what is happening to this country. Balance and reason has gone out the window.
         • Disraeli Gladstone 4.1.2.3.1

           21 July 2014 at 7:29 pm

           A: The name suppression became a minor story in the last two weeks.

           B: The name is largely common knowledge, even the man himself has said everyone knows it was him in his hometown.

           C: Even if Cunliffe didn’t know, how did someone in Labour for either Cunliffe’s office or Craig’s office not know? Just one person. One person to go “Dave, whoa, hold up.”

           The Labour Party’s organisation is shot. The media is one-sided but Labour is still causing a lot of self-inflicted problems.

           So I get to party vote Green, watch Labour fucking implode again, and spend another three more years with Key.
           • anker 4.1.2.3.1.1

             21 July 2014 at 7:44 pm

             Well you have choices DG. You could vote Labour.

             Your post at 4.1.2.3.1 has an underlying message of “they should have known it”.

             Actually who says they should have? They didn’t. They weren’t suppose to (that’s what name suppression is all about) and it is completely irrelevant. If you want to critcize incompetence how about you pick on something serious like Mfat, Murray Mc, the PM and the Malaysian diplomat.
             • Disraeli Gladstone …

               21 July 2014 at 7:48 pm

               I do. I have to people I know and discuss politics with in my real life. Hopefully those conversations will have led to some changed votes.

               But I don’t do it here because we all know how badly Key and Murray handled and are still handling it. I don’t engage in congratulatory pats on the back.
             • Anne …

               21 July 2014 at 7:53 pm

               If you want to critcize incompetence how about you pick on something serious like Mfat, Murray Mc, the PM and the Malaysian diplomat.

               And skulduggery like Judith Collins using ministerial clout to assist her husband’s business affairs in China!
           • mickysavage 4.1.2.3.1.2

             21 July 2014 at 8:20 pm

             Really disingenuous DG. I did not know about the name. Cunliffe’s staff do not do exhaustive checks on everyone he meets, hell his staff may not have even known about it.
             • Disraeli Gladstone …

               21 July 2014 at 8:25 pm

               Then he’s cursed by some cosmic evil then! Because Cameron Slater could not have wished for a better event to happen.

               Has David Cunliffe ever insulted H.P Lovecraft or M.R James?
               • mickysavage …

                 21 July 2014 at 8:35 pm

                 No and I am sure that no self respecting Labour activist reads Rodney Hide and takes him seriously. Honest this seems to be the high point of your argument, Rodney Hide said something 8 days ago and Labour should have thrown all of its limited resources into investigating it fully.
               • RedLogix …

                 21 July 2014 at 8:39 pm

                 DS

                 If John Key is happy being associated with Cameron Slater using him as a National mouthpiece – then what possible problem can anyone have with Cunliffe having a one-off meeting with this person?

                 Or is John Key really, really unlucky with the bloggers who support him?
   • Mike the Savage One 4.2

     21 July 2014 at 9:49 pm

     “Cunliffe is either terrible at politics or some cosmic evil really want John Key to win in 2014 (I for one welcome our new Old Gods overloads).”

     What a bizarre “reasoning” is this?

     It appears the mainstream media being largely Fairfax, the Herald, the two main TV channels and the increasingly misinforming, rather commercial product pushing radio stations expect David Cunliffe to have staff screen and check on every individual person he may meet, that may run into him, to do all this in advance, and then brief him in advance.

     The PM does instead get the generous treatment of “statesman”, and even though whatever he says about the plane shooting in East Ukraine or any other event, here it is spread as if the world is listening to Key, while in reality nobody in Washington, New York, in London, Europe, Beijing, Tokyo or anywhere else gives a damn about this idiot clown running this government.

     Key still has not fronted to questions the media were going to ask him a week ago, and it seems the MSM have not even bothered to ask him about the fiasco with the Malaysian diplomat, that was able to escape from justice, due to a stuff up or worse of MFAT and other agencies.

     BIAS is the only word for it, whatever Key stuffs up, it is excused and understood, not even talked about, but whatever Cunliffe does, gets seen in the worst of light.

     Forget the election, bring in a proper dictatorship, perhaps?
   • darkhorse 4.3

     24 July 2014 at 9:40 pm

     The ancient evil may not be so evil.

     There is a high probability of the global economy going cold turkey in the next three years (and us with it).

     It may be that the fates want this to occur on John Key’s watch. Fundamentals like share value to earnings across the global sharemarkets are at levels only seen before dramatic events like the great crash of 1929. There are laws about these things that are like gravity fundamentally inescapblle

     It is fortuitous to not be the one holding the can at times like these. Labour needs to be developing a “plan b” – a strategy for recovery – because post when it blows there will be a wonderful opportunity to purge much of the foolish ideology and the defective insitiutions foisted on us by Roger Douglas and his ilk that are at the root of the current situation
5. Colonial Viper 5

   21 July 2014 at 6:39 pm

   once proper press standards get written up and enforced by the next Labour Govt, the NZ Herald is going to be a very thin newspaper.
   • nigel 5.1

     22 July 2014 at 8:18 pm

     What ‘proper’ press standards would those be then? We already have a press standards authority, we have blogs on all sides of the political spectrum, we have probably more newspapers per capita than any other country, plus a highly vociferous talkbalk radio culture. The last couple of days of the Herald and Stuff websites have lashed the National Party over John Key’s non-apology, raised the issue of parliamentary misuse of a credit card by a National MP, printed some Labour MP’s supposed comments about David Cunliffe, and hammered Mr Cunliffe over his holiday. It looks to me like it’s been relatively even-handed, (from my viewpoint). What concerns me the most is your apparent suggestion that a Labout Government would censor the media. I can only take it from your comment that under a Labour Government, a number of articles in the Herald would be unable to be printed, (hence the ‘very thin newspaper’). Is that actually your stance? And what changes would you make to our media laws?
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       22 July 2014 at 8:28 pm

       Oh its fairly simple, you self classify yourself as a news source undertaking journalistic enterprise, or you self classify yourself as a gossip/rumour rag.

       If you self classify yourself as the former, you will be expected to meet high standards of journalistic, editorial and evidential performance, on pain of demotion to the latter.
       • nigel 5.1.1.1

         22 July 2014 at 8:43 pm

         So you ‘self classify’. Well clearly all media would classify as news source, so then even assuming some authoritative body demoted you, as you say, I can’t see how that would make one iota of difference to what was published. Assuming your theory happened, and the Herald was ‘demoted’, I can’t see what change that would make to their reporting. Frankly, if you look at the lead items on either Herald or Stuff websites, generally two of the top five items are gossipy ‘entertainment’ issues or ‘man bites dog’ haha features. On that basis they are gossip mags already, but doesn’t seem to change their content. I still can’t see how your changes would thin the Herald. The only thing that could change content would either be censorship (abhorrent), a change to the laws revealing sources (I’m not a fan), a fact-check summary linked to any article, (not a bad idea), or a rider on every article stating any potential conflicts the reporter may have in terms of the article (possibly useful, but difficult in practise, ie: would a sports reporter have to say they were a fan of the Highlanders etc..). I’m all for better journalistic standards, but wording that, in actual operation, is tougher than it sounds.
         • felix 5.1.1.1.1

           22 July 2014 at 9:12 pm

           “difficult in practise, ie: would a sports reporter have to say they were a fan of the Highlanders etc”

           Err, how is that difficult?
           • nigel 5.1.1.1.1.1

             22 July 2014 at 9:25 pm

             Because every article would have to cover any possible connection the reporter may have, if there was any point to it. So if you wrote an article about a local MP attending a dog show, you would probably have to state which political party you supported, whether you preferred dogs or cats, if you had ever been bitten by a Schnauzer etc etc. As soon as you start detailing reporter connections, how far do you go? Fair enough if it’s an ‘opinion’ article, but a bit tricky to detail every potential conflict. And if I was a Highlanders supporter I would find it difficult to mention it in public 🙂
             • Colonial Viper …

               22 July 2014 at 9:33 pm

               stating your connections and preferences for the sake of transparency is required but is also the most superficial level of journalistic accountability. Journalistic integrity goes far beyond that, to a dedication to get to and accurately convey the truth around events, the people involved, and the context behind what has happened.
             • felix …

               22 July 2014 at 9:54 pm

               “if you wrote an article about a local MP attending a dog show, you would probably have to state which political party you supported, whether you preferred dogs or cats, if you had ever been bitten by a Schnauzer etc etc.”

               Why? None of that stuff about dogs and cats matters. It’s not important. Same for your sporting example. It’s a report on a sports match. It doesn’t matter.

               “As soon as you start detailing reporter connections, how far do you go?”

               To the point of meaningfulness, approximately.
6. Anne 6

   21 July 2014 at 6:43 pm

   Cunliffe’s either incompetence or he’s been cursed by some ancient evil.

   It’s neither and you know it DG.

   It’s an orchestrated black ops. campaign and it’s being run out of Key’s office!!!
7. Rodel 7

   21 July 2014 at 6:51 pm

   If the sex offender really is the same person identified by [possibly too close sorry Rodel – MS] then the NZ propagandists attempt to link him with the Labour party and David Cunliffe is about the most unbelievable attempt at reverse spin nonsense I’ve ever witnessed.
   • cricklewood 7.1

     21 July 2014 at 7:57 pm

     I think you will find that you have just breached the suppression order Rodel

     [Not necessarily but as a precaution I have deleted the particular words – MS]
     • Rodel 7.1.1

       21 July 2014 at 10:29 pm

       MS & Cricklewood
       OK Thanks
8. deep throat 8

   21 July 2014 at 6:54 pm

   Thats right Anne.
   Its a hootonboagey job and all the press is in on it.
   Their job is to sell stuff and they are shit scared of what is coming down the pike and they are thrashing around trying to defend themselves with everything they have got.
   I think the people of new zealand are goin gto wake up very sooon.
   btw. is keys back from his holiday yet?
   • karol 8.1

     21 July 2014 at 7:02 pm

     btw. is keys back from his holiday yet?

     Yes, and second up (after talking tough about what he’s going to do to/about Putin, comes his statement explicitly rejecting making an apology to Tania Billingsley. And not even an expression of concern about what Billingsley has been put through as a result of a cabinet minister’s actions.

     A formal written apology from the Government had been sent to Ms Billingsley and a public apology via the media had been made.

     Today Mr Key did not want to comment on the case, but did not offer an apology to Ms Billingsley for the handling of the case.

     “I don’t make apologies unless there’s a serious reason for me to do that. As I said, at the time I relied on the advice that was given to me by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We’ll have to go through the inquiry to check the veracity of that advice.”
     • RedLogix 8.1.1

       21 July 2014 at 10:23 pm

       comes his statement explicitly rejecting making an apology to Tania Billingsley. And not even an expression of concern about what Billingsley has been put through as a result of a cabinet minister’s actions.

       Utterly appalling karol.

       I’ve been sitting here for quite a while trying to think what to say – and in the end I’m going to settle for just saying that yes you are right. Lesson learned.
9. Jenny 9

   21 July 2014 at 7:03 pm

   This is outrageous. I can’t believe that the Herald is not being seriously censured for this.

   Mistake or no. To infer a Labour candidate is a sex offender and then say that the Labour leader is ‘meeting with this prominent New Zealander given name suppression on charges of performing an indecent act.’ goes way beyond the pale, especially in the midst of an election campaign.

   I would demanding no less than an immediate and prominent front page apology, or face very heavy legal action for damages, with costs in the $millions.
10. anker 10

    21 July 2014 at 7:14 pm

    Thanks for this post Mickey. On a daily basis I am outraged by this very overt campaign to discredit David. It is disgraceful.

    I have to add this piece of rubbish I found on Stuff today by Deborah Cone Hill who needs to go for career counselling ( I am being extremely kind here).

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11296527

    SERIOUSLY MICKEY WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THIS? I feel we need some sort of campaign to speak up about this crap. Its disgraceful.
    • mac1 10.1

      21 July 2014 at 9:49 pm

      Dreadful stuff indeed. It says a lot more about her narcissism than it does about Cunliffe.

      It also says something about our media that allow such stuff to get print time, and also about their view of the public who they think might be interested in such crap written by narcissistic, unintelligent and shallow writers.

      It also says something that some media and people in general are so bound up in celebrity imaging that they are so deflected away from what is real and important in politics- like issues, thought, analysis, philosophy and actions, or would deflect us away, in this case.

      I wonder what sort of backlash she would have got if she had written in a similar vein about our women leaders- Shipley, Clark? She would probably have joined in such a deserved criticism had someone else have criticised a woman leader for her lack of ‘sexiness’.

      There are some very wrong things about what Ms Cone has produced- saddening, disturbing and worrying things.
      • RedLogix 10.1.1

        21 July 2014 at 11:23 pm

        D H-C is however not too far off the mark.

        Most low information voters rely on emotional and social cues that have have nothing to do with governance or policy. And this is what she’s writing about – from her perspective of course.
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1

          21 July 2014 at 11:31 pm

          And Labour had cornered itself into this ridiculous belief that if only it would push out enough technically detailed, intellectually sound, research evidenced based, socially liberal, identity politics congruent policy, it will of course win Kiwis over in droves.

          And if it is not winning Kiwis over in droves, the answer must be MOAR of the same formula until it happens.

          David Talbot and Rob Salmond, self-styled campaign managers, how is the campaign going so far, lads.
          • mac1 10.1.1.1.1

            22 July 2014 at 9:56 am

            Also agreed, CV.
            The operative word is ‘only’. Conversely, poorly researched, unsound etc policy would be hammered by the Nats and the media and rightly so. But as Redlogix points out, the emotional quotient is also very important for many.

            Labour PMs have been good at this- Kirk, Savage, Lange even Clark. Cunliffe will develop and expand up to the election. I saw this side of him at the Grey Power AGM this year.
        • mac1 10.1.1.2

          22 July 2014 at 9:23 am

          Agreed, RedLogix, the emotional side is very important in politics for voting appeal- along with ‘big hair’.
11. RedLogix 11

    21 July 2014 at 7:55 pm

    Feed them rope ….
    • Tom Jackson 11.1

      21 July 2014 at 8:13 pm

      Yes.
      • McFlock 11.1.1

        21 July 2014 at 9:29 pm

        … and the high fibre diet will ensure they distribute copious amounts of crap.

        They’ll keep doing this with impunity. It’s a dying medium, anyway. The “controversy” will keep their sales up for a little bit longer, like paul henry taking the lazy way on tv.
        • RedLogix 11.1.1.1

          21 July 2014 at 9:55 pm

          Their only advantage is that people read/watch them out of habit.

          To break that habit ….
        • Ergo Robertina 11.1.1.2

          21 July 2014 at 10:27 pm

          The link in question is to an online story – digital media is certainly not in decline.
          It is the print version of newspapers that may be ‘dying’, or at any rate declining. You seem to herald this as progress, but it is this very move away from print that is exacerbating the trend to sensational and often unfair reporting. The printed word will always carry more weight – and more care will inevitably be taken during the process of preparing, presenting, and processing the words for publication. Interestingly, recent research has shown that people understand and recall information more readily in printed form than in a digital format. This should be taken into account by political parties wishing to disseminate their messages.
          • RedLogix 11.1.1.2.1

            21 July 2014 at 10:36 pm

            Or in one word – their credibility.
          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.2.2

            21 July 2014 at 11:04 pm

            Which is why The Standard 1.0 was so formidable. According to Chris Hedges, print is in many ways a far more powerful and democratic a medium than anything online, and you have outlined some of the reasons why.
          • McFlock 11.1.1.2.3

            22 July 2014 at 12:08 am

            apart from the fact that news generation will never be as profitable as news aggregation. So yeah, digital news based on old print brands is in decline – a shoddier product from fewer producers, recirculating unchecked drivel from comeptitors, bloggers, spoof sites and content auto-generators like sudoku programs.

            Fearfacts has an advantage because it is the dominant player in the print market place, and uses those resources to subsidise Stuff’s content. But it’s well and truly on the way out of the news biz into TMZ territory.
12. RedBaronCV 12

    21 July 2014 at 7:59 pm

    If they indulging in this type of smear over Cunliffe and the Clutha Southland candidate then the Nact polling in this area must be truely awful. And this should be pointed out early and often.
    Wouldn’t surprise me if the polling was that bad in this area. Locals not interested in the mining of Aspiring National park and sick of the limited health services.

    And yes I agree with Rodel above.
13. deep throat 13

    21 July 2014 at 8:03 pm

    q. can things get any weirder.
    a. yes!
    big ride coming up.
    this blog is where people come for ideas so get ready and blow the fuckers right out of the water.
    have a holiday.
    and chew some gum so you can stick it on susan woods nose on q&a on s
    Sunday morning.
    like a big wart.
    chanel 5 now.
14. lurgee 14

    21 July 2014 at 8:26 pm

    To be honest, as long as this site is hosting material like the current “Colin Craig – New Zealand’s Biggest Member’ crap, I’m not sure how much higher above Cameron’s sewer our moral high ground is. Maybe the outrage is that National’s smear and besmirch machine is far more effect than ours. If the left are going to play that game, they can’t really complain about being outclassed, because it is going to happen at every time; and if we do want to be able to be Genuinely Offended by Whaleoil spewing, we need to raise our own moral game.
    • deep throat 14.1

      21 July 2014 at 8:38 pm

      I used to vote national but after they said they would give colin craig a membership deal I will not vote for them anymore.
      colin craig may have a big member for all I know but he is a martian.
      but if you want to talk morals then the national party have none at all.
      they have wasted the taxpayers money and performed like a bag of pygmy chimpanzees in scrooge mcducks mcvault.
      now it is time for them to go.
      begone.
      I know whaleboil slater spews every time he realises I have never been to his shit factory and I dont give a stuff about it.
      anyway according to the sunday star times whale flesh contributes to the rate of carbon sink in the oceans.
      Impeach the shifty one now!
    • nigel 14.2

      22 July 2014 at 9:02 pm

      Couldn’t agree more. I check into both sites to try to keep up to date on what’s happening that isn’t on Herald or Stuff, and find this site’s comments section appalling (in some cases). It appears WO has cleaned up its act in terms of comments, but seeing how people get spoken to on here is more than a little disappointing. Not that it’s happened to me, but if this is supposed to be a site for reasoned debate then some people need to pull their head in, or someone needs to set some standards.
15. Mr Oh Well 15

    21 July 2014 at 9:32 pm

    Ever watched the Comedian Bill Hicks, he really hates marketing. I suspect that is all the MSM are. Just Johns personal little marketing campaign managers.

    I think Bill Hicks message to the marketing people (in this case Crosby/Dictator, The Ferald, TVPee, C. Potata and the fourth estate et al.) is spot on. Just a little comedy to lighten the load, otherwise one would go insane:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEnA29wK7uM

    Bill Hicks: By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing… kill yourself.
    [audience laughs and claps]

    Bill Hicks: Thank you. Just a little thought. I’m just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they’ll take root. I don’t know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do.
    [audience laughs]

    Bill Hicks: Aaah, no really, there’s no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan’s little helpers, okay? Kill yourself, seriously. You’re the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No, no, this is not a joke, you’re going, “there’s gonna to be a joke coming,” there’s no fucking joke coming. You are Satan’s spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It’s the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself.
    [audience claps and whoops]

    Bill Hicks: Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, “he’s doing a joke…” there’s no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend. I don’t care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations. Machi… whatever, you know what I mean. I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, “Oh, you know what Bill’s doing, he’s going for that anti-marketing dollar. That’s a good market, he’s very smart.”
    [audience laughs]

    Bill Hicks: Oh man, I am not doing that, you fucking evil scumbags. “Ooh, you know what Bill’s doing now, he’s going for the righteous indignation dollar. That’s a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We’ve done research. Huge market. He’s doing a good thing.” Goddammit, I’m not doing that, you scumbags. Quit putting a goddamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet! “Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market. Bill’s very bright to do that.” God, I’m just caught in a fucking web. “Ooh, the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market. Look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar…” God, how do you live like that? I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don’t you? “What did ya do tonight honey?” “Oh, we made ah, we made ah, arsenic ah, childhood food now, goodnight.”
    [lays down and snores]

    Bill Hicks: “Yeah, we just said you know is your baby really too loud? You know?”
    [snores]

    Bill Hicks: “Yeah, it’ll… you know the mums will love it.”
    [snores]

    Bill Hicks: [stands up] Sleep like fucking children, don’t you? This is your world isn’t it?

    Bill Hicks: You know, the world’s twelve-thousand years old, and dinosaurs existed in that time, you’d think it would’ve been mentioned in the fucking bible at some point. “And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking ‘What a big fucking lizard, Lord.’ But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus’ paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord.”
16. Whateva next? 16

    21 July 2014 at 9:34 pm

    +100 to anklet and all the other people who are waiting for something right to happen in this most appalling election campaign
17. Whateva next? 17

    21 July 2014 at 9:43 pm

    +100 to anker and all the other people who are waiting for something right to happen in this most appalling election campaign
18. Charlieboy 18

    21 July 2014 at 9:58 pm

    And don’t forget the daily reminder, the best reply to any troll, any spinner,any boofhead argumentative Natz fan…….Vote Labour.
    You have one vote, it is so eloquent.
19. Michael 19

    21 July 2014 at 10:05 pm

    The person Cunliffe met is as far removed from the Labour Party as anyone can be. I don’t know what the meeting was about, and I don’t care, but neither Cunliffe nor Labour needed that person’s blessing. AFAIK, they didn’t ask for it either.
    • Hami Shearlie 19.1

      22 July 2014 at 10:47 am

      Correct, and for any right -leaning commentators to criticise anyone from Labour for their brief and unknowing association with “this person” , well, I frankly can’t believe the hypocrisy and GALL considering from whence “this person” hails!
20. deep throat 20

    21 July 2014 at 10:12 pm

    NEWSFLASH
    dateline monday:
    john key does a bunk.
    “I’m not coming back”.
    “I got a better offer in New York”.
    seeya
21. Sable 21

    22 July 2014 at 10:23 am

    There is a need for legal reform of journalism in NZ. Question is will it ever happen? Not while Shonkey is running things, that’s for sure…
22. Mr Oh Well 22

    22 July 2014 at 10:43 am

    The MSM is getting WEIRD…. hell yes.

    Even RNZ this morning seem to be jumping on the band wagon (and on other many other occasions).

    On morning report, Susie Ferguson (I think), first introduced the up and coming interview with Mr Cunliffe. Highlighting that it would be about J. Keys refusal to apologize to the women caught in the events with the Malaysian Diplomat and then secondly the holiday criticisms David received for taking a small break.

    A few questions/observations:

    1. The first, is why would you combine the 2 topics in a single interview or sound bite? They are not related! Particularly in that time slot on morning report.
    2. The second, was the proportion of time dedicated on the interview to the 2 subjects, which topic was most important? It seemed 10% was dedicated by Susie to asking David about the J. Keys refusal to aplogise. The other 90% dedicated to talking over the top (steam rolling) David on his leadership ability utilizing the vehicle of the ‘holiday scandal’. Even my 10 year old noticed this, without prompting from my usual biased self.
    3. To me, maybe I am biased (you can hammer me on that), but both Susie Ferguson and Guyon Espiner are to me, shadows of the former RNZ presenters. Lift your game. I wont suggest the details of how (you should know this), but consistency of interviewing style across both sides of the political spectrum would be a good start.
    • Hami Shearlie 22.1

      22 July 2014 at 10:50 am

      Agreed, I rarely tune in to Nat Radio anymore – I was an avid listener when Geoff was there, now, it is an embarrassment and frankly, they are fast losing all the good will and esteem that Geoff built up with the public over decades!
23. Crunchtime 23

    22 July 2014 at 11:45 am

    What is Cunliffe to do? I’m not sure if suing for defamation would help, but it keeps occurring to me.
24. Edward Not Murrow 24

    22 July 2014 at 12:15 pm

    Anker, you mentioned that Deborah Cone Hill wrote a rather pathetic article. It was about Davids apparent lack of sex appeal and snobbery. Well all I can say about her is she looks like what a budgie would chirp……. cheap, cheap, cheap.

    Seriously, how can one entertain such crap. Although trying to balance the piece with a jibe at the right, she never mentions JK?

    Does JK have sex appeal, yes maybe he does. Now what could it be?
    1. Is it the hermaphrodite accented like drawl that seeps out his/its mouth and therefore appeals to both kaywee suxes?

    1. Or is it that little miss nobodies of the press have to hang on the shirt tail of successful people and pimp them in the press galleries to in order to be on the success train (and or put down the opposition)?
    2. He has a xxxx load of money…. wads of.

    Or is it all the above combined…. I know not.

    Just a little “Think Piece”, isn’t that what patronising pithy little princesses of the right wing press say?

    XXXXing hell, I have just dropped to her level….
25. JAN 25

    22 July 2014 at 2:51 pm

    After all this fuss about name suppression it could hardly be easier to find out ! After a former Labour MP pointed out to me that the name suppression only applies to NZ I thought of our favourite lad for outing scoundrels and went there – all I can say now is yuk, yuk, yuk, and surely something could be done to make this a major cockup for the Nats ? The last thing they want to be doing is bringing it to the attention of Labour….
    • wtl 25.1

      22 July 2014 at 2:57 pm

      1) It only applies to NZ because NZ courts have no jurisdiction in other countries. In my opinion, however, it is more ethical to respect a judge’s decision to grant name suppression than to try to find a way around it.

      2) Once you are aware of a particular case, of course it is easy to search for details surrounding that case. But if you are not aware of a particular case, how would you know what to search for in the first place?
      • Jan 25.1.1

        22 July 2014 at 3:54 pm

        Ethical or not I’m a nosy bitch – is that sufficient ? And I think you need work on your No. 2 – it makes no sense no matter how often I read it. Judges don’t have gold-plated haloes, they make mistakes all the time. But it did seem to me that an inordinate fuss was being made about this so-called meeting with David Cunliffe, so I wanted to know why?

        Actually I read David’s statement to say that he had arranged a meeting, not that he had one himself, and that if he had known who wanted to talk to his Labour MP – “the meeting would never have happened”, but then I’m a woman and we always see things differently to men.

        Thank you for the gratuitous advice in your first sentence, I did go to school.
        • wtl 25.1.1.1

          22 July 2014 at 4:21 pm

          1) Just because it’s sufficient to you, doesn’t make it sufficient for anyone else. As I suggested above, what if the reason name suppression was granted was to protect the identity of a victim of a crime? Is it then okay for you to ignore the judge’s order and violate the victim’s privacy just because you are a “nosy bitch”? Even if you are okay with that, why should everyone else follow your example? Others might be more ethical and respectful of judges than you.

          2) The reason you can find information about e.g. a “prominent NZer in Auckland guilty of assault” is because are already aware of a particular case and you can search for exactly that. If you had no idea that a particular case even exists (because details of the case are suppressed) how would you even know what to search for?
26. TeWhareWhero 26

    22 July 2014 at 3:07 pm

    DHC is an airhead and no-one with any claim to intelligence and discernment would expect anything other than frothy tasteless trivia from her but it’s a tragedy that so many Kiwis have been so dumbed down and are so in thrall to that sort of dross.

    When I get depressed about living in the Age of the Airhead – I take solace from people of great heart and spirit – like Euan McColl. His poem Items of News (from memory) about sums it all up:

    “Living by proxy in the half light,
    items of news slip by like flakes of food in a fish tank.
    Between the unseating of a royal jockey
    and the bland insincerities of talking heads,
    we see, for an instant, the awkward dead,
    heaped carelessly at the corner of a street like brushwood piled for burning.
    This wood is green, unsuitable for firing;
    sap still oozes from the stricken limbs of striplings,
    broken boys and girls with faces made anonymous by death.
    Only a tear in the knee of a pair of jeans,
    a shoeless foot unnaturally bent,
    a rucked up sweat shirt revealing pitiful flesh,
    reminds us that they once possessed a singularity
    beyond the comprehension of their killers
    who stare at the camera lens with eyes as blank as bottle tops.”
27. TeWhareWhero 27

    22 July 2014 at 3:20 pm

    And it’s tragically apposite in light of recent world events ….
28. One Anonymous Bloke 28

    22 July 2014 at 5:02 pm

    Gosh, the predicted (by me) media tantrum at losing their influence over the choice of NZLP leader is still going on. It’s having the desired effect too.

    Civil war isn’t pretty. The National Party is a slow civil war against New Zealand. Suck it in, Labour.
29. MarkSindone 29

    23 July 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Just by looking at the clip of the article was already enough to embed thoughts into my head, and mostly negative ones. I guess sub-headings are really essential to complement the headline but so does the photo that is being used. When one of them is wrong or very misleading, the entire article could be perceived very differently from the actual story. The same goes for advertisements, like a photo of a self storage followed by the company name alongside a constructive caption would attract customers. However, some companies prefer a publicity stunt, thus coming up with crazy taglines.
30. Daveosaurus 30

    24 July 2014 at 6:36 pm

    So, basically: Cunliffe didn’t know the identity of someone, knowledge of whose identity New Zealanders are all forbidden by a court of law? This is supposed to be a scandal?

    If anyone has now shared that forbidden knowledge with Cunliffe, then Cunliffe had better get cracking in severing any ties between Labour and that person, and any party that person may have been involved with (there isn’t much chance that any person meeting with a politician at Cunliffe’s level at this point in the electoral cycle won’t be involved with politics); because if that person’s identity does get leaked between now and the election, any party or politician that person is involved with will be destroyed.

Links to post

1. In case you need any more convincing … | Cut Your Hair: posted on 21 July 2014 at 8:54 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS