Key’s shameful attack on journalist

81 comments on “Key’s shameful attack on journalist ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Inventory2 1

   26 February 2008 at 10:05 am

   Sheesh Steve – thus far you guys have been scraping tha barrel on this story – but today you are scraping the scrapings!! Imagine your outrage (faux or genuine lol) if Key had called him a “little creep”!
2. milo 2

   26 February 2008 at 10:10 am

   Calling somebody “some young guy” is hardly a shameless attack. No, I would think a shameless attack would be calling them “haters and wreckers” or “cancerous and corrosive” or “chinless scarf wearers” or actually punching them.

   That’s why the phone is off the hook
3. Santi 3

   26 February 2008 at 10:14 am

   Steve Pierso, are such a delicate person? “Young guy” can hardly be considered an attack, as you call it.

   Time to find something of substance, or is panic settling in?
4. the sprout 4

   26 February 2008 at 10:16 am

   sounds like Robertson is a much more experienced journalist than Key is a politician.

   so that’s Audrey Young and Greg Robertson. who’ll be next?
5. The Double Standard 5

   26 February 2008 at 10:27 am

   Which would be a pity, don’t you think, if the message turned out to be important?

   Well Rob, 13 posts on a topic at Teh Standard obviously doesn’t rate as ‘important’ to anyone but the authors here.
6. Tane 6

   26 February 2008 at 10:30 am

   milo it wasn’t the ‘young guy’ comment in isolation, that was merely indicative of Key’s attitude to the reporter. The issue here was in Key’s attack on the journalist’s professionalism.
7. mike 7

   26 February 2008 at 10:34 am

   I only hope JK openly apologises for the “young guy” diatribe before it brings him down.
8. westmere 8

   26 February 2008 at 10:38 am

   To be fair, if you’re under 55 you’re eligible for the Young Nats.
9. Glenn 9

   26 February 2008 at 10:44 am

   “Shameful attack’? c’mon guys! I trust you’ll also be calling on Helen Clark to apologize for today’s “shameful attack’ on the media? Accusing them of a “herd mentality’ strikes at a journalist’s tools of trade: independence and integrity.
10. Murray 10

    26 February 2008 at 10:44 am

    I wonder if the “young guy” is a “rich prick”
11. Murray 11

    26 February 2008 at 10:45 am

    Hey where the fuck has my last post gone
12. Murray 12

    26 February 2008 at 10:47 am

    I repeat, I wonder if the “young guy” is a “rich prick”
13. Steve Pierson 13

    26 February 2008 at 10:50 am

    Murray. It can take time for a post to appear. sometimes you need to push refresh. we don’t remove posts without notice, and we only do it then when the commentator makes the kind of statements one associates with the Kiwiblog Right. Cheers.
14. the sprout 14

    26 February 2008 at 10:51 am

    Murray, you’re both boring and stupid
15. Steve Pierson 15

    26 February 2008 at 10:51 am

    The attack is in saying that this experienced reporter is some young guy who can’t even take a quote properly.
16. Matthew Pilott 16

    26 February 2008 at 10:52 am

    Well Murray, you’re clearly not a “young guy” based on your interbeb skills :p

    Why did you repeat that comment, it was inane enough the first time around?

    Key and his camp apparently put a lot of pressure on the reporter to retract the story and apologise, but trust the toadies from the Right to focus on a sound-bite as if that was the main issue – good on you guys, you’re following Key’s handbook to a tee.
17. Billy 17

    26 February 2008 at 10:58 am

    “”we would love wages to drop’ saga”.

    So it’s a “saga” now? It’s a a medieval Icelandic or Norse prose narrative of achievements and events in the history of a personage, family?

    I doubt that.
18. Monty 18

    26 February 2008 at 11:08 am

    An obvious case of KDS – in your case I think it will be fatal – with death expected sometime in October 2008.

    I think the only remedy is a snap election to put you out of your misery.

    You obsession with Key cannot be healthy – you need to go out for a walk and get some fresh air. Hell even my socialist cousin was asking me this morning if there is any hope for Labour. I advised that in politics nothing stinks as much as a desperate yet decaying corpse – and that is exactly what Labour has turned into.
19. r0b 19

    26 February 2008 at 10:22 am

    That’s why the phone is off the hook

    Which would be a pity, don’t you think, if the message turned out to be important?
20. the sprout 20

    26 February 2008 at 11:29 am

    this is interesting, a Herald readers’ poll on “Who’s to blame for Labour’s fall in the polls?”

    Labour 82%
    National 4%
    The Media 14%

    more than 3 times as many consider the media, rather than National, have brought Labour down

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/index.cfm?c_id=280
21. slightlyrighty 21

    26 February 2008 at 11:36 am

    So what is worse, Key calling into question one journalist’s comment or Clark attacking journalism in NZ just 2 months ago?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4319092a6479.html

    Raise you game guys, our memory is just a little bit better than you give us credit for!
22. r0b 22

    26 February 2008 at 10:44 am

    Well Rob, 13 posts on a topic at Teh Standard obviously doesn’t rate as ‘important’ to anyone but the authors here.

    You miss the point TDS. It could turn out to be important for the entire working population, if it happens that National wins the next election, and goes on to implement this policy.
23. Inventory2 23

    26 February 2008 at 11:56 am

    Good find slighltyrighty. Let’s just reflect on the PM’s words:

    “Prime Minister Helen Clark has criticised the media, accusing journalists of lacking general knowledge and being too young to remember seminal events in New Zealand’s history.

    Speaking at the opening of a two-day journalism conference at Wellington’s Massey University yesterday, Miss Clark also criticised a newspaper campaign against the Electoral Finance Act. She said the Government had put up with weeks and months of full-blooded attacks from the New Zealand Herald.

    Journalism was a profession that carried with it a duty to act professionally and to adhere to an ethical base. The rights of the press carried responsibilities – truth, fairness and balance.

    “Fairness and balance is in the eye of the beholder and … we put up with quite a lot, especially when newspapers are in full campaign mode as the New Zealand Herald is at the moment.

    “There have been weeks, if not months, with full-blooded attacks, front-page headlines, editorials, attack stories, cartoons, you name it.”

    Miss Clark said that, in her experience, complaining to the Press Council “just doesn’t get you anywhere … but that’s life”.
24. Inventory2 24

    26 February 2008 at 11:59 am

    My goodness! The Prime Minster accused journalists of “lacking general knowledge and being too young to remember seminal events in New Zealand’s history”

    What a shameful attack!!
25. Tane 25

    26 February 2008 at 12:02 pm

    SR- please, there’s a difference between criticism and analysis of the entire media (See Mediawatch, 9.06am every Sunday on RNZ), and a party leader using his position to smear the professionalism of an individual journalist when he doesn’t like what’s reported.
26. Phil 26

    26 February 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Yeah Sprout, and the 82% who say Labour have ballsed it up all by themselves are irrelevant…
27. r0b 27

    26 February 2008 at 11:15 am

    Yes Monty, someone here needs to take a walk in the fresh air, that’s for sure.
28. Inventory2 28

    26 February 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Tane said “SR- please, there’s a difference between criticism and analysis of the entire media (See Mediawatch, 9.06am every Sunday on RNZ), and a party leader using his position to smear the professionalism of an individual journalist when he doesn’t like what’s reported.”

    Hey Tane, have you forgotten about the party leader who used her position to smear a journalist by calling him a “lille creep”?
29. Phil 29

    26 February 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Seriously Steve, you are becoming a bit of a laughing stock with this crusade.

    Will we soon see a post from you demanding apology from the PM for her comments that the media have a “herd mentality’? or a post questioning the appropriateness of claiming that journalists are “lacking general knowledge’?
30. Inventory2 30

    26 February 2008 at 12:19 pm

    whoops – make that “little creep”
31. Whaleoil 31

    26 February 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Only the sufferers of KDS would fail to note that the fault of Labour’s decline isn’t the Media from the online survey but the fault of Labour running at 82%.

    Wake up, people aren’t listening any more to either Clark or to Labour and certainly not to you guys.
32. Tane 32

    26 February 2008 at 12:30 pm

    KDS? This whole ‘Key Derangement Syndrome’ meme Whale’s peddling is rather humorous considering it comes from a man who has photoshopped dozens of nasty and frequently sexual images of Helen Clark for his website.

    What’s that latest one Whale? Helen Clark shopped onto a pair of naked breasts and suckling Winston Peters and Peter Dunne, if I recall correctly. Isn’t that slightly, um, deranged behaviour?
33. Occasional Observer 33

    26 February 2008 at 12:36 pm

    Steve, I haven’t seen Helen Clark ever apologise for calling John Campbell a “little creep”. Referring to a journalist as a “young guy” is extremely mild, given that the Standard is parroting the PM’s talking points that the professionalism of the press gallery is compromised because the media is responsible for Labour’s drop in the polls.
34. AncientGeek 34

    26 February 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Hey Tane, have you forgotten about the party leader who used her position to smear a journalist by calling him a “lille creep’?

    From memory – wasn’t that Campbell organizing a on-screen interview about a specified topic, advertising the interview as being on that topic, and then questioning Helen:-

    1. on a completely different topic to that advertised and organized.
    2. on a topic that wasn’t in one of her portfolios

    In other words it was ambush journalism, questioning someone on something they weren’t briefed for, or directly responsible for.

    Sort of a wimpish version of the Ian Wishart style of journalism – way down in the gutter.

    I’d have called the arsehole something more severe than being a little creep.

    Would you describe that as ‘responsible’ journalism?
35. Tane 35

    26 February 2008 at 12:41 pm

    I don’t recall any of The Standard’s authors, or The Standard collectively, saying the media is responsible for Labour’s drop in the polls.

    Personally, I think it’s fair to say the media are going a lot easier on Key and his crowd than they are on the government. That by itself doesn’t explain the gap in the polls though.
36. Daveo 36

    26 February 2008 at 12:44 pm

    I’d add r0b that the power relationship between Clark and Campbell is nothing like that between a journalist for a provincial paper and (on current polling) the future Prime Minister of New Zealadn.
37. Matthew Pilott 37

    26 February 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Isn’t Key into tough love (the Iti hongi incident excepted)? Maybe this is his way of helping out the little guy – a bit of a Harden The Fuck Up kind of message.

    So what’s KDS, Key Derangement Syndrome apparently? That’s a bit harsh Whale, don’t be such a wanker. He may have ulterior motives, may even be disingenuous and dishonest, but even here at The Standard people don’t say he’s deranged. Save those comments for your cesspit thanks 😉
38. Ray 38

    26 February 2008 at 1:39 pm

    The New Zealand Hardware Journal
    Cutting edge journalism there
    A “youg guy taking notes” is “shameful attack on an experienced journalist”
    Get a life boys, you are way out of your depth if you feel that is an attack
39. r0b 39

    26 February 2008 at 12:42 pm

    OO and others, yes, Helen called Campbell a “little creep”, and it was a seriously silly thing to do (even though Campbell was, at the time, behaving like one).

    The point is, she got called on it, and has been chastised for it ever since. Should Key not be held to the same standards?
40. Steve Pierson 40

    26 February 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Ray. santi. etc. read the post “All of Key’s excuses attack Robertson’s credibility as a journalist”
41. Phil 41

    26 February 2008 at 4:12 pm

    “All of Key’s excuses attack Robertson’s credibility as a journalist’

    Erm, no, they don’t… unless you believe that journalists are divine in the infallibility. Poloitico’s make mistakes, you and I make mistakes, and so do journalists.
42. higherstandard 42

    26 February 2008 at 4:51 pm

    Don’t you find it somewhat duplicitious to on one hand slag off the media for not being nicer to Labour and on the other get stuck into Key for saying the reporter got the quote.

    Take off the blinkers boys and girls this is a dead story Key has put the record straight move on and find a real smoking gun.
43. insider 43

    26 February 2008 at 6:13 pm

    Didn’t the PM attack Duncan Garner personally last year and didn’t Cullen claim the gallery were motivated by personal gain in their coverage of tax cuts?

    WHere has Key actually attacked this reporter by name or called into question his professionalism, apart from saying he made a mistake, which is hardly a professional attack.

    If he wanted to attack him he could have said the reporter was incompetant because he did not accurately transcribe the what his own paper says is an accurate transcript (go and compare the two) and did not accurately or consistently report the names of the two people quoted.
44. slightlyrighty 44

    27 February 2008 at 9:44 am

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10494809

    PM’s Shameless attack on Newspaper.
45. Tane 45

    27 February 2008 at 9:48 am

    You people just don’t get it do you?
46. Billy 46

    27 February 2008 at 9:53 am

    …and neither, apparently Tane, does anyone else.

    Captcha: abandoned them. I am not making this up.
47. The Double Standard 47

    27 February 2008 at 10:21 am

    I don’t recall Cullen apologising for this little idealogical burp.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/737759
48. Occasional Observer 48

    27 February 2008 at 10:35 am

    Funny this. The Standard defames and smear John Key from anonymous sources which we know to actually be the labour party, and ping sJohn Key for referring to a 35 year old reporter in a minor provincial newspaper as “some young guy”. But when Helen Clark claims that the New Zealand Herald, and its journalists, have suffered from professional bias–about as large a professional smear you can launch at a journalist (Key only said Robertson was mistaken, rather than motivated by bias), the Standard remains silent.

    One standard for the Labour Party, and one standard for everybody else. Hypocrites.
49. Tane 49

    27 February 2008 at 10:41 am

    The criticism was of the editorial line of the paper, not denigration of any individual journalists. There is no comparison.

    Do you understand how a newspaper works?
50. insider 50

    27 February 2008 at 10:48 am

    The funny thing is every time they lock onto an issue it turns around to bite them in the bum when the govt they are in the main defending is found to be doing the same thing they are criticising. Iraq, wealthy donations and now attacks on the media.

    There also seems to be a relationship with how hard the Standard go on an issue the more likely it is that the govt is not only doing it too, but even more aggressively.

    Case in point the above issue. How many posts have we seen on this John Key “attack” on the media? Yet how does that attack compare in intensity and directness to those of the PM’s reported today (is there a connection)?

    Instead of being Murphy’s law perhaps it should be Standard’s Law or Tane’s Law (a good NZ feel to that one)? It could go along the lines of:

    “the number of Standard posts on a National Party ‘scandal’ is directly proportional to the likelihood that an even bigger but similar ‘scandal’ is about to break around Labour”
51. insider 51

    27 February 2008 at 10:52 am

    SO Tane you don’t consider an attack on the editoiral line of a paper the equivalent of a direct attack on the editor of said paper?
52. Tane 52

    27 February 2008 at 11:07 am

    Insider – it’s a matter of balance of power. An editor of a newspaper is fair game and has the means to defend him- or herself. Criticism of the entire media is called a structural analysis and is not an attack on any individual.

    Repeatedly denigrating the professionalism of a provincial reporter to cover for your own mistakes is just slimy.
53. slightlyrighty 53

    27 February 2008 at 11:12 am

    So Accusing a major newspaper of 91 years of bias after a poor showing in the polls is what if not slimy?
54. Tane 54

    27 February 2008 at 11:22 am

    It’s an analysis, and a fair one if you look at the history of New Zealand’s print media. Whether it was politically wise is up for debate.

    Criticising the Herald for its traditional hostility towards the Labour Party and the wider labour movement is not comparable to beating up on a provincial journalist to cover for your own mistakes.
55. Steve Pierson 55

    27 February 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Slightyrighty etc. You need to learn more sophisicated argument. I am not arguing that journalists are always above criticism. I am arguing that Key has groundlessly attacked the professional competence of a journalist in inventing excuses for his “we would love to see wages drop” quote, and that is not on.

    If he had manned up, accepted he said what he said and, say, criticised the angle the article took, that would be something else
56. Matthew Pilott 56

    27 February 2008 at 12:03 pm

    It’s not so much a sophisticated argument, Steve, as a tacit acceptance that Key was wrong in his actions – that’s all it can mean when someone takes the ‘they started it’ or ‘s/he did it too’ approach…
57. insider 57

    27 February 2008 at 12:22 pm

    MAtthew

    What you miss is that the criticism being levelled here is not of the journalist or of Clark, but of the selectivity of the Standard which has been baying like wolves and labelled an entirely innocuous phrase – a mild criticism at worst – as an attack on someone’s professional integrity/competance, yet justifies Clark’s open attack on the Herald and its complete history/integrity as just “an analysis”, and then claims Key’s is worse because of a supposed “power imbalance” when no power has been exerted as demonstrated by the fact that no-one but the Standard has inferred any imprecation on mr Robertson’s character.

    The arguments you are using are becoming almost Williamsian in their pretzel-like logic.
58. burt 58

    27 February 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Steve

    On the subject of attacking Journalists.

    Clark and Davis attack NZ Herald

    Do you think Helen & Peter were trying to go one better and attack Journalists & Editors for the last 91 years – rather than just one botched incident.

    It’s not a good look, I’m sure in the spirit of being even handed and credible you will blog about this and I’ll save my opinions for that thread.

    captcha Mrs Dyck
59. Tane 59

    27 February 2008 at 1:24 pm

    Burt, you’re a bit late on that one. We’ve already discussed it and dismissed your argument.
60. the sprout 60

    27 February 2008 at 1:27 pm

    bit quicker next time please burt. good lad.
61. burt 61

    27 February 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Oh, I must have skipped over the bit where it said “It was a Labour person doing what we are beating a National party person up for so it’s fine”.

    Sorry. Must try harder to understand partisan twats. Achieved.
62. burt 62

    27 February 2008 at 1:50 pm

    TDS

    Great link.

    It’s not the public that want tax cuts, just the Journalists.

    $8.5b Surplus and still no tax custs – So – wots the connection between the two – none. Right! There’s no connection… I’m quite angry about this” “I absolutely believe it’s a person issue for some members of the press gallery”…

    Cullen will prove there is no connection between a surplus and tax cuts this year when he delivers tax cuts come hell or high water. His only saving grace will be that he can say “Helen made me do it – waaaa waaaa”.
63. Matthew Pilott 63

    27 February 2008 at 2:27 pm

    insider, I guess you missed all the parts where John Key’s office put pressure on the journalist and the paper to retract the piece and apologise, when you speak of the power imbalance. I can try and find the link if you wish, but as has been pointed out, the media isn’t interested in holding Key to account for his actions, so I might take a while (if you did genuinely miss that point).

    You’re also running a typical attack-dog line, which has rightly been denigrated. Over and above calling the journalist some young guy, he siad it was hurried notes taken in a cafe and so on – the intent was to make the reporter seem incompetant.

    Later, the full transcript has shown the journalist to be correct, and yet you still focus on that one line. What about Key’s attack on the journalist’s professionalism – do you support what Key has done, given he’s been proved incorrect?

    Furthermore, I’ll be happy to admit that Clark is wrong about criticising the Herald’s editorial staff – prove to me that there is no pro-right bias. I can reference a plethora of anti-Labour articles, but I’d struggle to find two that criticised Key.

    The only flawed logic is yours – The Standard is correct in criticising Key, and justified in its approach to Clark’s comments. The only resemblance of anything to a pretzel is your contortions in trying to present The Standard’s posts as such…
64. Matthew Pilott 64

    27 February 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Cullen will prove there is no connection between a surplus and tax cuts this year when he delivers tax cuts come hell or high water.

    I love it – now that Cullen has said that he will deliver some for of tax cuts, the thoroughly neutral and impartisan bloggers who aren’t remotely from the right, such as burt, are suddenly howling that it’s the wrong time!

    Give me a break 😉
65. cynthia 65

    27 February 2008 at 2:45 pm

    What a pathetic and desperate post! Obviously signs of desperation and boredom.

    I can remember Helen Clark being downright abusive of people in her 9 year reign….

    “geriatric generals”
    “feral and inbred” referring to West Coasters

    Get a life
66. slightlyrighty 66

    27 February 2008 at 2:56 pm

    When Key alledgedly said we would love to see wages drop, in what context was he saying this?

    Was he saying he want’s to see NZ workers paid less? OF COURSE NOT!

    Key want’s NZ workers to get more by helping businesses become more productive, and to stop the tide of NZers going to Australia. Perhaps he would like to see the wage gap between NZ and Australia drop but because this remark appears to have not been reported in the proper context we won’t know.

    With regards to the “young guy who was taking notes” comment, Key never refferred to the journo by name, yet you assume that the individual key was talking about and the journo were one and the same.

    Armed with 2 sentences, you at the standard have filled in the gaps to suit your own beleifs and painted Key to sut your own picture of him. Whereas in the space of 2 days, we have Helen Clark lambasting Fiji for deporting the publisher of a newspaper and the next day lambasting the herald for a percieved 91 years of bias.

    I’m sorry but if Helen Clark can have a go at a whole newspaper because she doesn’t agree with how she is portrayed and can do so with impunity in your eyes, then Key should be able to speak out against being misreported by one journalist.
67. Matthew Pilott 67

    27 February 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Key should be able to speak out against being misreported by one journalist

    Yeah, if he was.

    As for your OF COURSE NOT diatribe, please recall this is a man who (unless he has sold out the ethos of National to be a popularist but useless centrist party, truly Labour Lite) then he does not support intervention in the market.

    If he sees wages as artificially inflated by minimum wages and collective bargaining and so on, then there’s every reason why he would want wages to drop. If you don’t understand this, either you don’t believe Key is right wing, or you shouldn’t be batting for him because you don’t understand what right wing policies are.

    Now, what a pathetic argument – ‘he wasn’t referring to the journalist by name’. You’re probably right, by ‘some young guy taking notes’ I bet he was talking about Neil Armstrong, or perhaps Lindsay Lohan.
68. insider 68

    27 February 2008 at 4:10 pm

    So Matthew, what you are saying is that calling someone young and taking notes (which I assume as a reporter he was) and saying he made an error is an attack on his professionalism.

    Well is this then an attack on his professionalism and integrity? – he inaccurately reported from his transcription and he inaccurately reported the names of those he was reporting on.
69. slightlyrighty 69

    27 February 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Matthew.

    What I am saying is that Key refers to what he saw around him, and you and your fellow posters fill in the gaps to suit your view of the world.

    For gods sake the initial article talks about how John Key wants to raise wages by raising productivity, and not by direct intervention. Surely the security of wage rises secured by real growth is superior to wage rises imposed on an industry that may not be able to cope with such rises, resulting in NO wages as the job losses start.

    Now Matthew, can you answer one question. Why is it OK in your eyes for Helen Clark to lambast a whole newspaper while John Key cannot question one journalist? Take of your red coloured galsses for a minute and look at the two situations.

    And another thing, if a person of Clark’s position feels that the reportage of her is biased in a particular publication, is it a good thing to publically say so? I have always respected Clark’s political acumen but now that the pressure is one her greatest asset appears to be missing.
70. Matthew Pilott 70

    27 February 2008 at 11:59 pm

    For gods sake the initial article talks about how John Key wants to raise wages by raising productivity, and not by direct intervention.

    You seem to be deliberately ignoring everything I’m putting across, to thepoint that I don’t understand why you’re replying – it has nothing to do with what I’m saying!

    Check out what I said at 3:16. I’ve already explained how you can want wages to drop (for one reason, as he is from the Right, he will oppose Government intervention, which includes minimum wages and favouring collective bargaining) and have them rise by another method(productivity gains). The latter is not a bad thing (and this is where it would be nice to hear both parties state what they’ll do to help. Remember the wage gap opened under National, and has been steady under Labour, so National has a bit more to explain), but leaves vulnerable employees at the whims of their employers. The former is to correct for this problem.

    I can’t really simplify it any more.

    As has been expounded above – Clark is criticising the Herald’s editorial direction, and in a professional sense. Key is basically stomping on a single reporter. The Herald is in a position to fight back (and it probably will continue to do so, at Clark’s detriment – no disagreement with your last point but I can understand her frustration), our Bay reporter doesn’t write front page editorials to a disturbution of tens of thouands. How are those blue tints working out?

    Insider – Key’s office put pressure on the reporter to withdraw the story and apologise. There’s more to it that you are trying to make out. Read my post at 2:27 if you missed it earlier… You’re doing the same as sligtlyrighty and bypassing what I’m saying, so why bother to attempt to answer my posts if you say nothing that’s related to them?
71. insider 71

    28 February 2008 at 12:05 am

    MAtthew

    All I’ve seen is our claim of that pressure. Got any verification? Given the standard is getting increasingly extreme in some of its claims you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t accept a blog post as evidence of such.
72. Matthew Pilott 72

    28 February 2008 at 9:14 am

    Insider, I suppose this could be all made up…

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0802/S00390.htm
73. insider 73

    28 February 2008 at 1:31 pm

    MAtthew

    That is a press release from Shane Jones. You might not realise but he is a government minister who is politically opposed to John Key. I see no evidence in there that “Key’s office put pressure on the reporter to withdraw the story and apologise.”

    I saw this comment “numerous attempts by the National Party to force the journalist and the publication to retract the comments made by Mr Key, and having failed in that attempt, tried to discredit both the journalist and the publication.” but nothing to back the claim.

    Similarly this week I saw a claim from a person called Gerry Brownlee, who is apparantly the opposition energy spokesman, claiming that “Labour’s emergency stand-by power generator at Whirinaki is running flat out burning up to one million litres of diesel every 24 hours.” again there was no substantiation.

    So of these which am I to believe is true? DO you believe every media release that comes out of Parliament?
74. Matthew Pilott 74

    28 February 2008 at 5:00 pm

    As said – it could all be made up. With things like that you have to judge for yourself, but remember that such press releases are for the Press – and are thus liable to recieve a fair bit of scrutiny. Blatant lying wouldn’t be too bright.

    I didn’t realise those two press releases were mutually exclusive though 😉

    If I’ve got time I’ll dig around (saw a couple of other things a week or so back), but you gotta ask why the paper in question had to release a story backing up their reporter – that wouldn’t have happened without due cause, and I’m sure it wouldn’t have happened purely because Key said the reporter was young and a guy, don’t you think?
75. insider 75

    28 February 2008 at 5:19 pm

    MAtthew

    I listened to Key and Havoc on BfM. It appears National have been talking to the Northern Advocate. Unsurprising really if they were trying to find out what happened where and when. Moreso if they were concerned about what happened. One man’s complaint could be another’s political pressure.

    PS I can tell you Brownlee didn’t necessarily lie but he did put out a release two days later saying it was actually burning 1m litres a month! No hint of a “i was wrong’ though
76. Matthew Pilott 76

    29 February 2008 at 12:05 pm

    I thought that was a lot of diesel! Did he also mention that it wasn’t Labour’s plant? I know that Labour advocates State Ownership of infrastructure and all, but Party ownership – that’s a bit too USSR even for my liking 😉

Links to post

1. Mint ‘Granny’? « Concerned of Linwood: posted on 28 February 2008 at 2:58 pm
2. Key’s Australian excuse at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 8 March 2008 at 3:29 pm
3. Work at home - Paid Surveys - Surveyascout.com: posted on 16 March 2008 at 12:36 pm
4. It’s your fault I keep saying contradictory things at thestandard.org.nz: posted on 25 March 2008 at 10:01 am
5. Nats to journos: say what we want or shut up at The Standard 2.01: posted on 28 May 2008 at 12:59 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS